Originally Posted by contracycle

Well obviously, the whole thing is a mechanism for selling stuff. That's the obvious and explicit motive of consumerism.

My point was that it's displaying status. The fact that some people are willing to take advantage of that natural tendency to sell stuff we don't really need but value otherwise is capitalism/market forces in action.

Quote:

Obviously. They provide an idealised person, and by buying the brand you're trying to buy into that identity. Thats the basic mechanism at work.

My point is that it's all the same person. Basically, if I am buying CK, Armani, Hugo Boss, Cerruti, D&G, Ralph Lauren and many others, I cannot be trying to express "the kind of person I am". Because they're all the same.

You got to move to meaningfully different brands to have a chance to differentiate "the kind of person I am" via "what I am wearing".

Quote:

And once again, thats what makes it different from conspicuous consumption or pride in production, or even consumption for its own sake.

Just as buying that feather with some jerkey was done to look cooler than the next hunter. That argument will not work unless you can demonstrate that they were always restrictions and thus strictly speaking the equivalent of medals.

Quote:

Consider ads selling perfume on TV. Now you might think that you would like to actually smell a perfume before you bought it, and even more, might like to test it on your skin to see that it suits you.

AFAIK, pretty much everyone does that in perfume shops. It's not like people buy their perfume over the internet...

Quote:

But thats not what any of the ads are about; they're all about how stylish you will be be, allegedly, in the eyes of others. This is marekting that bears no relation to any of the qualities of the product, except what it allegedly says about you.

And, again, if you can tell me how someone wearing



is meant to be different from someone wearing



or, even less differentiated,



I'd be grateful... AFAIK, in both cases, I am meant to be young, good looking, resilient, independent, attracted to danger and exoticism...

Quote:

But hipsters create nothing and only consume cool. Hence they are less youth movement than consumer group.

They're good at recycling. Take some 50s stuff, some 60s stuff, some 80s stuff, mix and don't match and, voila, you're cool in a young emo way...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

My point was that it's displaying status. The fact that some people are willing to take advantage of that natural tendency to sell stuff we don't really need but value otherwise is capitalism/market forces in action.

Except that it doesn't imply status at all, becuase anyone with real status will looks down on the CK-clad highstreet wannabes. Of course this is capitalism in action; it manufactures needs which create demand for its overproductive manufacturing. That's the whole point - instead of consumption being an expression of human desire, its now an expression of capitalist social construction. As i have said repeatedly, this isn't about individuals, its about systems, and consumerism isn't about giving people what they want: it's about creating people who want what capitalism has to give them.

Quote:

You got to move to meaningfully different brands to have a chance to differentiate "the kind of person I am" via "what I am wearing".

No not at all. That would be niche, that would eliminate a section of your market. Of course they are all the same - which is why consumerism, despite selling "identity", produces conformity.

Quote:

Just as buying that feather with some jerkey was done to look cooler than the next hunter. That argument will not work unless you can demonstrate that they were always restrictions and thus strictly speaking the equivalent of medals.

I don't have to at all, I have already explained the significant difference: one is a statement of ability, an assertion of capability. The other is conformity to a manufactured a fundamentally faulty statement of identity.

Quote:

AFAIK, pretty much everyone does that in perfume shops. It's not like people buy their perfume over the internet...

Well I'm sure some do, but clearely TV advertising works. That's pretty incontrovertible, and not really surprising when you recognise it for the propaganda barrage it is. And yet I chose this example becuase it neatly demonstrates how real consumer choice, and real self expression through consumption, are precisely the opposite of what consumerism facilitates.

Quote:

I'd be grateful... AFAIK, in both cases, I am meant to be young, good looking, resilient, independent, attracted to danger and exoticism...

Obviously. And who doesn't want to be that? But if they're not differentiated, how can this serve as a means for self expression or status display?

Originally Posted by contracycle

Obviously. And who doesn't want to be that? But if they're not differentiated, how can this serve as a means for self expression or status display?

My point is that they don't. Perfume is a bit tricky because, frankly, unless you choose something that doesn't go with your skin or some of the few perfumes that do smell bad, it's relatively hard to differentiate.

But clothes are a different thing. Someone who wear CK/mass brands, imho, is just showing that he is middle class/normal. This is the kind of stuff I tend to wear myself at work.

But I know enough to spot the difference with someone wearing a Valentino or Canali or Zegna suit, some Corneliani tie, Church's shoes and a real Breitling or Rolex... That, to me, scream "big spender". And I am not even a specialist - I couldn't recognise most of the names mentioned in "American Psycho", for example.

But, well, if you spent £10,000 for an overall outfit, it does say something to me. That you could afford to do so.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Yes I know that. And as I keep saying, that's why real conspicuous consumption is not consumerism. Consumerism is precisely the mass brands. If you buy an extremely expensive tailored suit, it will have a quiet little label tucked away on the inside, not slathered all over the outside where everyone can see it like a CK hoodie. Real quality and real money speak for themselves, but mass consumer branded goods have to make themselves visible.

Is that not just a question of degree, though?

Armani or even more French Eye suits might be less expensive, more middle class than Valentino or Zegna but they try to reproduce the same 'expensive' factor and certainly don't wear their trademark on the outside.

You can tell the difference but you got to be close enough to see the fabric.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Is that not just a question of degree, though?

The point is that consumerism is a system more involved with creating consumers for its goods than goods for its consumers.