13
A change in showing off wealth status
Andrew Potter
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Tess Vigeland: The days of flaunting a corporate jet or rolling through town in a Hummer seem to be behind us. But according to social critic Andrew Potter, we're finding new ways to assert our status, and it goes beyond Recession Chic. In his new book "The Authenticity Hoax," Potter calls into question why people shop organic, buy distressed designer jeans and make their own compost. He's with us to answer those questions. Welcome to the program.
Andrew Potter: Thank you very much. It's great.
Vigeland: What is conspicuous authenticity?
POTTER: Conspicuous authenticity is in a sense a successor form of status seeking to the old conspicuous consumption that we're all familiar with. This idea that you demonstrate how rich you are or what good taste you have by having a big house, or having a nice car, having expensive clothes and so on. Over the last 30-40 years as we've become wealthier as a society, it's become less socially acceptable to just simply show off how rich you are, and what we do now is we show off that even though we have all the stuff -- a nice house, a nice car -- we're not really spiritually connected to any of it. And so what we do is we engage in practices and experiences and consumption hobbies that I call conspicuous authenticity.
Vigeland: What are some examples of that?
POTTER: Things like volun-tourism or eco-tourism, the idea that you're not just go traveling somewhere, you're going there to actually help out the locals. Or you're going there to help preserve the planet.
Vigeland: What's wrong with conspicuous authenticity? What's wrong with eco-tourism?
POTTER: One of the problems is that like all, what economists call positional goods, it's valuable only to the extent to which other people can't really have it. Or that it becomes something that you can access only by being quite wealthy, or by actually having social connections that no one else does. I mean it's like back during prohibition the only way you could get liquor was through social connections. So it ends up sort of being almost a more pernicious form of status seeking, because it makes it seem like you're actually better than other people and not just simply better connected.
Vigeland: Well, you know, along those same lines, you also talk about the one-upmanship that comes into play here, keeping up with the authentic Joneses, especially when it comes to being authentically environmentally friendly. You say there's this trend toward competitive anti-consumption.
POTTER: The idea is that you have to show that you're not actually connected to the stuff you're buying. But I think the way it gets really interesting is in the various ways people are downgrading their houses. You know, you get these amazing stories of people putting no-flush toilets in their condominiums in Manhattan, or mud floors in their house. To prove you're more authentic than everyone else, you have to live like some third world, poverty-stricken aboriginal. It's quite remarkable.
Vigeland: Have we ever led truly authentic lives? I mean, obviously, there's always back in the day. But was there a back in the day?
POTTER: I think not. I think all nostalgia is always nostalgia for the present, so the nostalgia you feel is just simply a projection of your own current unhappiness. And I just think focusing on some mythical authentic is probably a wrong path to go down.
Vigeland: Would you call yourself a conspicuous authenticititous?
POTTER: Oh absolutely, and it's sort of the embarrassing part of all of it is that it's actually quite hard to get away from. I mean I spent far more money than I had, I just put it on a big credit card a couple of years ago, to go on a big canoe trip in the northwest territories of Canada to spend time away from technology. And that kind of stuff we all do it, we all like it. What I'm trying to point out is that it might not necessarily make us happy, and it's certainly is a lot easier to do when you can at least put something on your credit card.
Vigeland: Andrew Potter is the author of "The Authenticity Hoax: How We Get Lost Finding Ourselves."
POTTER: Thank you so much for having me. It was fun.
Pages
Absolutely spot-on. I was surprised that the majority of comments were negative toward Mr. Potter. Perhaps you are on the defensive because you think he's describing you. Even if you consider your concern "authentic", surely you can recognize the kinds of people that he is describing. It's not the super-rich or powerful. It's suburbanites, who have a little more than the Joneses, so they shop at Whole Foods. They think listening to NPR makes them (appear) intellectual. Potter is not creating the motivation underlying the actions of these yuppies, as some of you are suggesting (which is, simply, competition), but he is describing it. Quite brilliantly at that. I hope the term catches on as much as 'conspicuous consumption' did in the 80's and 90's. It's interesting to note that more than one of the commenters has suggested a superficiality to Mr. Potter's analysis, even going so far as to question the authenticity(!) of his statements. You can't make up that type of un-selfawareness. Hilarious!
This seems pretty dead on. As more and more people start to increase their wealth, the extremely wealthy are looking for things that they can do that you cant. Clothes used to be a big sign of social status, but now there are places that sell lightly used designer clothes and bargain prices. Huge houses were a sign of status, but the economy dropped the prices of MANY houses. So now what is left for the extremely wealthy to do ? Vacation to their summer house on the moon ? Eco tourism and culinary tourism can be wonderful experiences and you can actually help people, but its not a right we have its a priveledge that only a select few possess. As more people are able to afford social status symbols new status symbols will arise so you can truely see who the rich are.
These comments sound like the impulsive reactions of the wounded.
Potter does not place a value on being eco-friendly or not (which seems to be the touchiest issue). He doesn't say you should eat organically or that you shouldn't. He's simply examining the trend of people using these practices for status, sending off carefully selected social messages exactly like driving a BMW or carrying a designer bag. That doesn't mean that there aren't BMW drivers who weren't concerned with impressing, or people who own Prada bags simply because they genuinely liked the bag. Moreover, simply deeming the result "good" doesn't mean that the actions are sincere--celebrities donate to charities or visit desolate places all of the time before returning to one of their vacation homes. Going to church is not socially perceived as "bad," either, but plenty of people do it with concern for their reputation within a community rather than for spiritual reasons. We all agree that being kind to the environment is not bad. Potter was not placing a value on any particular lifestyle so much as examining how people use them within society.
My diet appears extreme next to the average American diet, avoiding processed and “fast†foods. Being able to afford this alone is a sign of social status. Deciding that some things are not "good enough" for your body is incredibly elitist, especially with starvation still constantly claiming human lives. Despite my confidence in a lifestyle that I feel helps my planet, I won't lie and say I've never said "No thanks--I don't eat ____" with pride, or without anticipating a desirable reaction. I also will not defend strangers simply because we have something in common—it isn’t hard at all to find people who live eco-friendly lifestyles without being concerned for the environment.
If you can’t step far enough from the table to see everything, or if you’re unwilling to put things associated with you on the table for dissection in the first place, you probably shouldn’t be at the demonstration.
This may be the first Marketplace story I've ever heard that left me completely bewildered. Since when is trying to help the planet a bad thing? Durham is a town that has gotten heavily into the local and organic food movement ( see our recent NY Times article - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/dining/21carolina.html?scp=1&sq=durham...), and we aren't pretending or doing it for applause. For me and many others, going to the Farmer's Market on Saturday morning is about community involvment, eating healthy and supporting the local economy. I think anyone who does any of those things is taking care of themselves and the world they around them. And if someone is shallow or not "authentic" about it? Well, they'll probably be laughed and sneered out of the room the same way the man in his Hummer was laughed at 5 years ago.
As a well-established cynic myself, I do appreciate the practice of reexamining the motivation behind people's actions lest unabashed pretense go unchecked.
However, I believe Mr. Potter congeals - or rather, fails to make clear the distinction between - motivations to do good things, and the value of doing good things.
Mr. Potter indirectly bashes those who chose to do incontrovertibly good things for the misguided purpose of achieving so-called "conspicuous authenticity" while failing to acknowledge the face value of buying and consuming organic produce. This failure serves to leave the reader with the impression that the value of a good deed is somehow diminished by the allegedly less-than-honorable motives behind it. I take exception to this idea. The comparatively nutritious organic onion, the aid to an impoverished local in a distant land, the support of a threatened eco system: these all have intrinsic beneficial value which is mutually exclusive to the motives behind their seeking.
Andrew Potter's comments regarding what he terms 'conspicuous autenticity' reek of a misguided and mistaken worldview where 'image is everything'.
Let's look at this for a second - His claim that awareness is 'exclusive' falls on its face. The whole idea is about outreach and getting everyone to take part, which is anti-exclusive by its very nature. And the 'barrier to entry' is quite low, which means that it is actually anti-elite. Hardly something which is used to 'seek status', in other words.
And his commentary about 'no flush toilets' and 'earthen floors', likening them to the third world. Seriously? I guess he hasn't visited Southern California and our near permanent problem with having sufficient fresh water for all uses? Or actually researched how 'traditional' building techniques like (modernized) earthen walls are actually appropriate and save energy in some climates?
In short, his arguments are completely specious and I'm dissapointed in Marketplace for not factchecking his opinions. This was an interview, not a guest editorial. But I suppose he'll sell some books. Congratulations on giving him free publicity.
There are many ways to be authentic without spending large sums of money, as a matter of fact no money at all, take for instance http://cleantogether.com web site. The idea is simple -- pick the trash where ever you see it. Actually, if you are less wealthy, you are more likely to do so, and this simple action will have the most immediate and far reaching effect on the environment then spending money on authentic items.
"Andrew Potter's self-serving, cynical take on why other people do what they do -- recycle, compost, shop organic, and yes, buy distressed jeans -- has no relevancy in today's world ... Why try to steal the legitimacy of people striving in good faith to better the world and put their monies where their mouths are?" It has no relevance, you say? I believe his statements are highly relevant. The people buying the high-end distressed jeans and overpriced organic food are more than likely the same people who are driving to the local organic grocer's in the gas-guzzling monstrosities they call cars, then going home to their energy-guzzling McMansions. They're willing to make a public showing of how environmentally conscious they are, but look beneath the surface, and you'll find they're just partaking in the behavior because its the "in thing to do." I think that Mr. Potter's point is just that-the people who are TRULY authentic about their ecological practices, the ones who as you say are "legitimately striving in good faith to better the world and put their monies where their mouths are" generally don't feel the need to make a public showing of how environmentally friendly they are. They don't partake in 'eco-tourism'- they volunteer by joining the peace corps. The don't buy the big plastic compost bins, they build their own compost bin out of fallen branches from the tree in the backyard. So, you tell me, is true environmental and social responsibility liked to the conspicuous consumption of organic food, trendy plastic compost bins, and $400 distressed jeans? I think not.
As at all times when a soothsayer comes along to observe the actions of humans, the truth of the revelation hurts. Nothing ever really changes in deeds or motivations, just read any history book. I think you protest Mr. Potter's conclusions much too strongly.
"Conspicuous" implies a motivation based on image. Why assume that our decisions are all about making an impression? I eat organic because I don't want to pollute my body with chemicals. I compost because I want my soil to be healthy. Who cares what anyone thinks about it? Not everyone's "authenticity" is inauthentic.
Pages
