It seems likely that you are like me: indifferent to "objects for status."
And yet, this seems to be an intrinsic element of the species:
But perhaps our view of this is evolving as a species. Because we don't have to be held in thrall to our instincts. Especially when those instincts are standing in the way of survival; not helping.
Remember Thorstein Veblen.
What do you think? Are we more evolved, and others will catch up to us?
And yet, this seems to be an intrinsic element of the species:
“Humans evolved in small social groups in which image and status were all-important, not only for survival, but for attracting mates, impressing friends, and rearing children. Today we ornament ourselves with goods and services more to make an impression on other people’s minds than to enjoy owning a chunk of matter — a fact that renders ‘materialism’ a profoundly misleading term for much of consumption. Many products are signals first and material objects second. Our vast social-primate brains evolved to pursue one central social goal: to look good in the eyes of others.”
Consumerism’s Dirty Little Secret: Are We Buying All the Wrong Things?
Consumerism’s Dirty Little Secret: Are We Buying All the Wrong Things?
But perhaps our view of this is evolving as a species. Because we don't have to be held in thrall to our instincts. Especially when those instincts are standing in the way of survival; not helping.
Remember Thorstein Veblen.
Veblen is famous for the idea of "conspicuous consumption". Conspicuous consumption, along with "conspicuous leisure", is performed to demonstrate wealth or mark social status. Veblen explains the concept in his best-known book, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). Within the history of economic thought, Veblen is considered the leader of the institutional economics movement. Veblen's distinction between "institutions" and "technology" is still called the Veblenian dichotomy by contemporary economists.
What do you think? Are we more evolved, and others will catch up to us?
