A few years ago when being a foodie was all the rage, my friends would upload tons of pictures of exquisite meals from expensive restaurants.
It inspired me to create a food blog on facebook. Every week I would upload something tacky and anti-yuppy. My posts included Choco Tacos, Wendy's hamburgers, and cups of ramen.
Now I'm thinking of posting my experiences at the grocery story, Home Depot, etc.
I've found that my Facebook feed has more pictures of home-made food that isn't necessarily terribly expensive; but there is often some social signaling involved (organic, CSA, vegetarian, etc.). Basically any meal that rejects processed food is hip.
You may think you're doing the opposite of what they're doing, but actually you're doing the same thing.
Conspicuous nonconsumption [0], as I call it, is all the rage in SF and among engineers. That's why everyone wears hoodies and tshirts: to show that they're different from MBAs and the suits and the bankers. But that's just another way to show your status: you are the member of an exclusive club that doesn't need suits to have high status.
And so with your blog. You're identifying as part of a group that's too good for status symbols. You're explicitly saying "I'm not like you" and implicitly saying "I'm better than you because I don't need whatever things you find valuable".
You're showing off your non-consumption for high status, in exactly the same way that they're showing off their consumption for high status. At the end of the day, you're both just showing off for high status! [1]
[0] See also "stealth wealth"
[1] No judgement here, btw: in tech, I think we all do this, me included.
Hoodies and t-shirts?! That's so 2012. What part of San Francisco are you in? All the cool startups in SoMa are enforcing a strict lumbersexual dress code these days.
somebody sent me a post about the lumbersexual thing ( I think it was this one : http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/6235-the-lumbersexual-... ). Sort of bugs me that some basic clothing that's good for outdoors and daily life in the northwest gets co-opted into a fashion thing
Sigh. I grew up on the Olympic Peninsula (far western Washington) and this is basically my whole wardrobe. Moved to the bay area over the summer and now I feel gross wearing it. Hopefully fashion moves on soon and I can wear the clothes I have and like in peace.
Don't worry. In another year or so, everybody will shave their beards and trade in their plaid shirts and blue Wrangers so that they can revolutionize fashion by disrupting some other group's wardrobe.
In the meantime, you should consider setting up shop as a recruiter. You could probably place your Washington friends in jobs at startups here fairly easily. If they can memorize a few words/acronyms (Angular, MVVM, etc.) and are willing to show up to the interview with an axe for good measure, you'll be cashing checks in no time.
here here :) btw - I regularly drive from pdx to port angeles on way taking my kids to the grand parents' on vancouver island. That is some beautiful country. Don't stay away too long :)
Lumbersexuals weren't born yet when grunge was popular. Feel old yet?
Also, lumbersexuals have fancier hair. Grunge has more spiritual similarly to t shirts and hoodies, a rejection of expensive fancy fashion, than the fancified hipsterism that chased after it.
Ahh, yes, I forgot the grooming part. Very good point. I should know from when I used to browse uncrate and the abundance of grooming products they advertised.
Sort of bugs me that some basic clothing that's good for outdoors and daily life in the northwest gets co-opted into a fashion thing
So it's the 1990s again? Cool, cargo pants must be coming back, too. I wonder if it has anything to do with the rise of Portland in pop culture. Portlandia's got it right: it's still the 90's in Portland (I'm from the area, it's pretty much true).
Conspicuous non-consumption and conspicuous consumption are both playing the status game, for sure. But non-consumption is surely an environmentally better way to play it.
Perhaps if conspicuous philanthropy found its way down to everyday people, that would be a nice addition too.
You are positing an extreme cultural relativism. There is a huge difference between status plays that are very expensive and exclusive and resource-intensive, and status plays that are accesible to anyone who chooses not to be a wasteful exclusive jerk.
Compare Burners who fly a helicopter into camp, vs people who go for a hike in the city park.
That's why everyone wears hoodies and tshirts: to show that they're different from MBAs and the suits and the bankers.
That's a really weird conclusion to come to. I wear hoodies and tee shirts because 1) my job doesn't require more, 2) my hoodie and tee are comfortable and easily adaptable to changing temperature, and 3) clothing shopping is a chore, an extreme annoyance.
Well-fitting "slob" clothing looks better than poorly-fitting mid-range "nice" clothing, particularly when one doesn't fit the body type of the target audience for the latter.
I really glad some of you in Tech started a trend to kill the Tie. I never saw the need for a tie. Plus, I honestly never found a tie that felt mildly comfortable. I graduated college in the late 80's, and the thought of wearing a tie was always on my mind. It has no function, other than conformity. A girdle at least has a purpose--a bad purpose, but at east there's some logic behind it? My father felt the same way. Plus, it seems like every time I felt taken advantage of in business, the guy was wearing a tie?
It's a counter-intuitive argument, but an extremely astute one. Consider: Many people would rather not wear an ill-fitting 'nice' outfit, or may not have the sartorial education to do so, but feel obliged to do so as a condition of their employment. You won't be able to get a job as a bank clerk if you show up dressed in a hoodie and jeans, for example; you need to show up in a shirt and tie (if you're a guy) even it's the cheapest item that you could find at Men's Wearhouse and you don't look very good in it.
'Well-fitting slob clothing' not only signals that you're not subject to some sort of onerous dress code imposed by your employer (within reason), but also that you can afford to spend money on what most people could consider leisurewear. Further, while you may genuinely not be interested in clothes, picking them out in the morning, looking at other peoples', or shopping for them - and while I can sympathize with your disinterest - that very indifference is itself a mark of affluence. Most people work hard at that stuff because they feel obliged to create a certain image to get employed, get laid, and maintain their self-respect. If they don't care about clothes and they choose not to spend money on them, and they don't happen to put out certain other socioeconomic signals, then they will just be dismissed as scruffy bums.
not only signals that you're not subject to some sort of onerous dress code imposed by your employer
If anything, that signifies low status. The vast majority of people in hoodies and tees are not six figure engineers and designers.
but also that you can afford to spend money on what most people could consider leisurewear.
Oh, come on. Hoodies and tees are cheap. Really cheap. And versatile.
Give me a couple of basic color tees, one hoodie, and two pairs of jeans, and that's my wardrobe. I don't need to cycle my shirt colors and patterns, monitor my tie usage, iron my clothes, etc.
You logic can be applied to anything: any behavior meant to be observed by others would become an attempt to show off status. It has little explanatory power.
years ago a friend of mine posted a forum thread about where he went for lunch, complete with macro-pictures of his drink. My response was to photograph my grocery trip, complete with commentary about how to select a frozen chicken, how I was better at pushing my grocery cart than someone else, and how nice it was to check out using a credit card. I was surprised by how well received my satire was.
I feel like an alien reading an article like this.
The idea of "showing off" with vacations, weekend events or even professional accomplishments seems preposterous to me. How is this socially acceptable is beyond my comprehension.
Likewise, I'm probably only interested in knowing where 10 or so people spent their vacation, and even then, only when the narrative is directed at me or a small number of friends. I can't understand how a public parade of general info and photos can be anything other than utterly shallow and boring.
I feel alien reading this too and I have ~500 friends on Facebook.
I don't see people doing anything like this. Maybe I'm selective but really next-to no friends share their consumption. I think the share-your-sunsets-and-dives-into-waterfalls is the movie version of Facebook. We wind up sharing cats, snark and sad moments.
curious: how old are you? location? friend's locations?
i'm 33, sf now oregon raised, and i'd say in general i see less fb usage by my friends, but those that still do use it, it's almost all positive, brag-ish sharing.
people i know with kids, especially, it seems almost impossible to imagine sharing 'cats, snark, and sad moments'.
I feel this, 32M with kids. FB usage by actual friends that I cared about fell to zero and my feed was full of shallow experiential grandstanding.
Deleted my FB account but copped a hiding from the silent majority for being 'hard to get in touch with' and feel a bit guilty about this but overall life is better without FB or any other form of social media.
True experientialism is being there in the moment, not standing outside carefully curating the moment for others to gawk at.
This article is consistent with my anecdotal experience, where I've noticed high importance placed on travel as a class credential. I grew up in a household that was low income enough that we never vacationed far from home. Now that I'm a white collar software developer on a solid middle class income mixing with middle class folks, mentioning that I've hardly traveled out of the country generates reactions of surprise, to the extent that I often feel I have to explain myself and my lack of overseas travel.
Now that I'm a white collar software developer on a solid middle class income mixing with middle class folks
Are you in the Bay Area? The Bay Area is obsessed with travel. Not that there's anything wrong with that, since I do feel that travel is great, but many in the Bay Area have no idea what it's like to come from a background where it's not even considered a possibility.
When I lived and worked in Arizona, the only "travel" anyone was interested in were weekend trips to Mexico, or maybe visiting an iconic American city (e.g. SF). If I'd brought up Thailand, they wouldn't even have known enough to make ladyboy jokes.
"There be three degrees of this hiding and veiling of a man’s self. The first, closeness, reservation, and secrecy; when a man leaveth himself without observation, or without hold to be taken, what he is. The second, dissimulation, in the negative; when a man lets fall signs and arguments, that he is not, that he is. And the third, simulation, in the affirmative; when a man industriously and expressly feigns and pretends to be, that he is not."
This is one thing I don't get. Why do some people like to pretend to be anti-consumption while engaged in an economy based on consumption?
Let's put it this way, if all the people, no matter what their income, just took their income, spent it on the basics and then saved or invested the remainder, we'd all pretty much end up poorer. No titans of industry (who would buy consumer goods in a if consumption was avoided), few service workers, few skilled jobs, fewer blue collar jobs. Mostly we'd have government employees and people in essential services (farmers, physicians, educators, etc).
No work at Starbucks, or Amazon, or Google or Tesla. I mean, who would need to buy anything beside the basics from Amazon, and since commerce would be de-emphasized, no need for advertising (adwords) on google.
I guess we could live pretty retro lives, living like we were all Amish or similar, but is that what would be best?
Certainly disposable consumerism is arguably bad, but what if we all decided quality was paramount and instead of buying ten cheap things, we bought one expensive but durable thing costing the same as the ten cheap things?
Anyway, our economic system, neo-liberal capitalism, (and others as well) depend on consumption, frugal wealthy people would impact the economy negatively.
Look, I dislike Hollywood (it's cheap, base, and unimaginative, rarely is there "Art") for various reasons, but, at the same time, I understand that overpaid actors mean that lots of ancillary jobs in Hollywood exist due to their opulent, unfrugal, spednthrift lifestyles.
The difference is whether consumption is relative equal across society, or is the masses serving elites, and if we are paying for each others good graces, or to burn polluting energy sources. A dollar spent paying someone to burn the plastic remains of your frappucino and then treat your diabetes, or a dollar spent on a blood diamond or chocolate farmed by a slave child, could be spent paying someone to pick up litter, or cure genetic disease, or teach you how to play music. Not all consumption is equally valuable.
Yes, of course things could be improved upon. What happens is people say "overconsumption" as if not consuming would somehow solve things. It would not. All things being equal, it would make things worse (except perhaps improve ecology, but it's debatable, since we might miss develping some superior technologies).
Just one example. Everyone cooked at home. No restaurants. No cooks, chefs, sole proprietors, severs, etc. in the restaurant industry. There would be no restaurant industry. We could go on. Extending this, "getting rid of conspicuous consumption" might hide things, which, I understand, it makes us feel better, but solves nothing by itself.
Restaurants can be more efficient ways to get better food to everyone, compared to home cooking. Think the classic "diner", a place where the employees csn afford to eat. When they are, that's inconspicuous consumption. Same for Henry Ford's assembly line cars.
Good or bad, to some extent, 'conspicuous consumption' in the form of saying 'Hey, look I can afford it' led to the rise and mainstreaming of more natural farming, aka 'organics'. This is arguably a good thing. In addition we get avant garde chefs who can improve our diets by popularizing better food choices and preparation methods, initially at the expense of the reviled trendsetters and overconsumers.
One of the things I think that tends to underpin "overconsumption" arguments is the idea of consumerism as a cultural force: The idea that if you're leaving your home and going to public space, your business will involve, at some point, making a purchase, and this purchase is intended to reflect on your identity.
Now, of course that isn't what people actually do, but that's how we've aligned everything: If you "go out" but you don't do work or buy something while you're out, you're transgressing the cultural rules. But if we design spaces and situations that are only for buying, we cut off other avenues of experience.
An idea I recall from a well-known chef, which I'm probably butchering a bit, is that a high-end restaurant experience isn't there just to be everyday consumption, but to inspire one's own cooking as well. That's very different from the purpose of going to a McDonald's, and the simplistic branding wars of "McDonald's vs. Burger King" or "Coke vs. Pepsi." It's the latter type of thing that anticonsumerism really seeks to stamp out.
While you're right. People don't get uncomfortable with 'regular people' going to MacD's, or drinking coke. They may express horror with MacD the corp or Coke the corp, but not the consumer.
They have an issue with people who show off their wealth --like buying apple products in the face of cheaper (better?) alternatives. Here the opposite happens, they at times praise the companies but bash the consumers for showing off.
Just for your own reference SPENDTHRIFT is being wasteful with money.
I just learned this myself recently as I was kindly corrected for using the term improperly. I then had to do the research to verify and found that THRIFT (thrive) in this case refers to success or prosperity. A SPENDTHRIFT is someone that wastes (SPENDS) their success (THRIFT). In modern usage it is someone wasteful with money. This is contrary to the assumed or obvious "being thrifty with spending" where thrift=frugal.
> Why do some people like to pretend to be anti-consumption while engaged in an economy based on consumption?
You are so right, hold on a sec while I just step out of the economy we live in, into a the next economy. Because it is so easy to do. Why bother trying to change anything, when all we have to do is to take a single step into the new better economy?
Because we have no choice. If I choose not to pollute, I am still going to die from everyone else doing it.
Yes, I know, that's part of the point. One cannot achieve the proposed goal, given the economic environment we live in. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. In other words, it's nice, thought, but ill-conceived.
The point of the article was to contrast consumption of things vs. consumption of experiences. People who are anti-consumption are usually much more against the first than the second.
Am I the only one that likes when people post their travel pictures on Facebook? I find it interesting and like to see all the beautiful places that I can't go to now that I'm married.
57 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadIt inspired me to create a food blog on facebook. Every week I would upload something tacky and anti-yuppy. My posts included Choco Tacos, Wendy's hamburgers, and cups of ramen.
Now I'm thinking of posting my experiences at the grocery story, Home Depot, etc.
Conspicuous nonconsumption [0], as I call it, is all the rage in SF and among engineers. That's why everyone wears hoodies and tshirts: to show that they're different from MBAs and the suits and the bankers. But that's just another way to show your status: you are the member of an exclusive club that doesn't need suits to have high status.
And so with your blog. You're identifying as part of a group that's too good for status symbols. You're explicitly saying "I'm not like you" and implicitly saying "I'm better than you because I don't need whatever things you find valuable".
You're showing off your non-consumption for high status, in exactly the same way that they're showing off their consumption for high status. At the end of the day, you're both just showing off for high status! [1]
[0] See also "stealth wealth"
[1] No judgement here, btw: in tech, I think we all do this, me included.
In the meantime, you should consider setting up shop as a recruiter. You could probably place your Washington friends in jobs at startups here fairly easily. If they can memorize a few words/acronyms (Angular, MVVM, etc.) and are willing to show up to the interview with an axe for good measure, you'll be cashing checks in no time.
Also, lumbersexuals have fancier hair. Grunge has more spiritual similarly to t shirts and hoodies, a rejection of expensive fancy fashion, than the fancified hipsterism that chased after it.
So it's the 1990s again? Cool, cargo pants must be coming back, too. I wonder if it has anything to do with the rise of Portland in pop culture. Portlandia's got it right: it's still the 90's in Portland (I'm from the area, it's pretty much true).
Perhaps if conspicuous philanthropy found its way down to everyday people, that would be a nice addition too.
Compare Burners who fly a helicopter into camp, vs people who go for a hike in the city park.
That's a really weird conclusion to come to. I wear hoodies and tee shirts because 1) my job doesn't require more, 2) my hoodie and tee are comfortable and easily adaptable to changing temperature, and 3) clothing shopping is a chore, an extreme annoyance.
Well-fitting "slob" clothing looks better than poorly-fitting mid-range "nice" clothing, particularly when one doesn't fit the body type of the target audience for the latter.
'Well-fitting slob clothing' not only signals that you're not subject to some sort of onerous dress code imposed by your employer (within reason), but also that you can afford to spend money on what most people could consider leisurewear. Further, while you may genuinely not be interested in clothes, picking them out in the morning, looking at other peoples', or shopping for them - and while I can sympathize with your disinterest - that very indifference is itself a mark of affluence. Most people work hard at that stuff because they feel obliged to create a certain image to get employed, get laid, and maintain their self-respect. If they don't care about clothes and they choose not to spend money on them, and they don't happen to put out certain other socioeconomic signals, then they will just be dismissed as scruffy bums.
If anything, that signifies low status. The vast majority of people in hoodies and tees are not six figure engineers and designers.
but also that you can afford to spend money on what most people could consider leisurewear.
Oh, come on. Hoodies and tees are cheap. Really cheap. And versatile.
Give me a couple of basic color tees, one hoodie, and two pairs of jeans, and that's my wardrobe. I don't need to cycle my shirt colors and patterns, monitor my tie usage, iron my clothes, etc.
I don't buy your argument at all.
i like choco tacos but wendys and ramen cups are pretty tereible.
The idea of "showing off" with vacations, weekend events or even professional accomplishments seems preposterous to me. How is this socially acceptable is beyond my comprehension.
Likewise, I'm probably only interested in knowing where 10 or so people spent their vacation, and even then, only when the narrative is directed at me or a small number of friends. I can't understand how a public parade of general info and photos can be anything other than utterly shallow and boring.
Needless to say, I don't get Facebook.
I don't see people doing anything like this. Maybe I'm selective but really next-to no friends share their consumption. I think the share-your-sunsets-and-dives-into-waterfalls is the movie version of Facebook. We wind up sharing cats, snark and sad moments.
i'm 33, sf now oregon raised, and i'd say in general i see less fb usage by my friends, but those that still do use it, it's almost all positive, brag-ish sharing.
people i know with kids, especially, it seems almost impossible to imagine sharing 'cats, snark, and sad moments'.
Deleted my FB account but copped a hiding from the silent majority for being 'hard to get in touch with' and feel a bit guilty about this but overall life is better without FB or any other form of social media.
True experientialism is being there in the moment, not standing outside carefully curating the moment for others to gawk at.
Edit: *experientialism not experimentalism
Yeah, the people who don't use Facebook much do the "here's a picture of my ski trip thing" but they seem like such the minority.
Anyway, I can at least tell you that once your kids actually grow up, you just might have time to once again waste time online.
Are you in the Bay Area? The Bay Area is obsessed with travel. Not that there's anything wrong with that, since I do feel that travel is great, but many in the Bay Area have no idea what it's like to come from a background where it's not even considered a possibility.
When I lived and worked in Arizona, the only "travel" anyone was interested in were weekend trips to Mexico, or maybe visiting an iconic American city (e.g. SF). If I'd brought up Thailand, they wouldn't even have known enough to make ladyboy jokes.
-- Francis Bacon
Let's put it this way, if all the people, no matter what their income, just took their income, spent it on the basics and then saved or invested the remainder, we'd all pretty much end up poorer. No titans of industry (who would buy consumer goods in a if consumption was avoided), few service workers, few skilled jobs, fewer blue collar jobs. Mostly we'd have government employees and people in essential services (farmers, physicians, educators, etc).
No work at Starbucks, or Amazon, or Google or Tesla. I mean, who would need to buy anything beside the basics from Amazon, and since commerce would be de-emphasized, no need for advertising (adwords) on google.
I guess we could live pretty retro lives, living like we were all Amish or similar, but is that what would be best?
Certainly disposable consumerism is arguably bad, but what if we all decided quality was paramount and instead of buying ten cheap things, we bought one expensive but durable thing costing the same as the ten cheap things?
Anyway, our economic system, neo-liberal capitalism, (and others as well) depend on consumption, frugal wealthy people would impact the economy negatively.
Look, I dislike Hollywood (it's cheap, base, and unimaginative, rarely is there "Art") for various reasons, but, at the same time, I understand that overpaid actors mean that lots of ancillary jobs in Hollywood exist due to their opulent, unfrugal, spednthrift lifestyles.
Just one example. Everyone cooked at home. No restaurants. No cooks, chefs, sole proprietors, severs, etc. in the restaurant industry. There would be no restaurant industry. We could go on. Extending this, "getting rid of conspicuous consumption" might hide things, which, I understand, it makes us feel better, but solves nothing by itself.
Now, of course that isn't what people actually do, but that's how we've aligned everything: If you "go out" but you don't do work or buy something while you're out, you're transgressing the cultural rules. But if we design spaces and situations that are only for buying, we cut off other avenues of experience.
An idea I recall from a well-known chef, which I'm probably butchering a bit, is that a high-end restaurant experience isn't there just to be everyday consumption, but to inspire one's own cooking as well. That's very different from the purpose of going to a McDonald's, and the simplistic branding wars of "McDonald's vs. Burger King" or "Coke vs. Pepsi." It's the latter type of thing that anticonsumerism really seeks to stamp out.
They have an issue with people who show off their wealth --like buying apple products in the face of cheaper (better?) alternatives. Here the opposite happens, they at times praise the companies but bash the consumers for showing off.
I just learned this myself recently as I was kindly corrected for using the term improperly. I then had to do the research to verify and found that THRIFT (thrive) in this case refers to success or prosperity. A SPENDTHRIFT is someone that wastes (SPENDS) their success (THRIFT). In modern usage it is someone wasteful with money. This is contrary to the assumed or obvious "being thrifty with spending" where thrift=frugal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift
You are so right, hold on a sec while I just step out of the economy we live in, into a the next economy. Because it is so easy to do. Why bother trying to change anything, when all we have to do is to take a single step into the new better economy?
Because we have no choice. If I choose not to pollute, I am still going to die from everyone else doing it.