What do you think?
Rate this book
Status & Culture
The book lays out how individuals in pursuit of status trigger the cultural mechanisms behind taste, identity, fashion, art, class, subcultures, retro/canon, and the current state of Internet culture.
If Ametora was a specific case study of "how culture happens" and how trends form, this new book is a deep look into the universal principles of cultural change — all with status as the motor.
If Ametora was a specific case study of "how culture happens" and how trends form, this new book is a deep look into the universal principles of cultural change — all with status as the motor.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2022
441 people are currently reading
5687 people want to read
About the author
W. David Marx
5 books104 followersW. David Marx is a long-time writer on culture based in Tokyo. He is the author of "Ametora: How Japan Saved American Style" (2015) and "Status and Culture" (2022). Marx's newsletter can be found at culture.ghost.io.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews
May 31, 2022
Tough to rate. In terms of thoughts and ideas, I'd rate it 4.5 stars--it really provided a terrific framework from which to view the primary animating forces driving our sociopolitical divisions. In terms of readability, it's more like 3-3.5 stars--it's capably written, but often circuitous with overlong, densely packed sentences. I often lost the thread trying to navigate passages. It's also repetitive at times.
I'm glad I read this. It enhanced my range of lenses from which to view and understand humans and society.
I'm glad I read this. It enhanced my range of lenses from which to view and understand humans and society.
November 7, 2022
Posting on Goodreads has negative status value but here I go anyway:
I would have liked for this to cover 50% less material and for there to be no talk of "the Grand Mystery of Culture." Also sort of strikes me as a compendium of just-so stories. But at the same time ... I'm 100% on board.
The most interesting section was the last one, where he talks about what the internet is doing to culture. He points to two forces that are making economic capital (as opposed to social/cultural/educational) more important than ever. First, easy and rapid access to information (i.e. if everyone on TikTok can instantly know X thing is cool, it no longer has status value to know it). And also the predominant "omnivorism" of taste (i.e. frowned upon to make "low culture"/ "high culture" value judgments -- or really any judgment on what another person might find entertaining):
Anyway, I don't think that this is a particularly useful set of ideas to keep front of mind in day-to-day, at least from a "living a peaceful and integrated life" standpoint. I don't really agree with this bit in the conclusion:
I think this will land us in weird Spiderman pointing at Spiderman meme territory / twist us up into knots as we try to engage directly with status while also -- unavoidably, inevitably, perpetually -- pursuing it. Not to say status isn't a valuable lens..just not sure that it would do good things to someone's psyche to make it the primary one.
Marx: "We have been cursed to understand the mechanisms of culture too well, making earnest taste nearly impossible." After reading this book I'm feeling very, "I have been cursed to understand the mechanisms of status too well, making earnest existence nearly impossible." Luckily I have a bad memory so I'm sure I'll be back to my unselfconscious pursuit of status in no time! 🥂
I would have liked for this to cover 50% less material and for there to be no talk of "the Grand Mystery of Culture." Also sort of strikes me as a compendium of just-so stories. But at the same time ... I'm 100% on board.
The most interesting section was the last one, where he talks about what the internet is doing to culture. He points to two forces that are making economic capital (as opposed to social/cultural/educational) more important than ever. First, easy and rapid access to information (i.e. if everyone on TikTok can instantly know X thing is cool, it no longer has status value to know it). And also the predominant "omnivorism" of taste (i.e. frowned upon to make "low culture"/ "high culture" value judgments -- or really any judgment on what another person might find entertaining):
Omnivorism also may have a dampening effect on the cultural ecosystem. If the “friction” of status struggles is an important creative force, omnivorism defuses tensions within the social groups most likely to create new conventions: namely, artists, the creative class, the media, and subcultures. Much great art and culture arose from righteous indignation toward bad taste, commercialist kitsch, and the conservative establishment. By eliminating these as legitimate targets for criticism we create much weaker, less meaningful conventions.
Anyway, I don't think that this is a particularly useful set of ideas to keep front of mind in day-to-day, at least from a "living a peaceful and integrated life" standpoint. I don't really agree with this bit in the conclusion:
All analysis of cultural trends should thus first work through an innovation’s status implications. In 2019 Vox identified mini Australian shepherds as the “dog of the moment,” attributing their popularity to “portable, apartment-friendly size and striking good looks.” Many dog breeds are handsome and small enough for apartment life; the article neglected to mention that mini Australian shepherds may also serve as status symbols. Just because no one who was interviewed for the article openly admitted their status seeking doesn’t mean we should take their alibis in good faith.
I think this will land us in weird Spiderman pointing at Spiderman meme territory / twist us up into knots as we try to engage directly with status while also -- unavoidably, inevitably, perpetually -- pursuing it. Not to say status isn't a valuable lens..just not sure that it would do good things to someone's psyche to make it the primary one.
Marx: "We have been cursed to understand the mechanisms of culture too well, making earnest taste nearly impossible." After reading this book I'm feeling very, "I have been cursed to understand the mechanisms of status too well, making earnest existence nearly impossible." Luckily I have a bad memory so I'm sure I'll be back to my unselfconscious pursuit of status in no time! 🥂
January 24, 2024
What a rare find. It’s one of those books that answer not only the questions I sought to have answered but also those I never thought of asking.
“Status is a relative ranking, so not everyone can simultaneously achieve a high position. Status is zero-sum. For every person who goes up, someone must go down.”
In the book, the author analyses what status is and presents how it’s been changing over the years. He introduces you to the social hierarchies (classes) and presents findings of how each signals their status through various symbols. Moreover, he addresses subcultures and countercultures—groups that give status to those who can’t get it from conventional ways. The book is recent (published in 2022), so he also covers how the internet and social media changed the status game.
I am thoroughly impressed by the author’s research. It was rich in examples, quotes, studies, and linguistic, historical and sociological observations. Although the book is quite academic, it is by no means dry. I found it enjoyable and curiosity-causing.
“But kitsch and flash are a better means for companies to profit, because most people in the marketplace have conservative, emulative tastes that correspond to people low to middle in the status ladder. There is always demand for obvious status symbols and immediate pleasures.”
“Status is a relative ranking, so not everyone can simultaneously achieve a high position. Status is zero-sum. For every person who goes up, someone must go down.”
In the book, the author analyses what status is and presents how it’s been changing over the years. He introduces you to the social hierarchies (classes) and presents findings of how each signals their status through various symbols. Moreover, he addresses subcultures and countercultures—groups that give status to those who can’t get it from conventional ways. The book is recent (published in 2022), so he also covers how the internet and social media changed the status game.
I am thoroughly impressed by the author’s research. It was rich in examples, quotes, studies, and linguistic, historical and sociological observations. Although the book is quite academic, it is by no means dry. I found it enjoyable and curiosity-causing.
“But kitsch and flash are a better means for companies to profit, because most people in the marketplace have conservative, emulative tastes that correspond to people low to middle in the status ladder. There is always demand for obvious status symbols and immediate pleasures.”
September 28, 2022
This is five stars with two qualifiers, which are explained below.
I enjoyed Marx's previous book, "Ametora," and if you did as well, then I anticipate that you will enjoy "Status and Culture". "Status and Culture" seeks to explain the various forces that shape what we call culture. Marx methodically provides a taxonomy of the various facets that influence culture, status being foremost. He then explores how differing forms of status can shape the evolution of culture: how certain things become classics, while other things vanish as mere fads. If you had asked me to explain the interplay of culture and status before reading this book, I would have been hard pressed to provide the cogent overview contained in "Status and Culture". From that standpoint, I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a primer on what drives our cultural tastes.
That said, this book contains one glaring blind spot. Marx observes that today the ubiquity of content on the internet has caused taste to be more egalitarian. For example, the rockist attitude that all forms of music are interpreted through a rock prism has been replaced by "poptimism," an attitude that all forms of music, are worthy of praise. While Marx acknowledges the existence of social media as a factor in flattening hierarchy, he ignores how tastes have been shaped and altered by the AI in social media platforms themselves.
A smaller quibble. Early in the book, Marx describes an interview of Beck conducted by Thurston Moore on MTV's "120 Minutes" as an example of someone signaling their bona fides with a particular audience. Marx quotes Beck as saying that the first record he bought was "Haino or Xanadu," "Haino" supposedly referring to Keiji Haino, an experimental Japanese guitarist, and thus a signal to avant-garde noise weirdos that Beck is one of them. Actually, Beck was referring to Heino, a traditional German singer with distinctive white blonde hair and dark glasses who was held in ironic regard by hipsters who were probably Beck's core audience at the time. (Heino appears on the cover of a Beck single from that time period.)
I enjoyed Marx's previous book, "Ametora," and if you did as well, then I anticipate that you will enjoy "Status and Culture". "Status and Culture" seeks to explain the various forces that shape what we call culture. Marx methodically provides a taxonomy of the various facets that influence culture, status being foremost. He then explores how differing forms of status can shape the evolution of culture: how certain things become classics, while other things vanish as mere fads. If you had asked me to explain the interplay of culture and status before reading this book, I would have been hard pressed to provide the cogent overview contained in "Status and Culture". From that standpoint, I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a primer on what drives our cultural tastes.
That said, this book contains one glaring blind spot. Marx observes that today the ubiquity of content on the internet has caused taste to be more egalitarian. For example, the rockist attitude that all forms of music are interpreted through a rock prism has been replaced by "poptimism," an attitude that all forms of music, are worthy of praise. While Marx acknowledges the existence of social media as a factor in flattening hierarchy, he ignores how tastes have been shaped and altered by the AI in social media platforms themselves.
A smaller quibble. Early in the book, Marx describes an interview of Beck conducted by Thurston Moore on MTV's "120 Minutes" as an example of someone signaling their bona fides with a particular audience. Marx quotes Beck as saying that the first record he bought was "Haino or Xanadu," "Haino" supposedly referring to Keiji Haino, an experimental Japanese guitarist, and thus a signal to avant-garde noise weirdos that Beck is one of them. Actually, Beck was referring to Heino, a traditional German singer with distinctive white blonde hair and dark glasses who was held in ironic regard by hipsters who were probably Beck's core audience at the time. (Heino appears on the cover of a Beck single from that time period.)
March 9, 2023
Congratulations to W. David Marx, who took an extremely interesting subject—the intersection that manifests between culture and status—and spun that gold into straw. This may be the world’s most boring term paper masquerading as a substantive book. He literally defines nouns (so many nouns) and then supports them via a bunch of examples that mostly seem chosen to demonstrate Marx’s status as an intellectual with lots of time on his hands. The examples include downtown art stalwarts like Trisha Brown as well as more prosaic choices such as the Beatles.
One could only wish he’d collaborated with someone who could write more conversationally and with a touch of creativity. (Calling anybody from The Atlantic.) This leaden, stultifying prose will probably come in handy to the college kids assigned to read this as it lulls them off to sleep.
One could only wish he’d collaborated with someone who could write more conversationally and with a touch of creativity. (Calling anybody from The Atlantic.) This leaden, stultifying prose will probably come in handy to the college kids assigned to read this as it lulls them off to sleep.
April 4, 2025
A thorough explanation of cultural desires and shifts, of economics and class.
First it explains how Money and fashion in the 20th century made sense.
Then how the internet changed and flattened perceptions and- I mean we are too in the thick of this 21st century culture to see it from afar and understand it- if I live to 2070 in my 90s maybe I’ll be able to look at what happened. This will make getting old fun and interesting (I don’t have kids, so it’ll be good to have something).
I adored this author’s book about Japanese fashion, Ametora.
First it explains how Money and fashion in the 20th century made sense.
Then how the internet changed and flattened perceptions and- I mean we are too in the thick of this 21st century culture to see it from afar and understand it- if I live to 2070 in my 90s maybe I’ll be able to look at what happened. This will make getting old fun and interesting (I don’t have kids, so it’ll be good to have something).
I adored this author’s book about Japanese fashion, Ametora.
February 17, 2024
Exceptionally well-structured, really great analysis of how status seeking behaviours drive cultural change and artistic production, for good and bad. Marx does a good job of synthesising the ideas of major thinkers (sociologists like Bourdieu, cultural theorists like Dick Hebdige and Stuart Hall, philosophers like Kant and René Girard) without making the book feel overly abstruse or hard to read.
The book is great pop sociology/cultural theory, and I mean that in the most positive sense!
The conclusion, where Marx suggests that internet culture has made art and culture feel more static and superficial, is really well done and one of the most interesting arguments I’ve read lately on Why Culture Feels Bad Now (without relying on lazy points like ‘Gen Z is shallower!’ or ‘great art isn’t being made anymore!’, which deeply irritate me as arguments lol). Recommend! I love fashion nerds writing about culture ❤️
The book is great pop sociology/cultural theory, and I mean that in the most positive sense!
The conclusion, where Marx suggests that internet culture has made art and culture feel more static and superficial, is really well done and one of the most interesting arguments I’ve read lately on Why Culture Feels Bad Now (without relying on lazy points like ‘Gen Z is shallower!’ or ‘great art isn’t being made anymore!’, which deeply irritate me as arguments lol). Recommend! I love fashion nerds writing about culture ❤️
October 11, 2022
I pre-ordered this book inspired by a hyper-enthusiastic review by Michelle Goldberg of the NYT, whom I've aways considered a very insightful, super intelligent person. What did Marx do to her to have her write a praise for this sh*t? Kidnapped her cat? She owes him money? I haven't read a book so devoid of any new, original ideas for years and I regularly come across a lot of published mediocrity. Out of respect for Goldberg I read this until the end, hoping for I don't know what. What a waste of time and money (and trees!).
June 24, 2024
Shockingly, Marx managed to write this book without once using the word "mimesis," even though he should probably be paying René Girard royalties. In the blizzard of names and references that swirl through the text, Girard's name comes up a few times, but with little appreciation for how thoroughly his description of mimetic rivalry clarifies the issues with which Marx wrestles.
It's also one of those books that unwrites itself as it goes: the first half lays out what feels like a pretty clear-headed account of how chasing status through the imitation game builds culture through a hierarchical diffusion of novelties, but the wheels come off in the back half when the explanation fits so poorly to the data of contemporary culture/the internet. In retrospect, it starts to feel like a mere illusion of clarity. Lots of italicization in defining terms lends it a patina of certainty that rubs off the minute you try to use them. That said, I did appreciate the clarity of the first half, which felt like an honest effort to understand the dialectics of status-seeking.
In comparison, the part on the internet is a riot of spaghetti flying at walls. Marx doesn't find there the clean diffusion from elites to low-status late adopters, so instead throws out his own categories and says status has been reduced to wealth signaling on the apps. He waffles on the role of subcultures and puzzles over the seeming stasis of culture over the last few decades. While I found his explanation for retromania interesting (given the uncertainty of rapid change, we seek the solidity of established semiotic structures to craft our personae), it also felt like a just-so story and an abdication of the effort to truly parse why "this time, it's different."
I felt that way about the book as a whole: the explanatory power just isn't there. Marx's categories don't tell you why certain trends take off or why some have staying power. He drops a lot of names and throws off anecdotes by the dozen, but it felt more like preening than analysis (gotta chase that clout!). The book also moves like molasses for some reason: it's not a hard read, but I couldn't believe how slowly the pages ticked by. Marx seems like an interesting guy, and I don't regret reading this, but it was thinner gruel than I expected.
It's also one of those books that unwrites itself as it goes: the first half lays out what feels like a pretty clear-headed account of how chasing status through the imitation game builds culture through a hierarchical diffusion of novelties, but the wheels come off in the back half when the explanation fits so poorly to the data of contemporary culture/the internet. In retrospect, it starts to feel like a mere illusion of clarity. Lots of italicization in defining terms lends it a patina of certainty that rubs off the minute you try to use them. That said, I did appreciate the clarity of the first half, which felt like an honest effort to understand the dialectics of status-seeking.
In comparison, the part on the internet is a riot of spaghetti flying at walls. Marx doesn't find there the clean diffusion from elites to low-status late adopters, so instead throws out his own categories and says status has been reduced to wealth signaling on the apps. He waffles on the role of subcultures and puzzles over the seeming stasis of culture over the last few decades. While I found his explanation for retromania interesting (given the uncertainty of rapid change, we seek the solidity of established semiotic structures to craft our personae), it also felt like a just-so story and an abdication of the effort to truly parse why "this time, it's different."
I felt that way about the book as a whole: the explanatory power just isn't there. Marx's categories don't tell you why certain trends take off or why some have staying power. He drops a lot of names and throws off anecdotes by the dozen, but it felt more like preening than analysis (gotta chase that clout!). The book also moves like molasses for some reason: it's not a hard read, but I couldn't believe how slowly the pages ticked by. Marx seems like an interesting guy, and I don't regret reading this, but it was thinner gruel than I expected.
January 24, 2023
I don't know that I left 100% convinced of the author's theory - it sometimes felt unfalsifiable or even circular - but honestly I just loved reading this. I found it delightful, thought-provoking, and a useful frame for understanding a lot of what happens in culture.
January 19, 2023
A superb and indispensable book for understanding culture, both our own and more broadly.
"Status and Culture" offers two key tools to the reader. The first is its thesis: that the inchoate idea we call "culture" is best understood as an omnipresent struggle for status, a zero-sum commodity whose desire is universal, even if the methods of obtaining it vary wildly. The second is a simplified model to understand how status struggles are waged. The author (it seems misleading to attribute this idea to "Marx") posits four key groups: "new money," who obtain status through conspicuous consumption; "old money," who don't need to scramble for money and instead obtain status by mastering elite culture codes; "professionals," who acquire status through their mastery of new and privileged information; and lower classes, who lack both financial and cultural capital and are left to pursue status either through imitation or more privileged classes, or on a smaller scale within subgroups. But it is often these un-privileged sub-classes, the author argues, who originate the new fashions that diffuse into broader society through the intermediary of more privileged classes.
This can sound a little trite summarized so briefly, and even the author would certainly admit his model is a simplification of the real world. But the book is written with both care and clarity, simultaneously accessible and useful.
If I had any critique, it's that its final full chapter — speculating on whether the model Marx has spent the entire book laying out is changing due to the internet — is the weakest part of the book. It feels like cover-your-butt hedging, even if that wasn't the intent. Regardless, as opposed to the confidently developed theses of the rest of the book, this final chapter is on shakier ground, since the themes it discusses have not yet played out. Perhaps the internet is creating a new system of status after centuries (or more), but the author doesn't come to any firm conclusions. The doubts expressed here could probably have been dealt with in a sub-section rather than occupying an entire chapter. But this is nit-picking — even lopping off this final chapter, "Status and Culture" is superb.
"Status and Culture" offers two key tools to the reader. The first is its thesis: that the inchoate idea we call "culture" is best understood as an omnipresent struggle for status, a zero-sum commodity whose desire is universal, even if the methods of obtaining it vary wildly. The second is a simplified model to understand how status struggles are waged. The author (it seems misleading to attribute this idea to "Marx") posits four key groups: "new money," who obtain status through conspicuous consumption; "old money," who don't need to scramble for money and instead obtain status by mastering elite culture codes; "professionals," who acquire status through their mastery of new and privileged information; and lower classes, who lack both financial and cultural capital and are left to pursue status either through imitation or more privileged classes, or on a smaller scale within subgroups. But it is often these un-privileged sub-classes, the author argues, who originate the new fashions that diffuse into broader society through the intermediary of more privileged classes.
This can sound a little trite summarized so briefly, and even the author would certainly admit his model is a simplification of the real world. But the book is written with both care and clarity, simultaneously accessible and useful.
If I had any critique, it's that its final full chapter — speculating on whether the model Marx has spent the entire book laying out is changing due to the internet — is the weakest part of the book. It feels like cover-your-butt hedging, even if that wasn't the intent. Regardless, as opposed to the confidently developed theses of the rest of the book, this final chapter is on shakier ground, since the themes it discusses have not yet played out. Perhaps the internet is creating a new system of status after centuries (or more), but the author doesn't come to any firm conclusions. The doubts expressed here could probably have been dealt with in a sub-section rather than occupying an entire chapter. But this is nit-picking — even lopping off this final chapter, "Status and Culture" is superb.
Read
March 20, 2025Really interesting theory that having a dominant culture is good for cultural innovations because it creates a space for subversion and out groups. This also helped me understand the cycles in luxury fashion. I don't know where this leaves me in terms of my relationship with fashion and culture. I really want to develop my own taste, but I also recognize that it's a privilege to be in a position to diverge from the majority taste.
Related reading:
- Notes on "Camp" by Susan Sontag
Related reading:
- Notes on "Camp" by Susan Sontag
January 19, 2024
The subject of this book was super intriguing to me so I’m really disappointed that it mainly left me bored and confused.
Jake gave this one a 4/5 and laughed throughout reading it. I laughed exactly zero times. I couldn’t even tell you what parts might have been funny. Am I not funny? (I actually think I’m sometimes really funny so now I’m worried that it’s all in my head.)
It almost reads like a textbook, or a term paper. Since I understood very little of it, I wonder about the limitations of my intelligence.
I wish this book was written in a more accessible manner. Rather, it felt as if a concept was introduced, defined, then linked to another concept like if this, then this, and therefore that but hold on there are nuances like these to consider and so on and so on.
In conclusion, I could not follow this book.
Jake gave this one a 4/5 and laughed throughout reading it. I laughed exactly zero times. I couldn’t even tell you what parts might have been funny. Am I not funny? (I actually think I’m sometimes really funny so now I’m worried that it’s all in my head.)
It almost reads like a textbook, or a term paper. Since I understood very little of it, I wonder about the limitations of my intelligence.
I wish this book was written in a more accessible manner. Rather, it felt as if a concept was introduced, defined, then linked to another concept like if this, then this, and therefore that but hold on there are nuances like these to consider and so on and so on.
In conclusion, I could not follow this book.
November 16, 2023
I love it when a book matches the expectations set by the cover. In this case, a very intriguing "how our desire for social rank creates taste, identity, art, fashion, and constant change". As GenX , and a marketer, I have often tried to make sense of the changing nature of culture courtesy the effects of the internet. This book is extremely insightful as it navigates what culture is, how it gets fashioned, and then, how it has changed in the last couple of decades.
The premise is that beyond functionality and pleasures, most things we do is for status-seeking. And this sparks creativity, which in turn, creates culture. David Marx uses a bunch of sciences, including anthropology, neuroscience, economics, philosophy and meshes them with art history, and media studies to answer why things become popular, why that changes over time, and how it shapes our identity and our behaviour.
The book is divided into four parts, beginning with understanding status, conventions, signalling, and how this relates to taste, authenticity and identity. It then delves into classes and sensibilities, subcultures and countercultures, how status-seeking feeds creativity, and fuels culture, and its changes. Further, it uses fashion cycles as a means to understand how cultural changes happen, and the role of mass media in it. This section also studies the part that history plays in shaping culture, and how frequent blasts of 'retro' are inevitable. All of this puts us in a great place to understand what the internet age has done to culture, and some direction on what is ahead.
I found the book engaging and accessible, and very useful in understanding my own behaviour and 'tastes', as well as that of people I know, and society at large. Highly recommended.
Notes
1. The Beatles mop top haircut's origin story is Stu Sutcliffe's (the original bass guitarist of the Beatles) German girlfriend trying to imitate the French mode, which was becoming popular among the local art boys. After their reluctant conversion, it became their signature, and a global trend!
2. Status denotes a specific position in the social hierarchy. Every status comes with specific rights and duties, the most desirable benefits coming to those at the top (more attention and rewards, deference, access to scarce resources, dominance - make others do thigs against their wishes). Status is bestowed by others, it is social. Status is contextual - local, global. And it is zero-sum, when one gains, someone else has to lose.
3. Achievements get embodied in particular forms of capital - political, educational, economic, social. This capital determines our memberships in different groups.
4. Different status levels have different conventions. At first conventions of social interactions regulate behaviour at a conscious level, then we internalise them and they become habits. And then they set our perceptual framework for observing the world, and our expectations. Our sense of meaning and order. Lifestyle is thus a requirement of social rank and an expression of it.
5. Just as we internalise conventions, status value acts on our brains at a subconscious level. Conventions with high status value appear to us as beautiful, and vice versa. But we attribute this liking to other things like practicality, cost, sentimental value or just personal preferences. (vacations)
6. The moral duty of self actualisation is a status duty - individuals at the top of the hierarchy must pursue unique behaviours and distinctive choices.
7. Status symbols are a signal that allow a quick reading of and by others. But they offer alibis (quality, aesthetic features etc) so it is not just a symbol.
8. There are five signalling costs - money, time (PhD), exclusive access, cultural capital (knowledge of conventions by spending time among high status), norm breaking
9. Taste, as reflected by multiple signals, is how status appraisals happen. To have good taste means making better choices than others.
10. Lifestyle choices must reveal congruence - an internal consistency with the target sensibility. Deep knowledge opens the door to better taste, and congruence reveals our commitment to high status sensibility. The highest status people make distinctive choices through bounded originality.
11. In signalling, we build personas - observable packages of signals, taste, sensibility, immutable characters and cues absorbed from our upbringing and background. Others use this persona to determine our identity. And we have a 'self', known only to us.
12. Our 'cultural DNA' = hidden elements, immutable characters and cues, conventions for normal status, emulations (of higher status) and individual distinctions
13. iPod won as a status symbol, though Microsoft Zune had better features
14. Old Money taste focuses on patina, visual proof of age in their possessions (vintage) They uses this as an advantage over New Money.
15. The professional class (70s onward) built a balance of economic, social and cultural capital. Impressing old money and embarrassing new money's 'loud' tastes
16.New Money's use of economic capital in signalling spurs the creation of expensive luxury goods - sports cars, summer homes, designer clothes etc. Old Money's countersignalling and focus on patina and cultural capital get companies to make classic, modest goods with functional appeal. The professional class's signalling through information creates a market for middlebrow/consumer media guides, functional goods, artisanal goods, and copies of Old Money lifestyles. Underprivileged individuals' desire to be part of culture outdo peers pushes companies to offer kitsch and flashy entry-level consumer goods.
17. Immanuel Kant a sorted 3 authoritative criteria for artistic genius - the creation of fiercely original works, which over time become imitated as exemplars, and are created through mysterious and seemingly inimitable methods.
18. Individuals make adoption decisions within the framework of human interaction. They consider how when and from whom they receive information, how they view uncertainty about switching and how they will be judged in the community for making the switch This creates five distinct groups, innovators, early adopters, early majority, let majority and laggards. The diffusion process - high status adoption of new convention for distinction, early adopters' embrace of that convention as emulation of their status superiors, early majority reinvention and simplification to follow an emerging social norm, late majority imitation to avoid losing normal status , laggards' passive adoption without intention
19. Elite flock to three particular categories of items that fulfil their needs. Rarities, novelties and technology innovations.
20. Four related phenomena, in the internet age - the explosion of content, the clash of maximalist and minimalist sensibilities accompanying the rising global wealth, the rejection of taste as a legitimate means of distinction, the over evaluation of the past in Gen X's retromania and the abandoning of the past in Gen Z's Neomania.
21. "You can't just walk around and be visible on the internet for anyone to see you. You have to act and the main purpose of this communication is to make yourself look good." Social media also enables us to quantify our status like never before in like retreats comments and followers.
22. Before the internet, elites could protect their status symbols behind information barriers and exclusive access to products. The internet broke that.
23. Another elite group has stepped in to countersignal gauche extravagance, the professional class tech billionaires who are forming their own taste culture. They created wealth without shedding their professional class habitus. Skeptic of glamour and respect for thoughtful thrift, they make their choices based on functional rationales rather than the open pursuit of status symbols.
24. Omnivorism (consume and like everything) has had major effects on culture over the last few decades. In the past taste worked as a decision classifier by drawing clear lines between social groups. Omnivorism drains this power by declaring nearly everything suitable for consumption.
25. Collectively reaching the stage of meta knowledge we come to understand the arbitrariness of our own preferences taste and culture. The proclaimed superiority of preferred styles over others is accordingly and arrogant and bigoted act.
26. Omnivore tastes then can be used to dismantle the status structures that prevent the equitable distribution of respect. In a world of celebrity wealth-gospel, and millennial financial anxiety, young entertainers face little backlash for aggressively courting likes, subscribers and advertisers. Follower counts and gross earning appear to be the only relevant sign of cultural import.
27. Youth find 'self expression by enlisting in a global army (e.g. BTS)
28. Hysteresis - the lingering values of a previous age continuing to guide our judgments
The premise is that beyond functionality and pleasures, most things we do is for status-seeking. And this sparks creativity, which in turn, creates culture. David Marx uses a bunch of sciences, including anthropology, neuroscience, economics, philosophy and meshes them with art history, and media studies to answer why things become popular, why that changes over time, and how it shapes our identity and our behaviour.
The book is divided into four parts, beginning with understanding status, conventions, signalling, and how this relates to taste, authenticity and identity. It then delves into classes and sensibilities, subcultures and countercultures, how status-seeking feeds creativity, and fuels culture, and its changes. Further, it uses fashion cycles as a means to understand how cultural changes happen, and the role of mass media in it. This section also studies the part that history plays in shaping culture, and how frequent blasts of 'retro' are inevitable. All of this puts us in a great place to understand what the internet age has done to culture, and some direction on what is ahead.
I found the book engaging and accessible, and very useful in understanding my own behaviour and 'tastes', as well as that of people I know, and society at large. Highly recommended.
Notes
1. The Beatles mop top haircut's origin story is Stu Sutcliffe's (the original bass guitarist of the Beatles) German girlfriend trying to imitate the French mode, which was becoming popular among the local art boys. After their reluctant conversion, it became their signature, and a global trend!
2. Status denotes a specific position in the social hierarchy. Every status comes with specific rights and duties, the most desirable benefits coming to those at the top (more attention and rewards, deference, access to scarce resources, dominance - make others do thigs against their wishes). Status is bestowed by others, it is social. Status is contextual - local, global. And it is zero-sum, when one gains, someone else has to lose.
3. Achievements get embodied in particular forms of capital - political, educational, economic, social. This capital determines our memberships in different groups.
4. Different status levels have different conventions. At first conventions of social interactions regulate behaviour at a conscious level, then we internalise them and they become habits. And then they set our perceptual framework for observing the world, and our expectations. Our sense of meaning and order. Lifestyle is thus a requirement of social rank and an expression of it.
5. Just as we internalise conventions, status value acts on our brains at a subconscious level. Conventions with high status value appear to us as beautiful, and vice versa. But we attribute this liking to other things like practicality, cost, sentimental value or just personal preferences. (vacations)
6. The moral duty of self actualisation is a status duty - individuals at the top of the hierarchy must pursue unique behaviours and distinctive choices.
7. Status symbols are a signal that allow a quick reading of and by others. But they offer alibis (quality, aesthetic features etc) so it is not just a symbol.
8. There are five signalling costs - money, time (PhD), exclusive access, cultural capital (knowledge of conventions by spending time among high status), norm breaking
9. Taste, as reflected by multiple signals, is how status appraisals happen. To have good taste means making better choices than others.
10. Lifestyle choices must reveal congruence - an internal consistency with the target sensibility. Deep knowledge opens the door to better taste, and congruence reveals our commitment to high status sensibility. The highest status people make distinctive choices through bounded originality.
11. In signalling, we build personas - observable packages of signals, taste, sensibility, immutable characters and cues absorbed from our upbringing and background. Others use this persona to determine our identity. And we have a 'self', known only to us.
12. Our 'cultural DNA' = hidden elements, immutable characters and cues, conventions for normal status, emulations (of higher status) and individual distinctions
13. iPod won as a status symbol, though Microsoft Zune had better features
14. Old Money taste focuses on patina, visual proof of age in their possessions (vintage) They uses this as an advantage over New Money.
15. The professional class (70s onward) built a balance of economic, social and cultural capital. Impressing old money and embarrassing new money's 'loud' tastes
16.New Money's use of economic capital in signalling spurs the creation of expensive luxury goods - sports cars, summer homes, designer clothes etc. Old Money's countersignalling and focus on patina and cultural capital get companies to make classic, modest goods with functional appeal. The professional class's signalling through information creates a market for middlebrow/consumer media guides, functional goods, artisanal goods, and copies of Old Money lifestyles. Underprivileged individuals' desire to be part of culture outdo peers pushes companies to offer kitsch and flashy entry-level consumer goods.
17. Immanuel Kant a sorted 3 authoritative criteria for artistic genius - the creation of fiercely original works, which over time become imitated as exemplars, and are created through mysterious and seemingly inimitable methods.
18. Individuals make adoption decisions within the framework of human interaction. They consider how when and from whom they receive information, how they view uncertainty about switching and how they will be judged in the community for making the switch This creates five distinct groups, innovators, early adopters, early majority, let majority and laggards. The diffusion process - high status adoption of new convention for distinction, early adopters' embrace of that convention as emulation of their status superiors, early majority reinvention and simplification to follow an emerging social norm, late majority imitation to avoid losing normal status , laggards' passive adoption without intention
19. Elite flock to three particular categories of items that fulfil their needs. Rarities, novelties and technology innovations.
20. Four related phenomena, in the internet age - the explosion of content, the clash of maximalist and minimalist sensibilities accompanying the rising global wealth, the rejection of taste as a legitimate means of distinction, the over evaluation of the past in Gen X's retromania and the abandoning of the past in Gen Z's Neomania.
21. "You can't just walk around and be visible on the internet for anyone to see you. You have to act and the main purpose of this communication is to make yourself look good." Social media also enables us to quantify our status like never before in like retreats comments and followers.
22. Before the internet, elites could protect their status symbols behind information barriers and exclusive access to products. The internet broke that.
23. Another elite group has stepped in to countersignal gauche extravagance, the professional class tech billionaires who are forming their own taste culture. They created wealth without shedding their professional class habitus. Skeptic of glamour and respect for thoughtful thrift, they make their choices based on functional rationales rather than the open pursuit of status symbols.
24. Omnivorism (consume and like everything) has had major effects on culture over the last few decades. In the past taste worked as a decision classifier by drawing clear lines between social groups. Omnivorism drains this power by declaring nearly everything suitable for consumption.
25. Collectively reaching the stage of meta knowledge we come to understand the arbitrariness of our own preferences taste and culture. The proclaimed superiority of preferred styles over others is accordingly and arrogant and bigoted act.
26. Omnivore tastes then can be used to dismantle the status structures that prevent the equitable distribution of respect. In a world of celebrity wealth-gospel, and millennial financial anxiety, young entertainers face little backlash for aggressively courting likes, subscribers and advertisers. Follower counts and gross earning appear to be the only relevant sign of cultural import.
27. Youth find 'self expression by enlisting in a global army (e.g. BTS)
28. Hysteresis - the lingering values of a previous age continuing to guide our judgments
April 9, 2025
instantly one of my FBOAT (favourite books of all time). eased lots of anxiety i had surrounding authenticity and individuality while leaving me with many questions to ponder down the line. inspired me to write. has caused me to see the world in a completely different light.
i first discovered w. david marx in a short internet video on tiktok.com two weeks ago and since then ive stayed up late nights reading his blog and listening to podcasts he went on - even the ones about japanese menswear, a topic i have no prior knowledge or interest in.
in this book, his prose manages to be clear yet challenging, informed while unpretentious, and even funny at times. love love loved it. i stopped listening to the new a.g. cook album on the subway so i could spend more time relishing in this book, that's how good it is.
every page is biblical to me. i highly recommend reading if you have any interest in cultural studies, 20th century art movements, postmodernism, or the philosophy of aesthetics.
standout quotes:
--
"all of this leads us to the central paradox of authenticity: we are supposed to listen to the voice in our hearts, to discover and articulate our own identity - and yet, only others can judge whether we are authentic."
"artists are permitted to miss deadlines, because no one can schedule divine epiphanies."
"like many youtubers, marcel duchamp engaged in juvenile pranks, but they're not written up in history today as deep comments on the ontology of art."
"in our modern world this piece of status logic has transformed into a widely help virtue: everyone should maximize individual difference. but this emphasis on being yourself overlooks the fact that self-definition is a continual process. we are writing a novel of identity for others, and the persona is simply the latest draft."
"the internet unfurled a parsec-long cultural buffet from which we could pick and choose the most distinctive pieces to best reflect our true selves as part of our persona."
"in the end, subcultural groups were perhaps an avant-garde of persona crafting, the earliest adopters of the now common practice of inventing and performing strange characters as an effective means of status distinction."
"the acquisition of status symbols may fool others in the short term, but constant consumption resembles a form of addiction: we believe luxury goods are a cure for our status desires, only to realize we must buy ever more."
"the pressures of status give every individual a set of conflicting demands: imitate the group norms, counterimitate rivals, emulate superiors but not too obviously, and be unique but not too unique. in sum, we must distinguish ourselves to demonstrate individual difference for higher status, while concurrently imitating the conventions of our groups to retain normal status. there are no authoritative solutions to these contradictory requirements - only risk-management strategies."
"history is constructed, and the authority to construct is not equally distributed."
i first discovered w. david marx in a short internet video on tiktok.com two weeks ago and since then ive stayed up late nights reading his blog and listening to podcasts he went on - even the ones about japanese menswear, a topic i have no prior knowledge or interest in.
in this book, his prose manages to be clear yet challenging, informed while unpretentious, and even funny at times. love love loved it. i stopped listening to the new a.g. cook album on the subway so i could spend more time relishing in this book, that's how good it is.
every page is biblical to me. i highly recommend reading if you have any interest in cultural studies, 20th century art movements, postmodernism, or the philosophy of aesthetics.
standout quotes:
--
"all of this leads us to the central paradox of authenticity: we are supposed to listen to the voice in our hearts, to discover and articulate our own identity - and yet, only others can judge whether we are authentic."
"artists are permitted to miss deadlines, because no one can schedule divine epiphanies."
"like many youtubers, marcel duchamp engaged in juvenile pranks, but they're not written up in history today as deep comments on the ontology of art."
"in our modern world this piece of status logic has transformed into a widely help virtue: everyone should maximize individual difference. but this emphasis on being yourself overlooks the fact that self-definition is a continual process. we are writing a novel of identity for others, and the persona is simply the latest draft."
"the internet unfurled a parsec-long cultural buffet from which we could pick and choose the most distinctive pieces to best reflect our true selves as part of our persona."
"in the end, subcultural groups were perhaps an avant-garde of persona crafting, the earliest adopters of the now common practice of inventing and performing strange characters as an effective means of status distinction."
"the acquisition of status symbols may fool others in the short term, but constant consumption resembles a form of addiction: we believe luxury goods are a cure for our status desires, only to realize we must buy ever more."
"the pressures of status give every individual a set of conflicting demands: imitate the group norms, counterimitate rivals, emulate superiors but not too obviously, and be unique but not too unique. in sum, we must distinguish ourselves to demonstrate individual difference for higher status, while concurrently imitating the conventions of our groups to retain normal status. there are no authoritative solutions to these contradictory requirements - only risk-management strategies."
"history is constructed, and the authority to construct is not equally distributed."
November 19, 2024
An examination of humanity's desire for increased status and how that manifests in all areas of culture, taste, identity, and conventions. It's a kind of skeleton key that unlocks a lot contemporary life, especially in the chapters about how the current internet world functions differently than the 20th century focus of most of the book but ultimately still supports the same underlying pressures and incentives. Much like really grappling with the illusion of free will, I think it's probably impossible or at least unhealthy to proceed in life with this book's thesis too firmly in your conscious mind. It's very hard to admit that most of what you do and desire is shaped by greater status, especially in our more egalitarian world; perhaps Marx extends this theory a little too broadly, though I found myself pretty convinced.
I especially admired the last chapter, which takes a "so what do we do now?" approach to the difficulty in reconciling both our egalitarian hope for a less status-delineated/hierarchical world AND a real value for creativity in art (which has been lessened significantly by capitalist capture and a kind of poptimist turn against "taste" or highbrow art. Obviously problems these intense and ephemeral are going to be massive undertakings, but Marx offers both the expected appeal for economic and political change with social changes that seem more feasible.
I'm also curious about how political ideologies and beliefs would fit into this framework; there's nothing in the text that says they would function any differently than other societal conventions and culture, but something still tells me that they exist at least a little bit outside of that framework.
All in all, I found this really fascinating, and helped me to put words and understanding to some vague feelings I've been having around culture and even our contemporary political moment.
I especially admired the last chapter, which takes a "so what do we do now?" approach to the difficulty in reconciling both our egalitarian hope for a less status-delineated/hierarchical world AND a real value for creativity in art (which has been lessened significantly by capitalist capture and a kind of poptimist turn against "taste" or highbrow art. Obviously problems these intense and ephemeral are going to be massive undertakings, but Marx offers both the expected appeal for economic and political change with social changes that seem more feasible.
I'm also curious about how political ideologies and beliefs would fit into this framework; there's nothing in the text that says they would function any differently than other societal conventions and culture, but something still tells me that they exist at least a little bit outside of that framework.
All in all, I found this really fascinating, and helped me to put words and understanding to some vague feelings I've been having around culture and even our contemporary political moment.
November 11, 2023
The canon, or snobbery, or less descriptively, elitism is walling off status and doling it out only to those who are already the most powerful in a society: since around 1800, that means straight, white, men run the world and the canon.
Poptimism is the collapsing of status into economics, where what sells becomes what is good. Its goal is to describe, not to evaluate, and it reduces all human experiences to the lowest common denominator, that is: works of art with no complexity or ambiguity. However, these works of art are often not by straight white men, since that group accounts for a minority of the global population.
Instead, why don't we push for social egalitarianism with the knowledge that our societies will always be, to some extent, unequal due to status, and embrace radical creativity with the knowledge that such creativity will always be too difficult to access for people without the time and energy to invest in learning a lot about art, fashion, music, film, or (most importantly for this platform) books?
Marx gets me (and, I recommend, you) out of the cul-de-sac of the current critical consensus, which is marred by the idea that the sole function of criticism is to correct status inequalities. Criticism should be aware of status inequalities, but it also should be aware of what is ambitious, ambiguous, and authentically new, and it should elevate that over the retro and the kitsch.
Poptimism is the collapsing of status into economics, where what sells becomes what is good. Its goal is to describe, not to evaluate, and it reduces all human experiences to the lowest common denominator, that is: works of art with no complexity or ambiguity. However, these works of art are often not by straight white men, since that group accounts for a minority of the global population.
Instead, why don't we push for social egalitarianism with the knowledge that our societies will always be, to some extent, unequal due to status, and embrace radical creativity with the knowledge that such creativity will always be too difficult to access for people without the time and energy to invest in learning a lot about art, fashion, music, film, or (most importantly for this platform) books?
Marx gets me (and, I recommend, you) out of the cul-de-sac of the current critical consensus, which is marred by the idea that the sole function of criticism is to correct status inequalities. Criticism should be aware of status inequalities, but it also should be aware of what is ambitious, ambiguous, and authentically new, and it should elevate that over the retro and the kitsch.
September 9, 2022
If you are shallow and status obsessed, then this is the book for you.
W. David Marx fails to question (or prove) the theory that all human beings crave status over others; that all human beings give or withhold respect for others based on their perceived status; and that one person's gain in status is automatically another person's loss.
His basic premise is vile and goes completely unchallenged (or convincingly supported).
Unlike baboons, human beings are capable of treating everyone with compassion and respect, regardless of how "low status" they're supposed to be.
Being of low status does NOT have to mean being any less valuable than any other human being.
According to Marx, we humans can't help ourselves. We have no choice but to degrade those less fortunate than ourselves, and to worship those who are greedy and "high status" no matter how despicable they may be as people.
W. David Marx should speak for himself when it comes to valuing people based on their "status".
As human beings, we have an obligation to rise above the behavior of insects and apes, and to treat every human being with the respect and compassion we ourselves desire.
We are more than capable of this, despite what status obsessed fools prefer to believe.
W. David Marx fails to question (or prove) the theory that all human beings crave status over others; that all human beings give or withhold respect for others based on their perceived status; and that one person's gain in status is automatically another person's loss.
His basic premise is vile and goes completely unchallenged (or convincingly supported).
Unlike baboons, human beings are capable of treating everyone with compassion and respect, regardless of how "low status" they're supposed to be.
Being of low status does NOT have to mean being any less valuable than any other human being.
According to Marx, we humans can't help ourselves. We have no choice but to degrade those less fortunate than ourselves, and to worship those who are greedy and "high status" no matter how despicable they may be as people.
W. David Marx should speak for himself when it comes to valuing people based on their "status".
As human beings, we have an obligation to rise above the behavior of insects and apes, and to treat every human being with the respect and compassion we ourselves desire.
We are more than capable of this, despite what status obsessed fools prefer to believe.
March 21, 2023
I read this through a tech-adjacent book club... it fits comfortably into the popular social science category in the way it reads: informal, snappy, fun pop culture anecdotes, tidy bullet points at the end of every chapter. For that reason I find it hard to take W. David Marx at his word about the critical stakes of this book: that it genuinely puts forth a grand unified theory of how our innate desire for high status drives cultural change. My impression (a loosely-held impression, to be sure, I mostly did not have my close reading glasses on) is that he makes few meaningfully falsifiable or disputable claims; he doesn't go far enough to shift any paradigms! But I think as an ambitiously-scoped survey of the field and as a provocation to view questions of taste, art, trends, etc. through the lens of status it is exciting and successful. It's dense with references to influential thinkers and ideas. And I loved the framing of artistic value as relating to being able to resolve open questions in art, which felt like a missing piece in my own understanding of the distinction between "enjoyable art" vs. "art that contributes to the discourse".
December 12, 2024
Sería absurdo buscar en este libro una verdad absoluta o un manual de instrucciones. Al final, esto es una opinión personal. Lo que sí que hace muy bien es presentar temas y establecer relaciones que a los que nos interesa la transmisión cultural, nos da material para pensar. Qué más se puede pedir.
February 12, 2023
Really thoughtful sociological analysis that examines stuff that seems obvious in hindsight if you put an ounce of thought to it but isn't ever really obvious at first glance. I like when he goes over the history of status and culture and how they're all related sociologically. It helped me understand why sneakers are a phenomenon amongst my students. The last chapter on taste is my favorite though, especially taste in the age of the internet where monoculture has effectively dissolved. I'm someone who still stands by some metrics of taste, in that there have got to be some works of art that are objectively better than others no matter how subjective that is, because I cannot fathom putting John Grisham on the same plane as James Baldwin.
As much as the book is clear, it is sometimes a slog to read because it feels like it borders on the academic in points. I would have enjoyed some more Klostermanian or Wallace-ian style writing that is both analytical and easy to read. Still, it's worth reading and using this book to explain just how status-infected culture is. Everything we own or everything we do signals some marker of status. It's one of those books that lets you develop a new lens with which to see the world, which is a super invaluable tool.
As much as the book is clear, it is sometimes a slog to read because it feels like it borders on the academic in points. I would have enjoyed some more Klostermanian or Wallace-ian style writing that is both analytical and easy to read. Still, it's worth reading and using this book to explain just how status-infected culture is. Everything we own or everything we do signals some marker of status. It's one of those books that lets you develop a new lens with which to see the world, which is a super invaluable tool.
Read
December 2, 2022Not as insightful as I had hoped for but nice to have this topic explored and presented as a mostly cohesive narrative; quite repetitive in places as others have noted. Not so sure I agree with the author’s conclusion bemoaning the decline in value of cultural capital as access to information doesn’t always necessarily lead to the surfacing of particularly valuable insight.
November 27, 2023
precise and well-said, devoid of ham-fisted propagandizing and rife with illustrative curiosities—learned in this book that there is a televangelist named Creflo Dollar—O brave new world, that has such people in it!
far more cerebral than I anticipated, and I liked that a lot!
far more cerebral than I anticipated, and I liked that a lot!
March 4, 2023
Admirable effort to link economics, psychology, sociology, and cultural studies; dense, but never dull, free of hypocritical sensibilities. Solid 4.5/5.
February 24, 2023
a fascinating examination on the intersection of status and culture (duh), mostly from the sixties to the present. I really enjoyed the author’s inclusion and choices of pop culture examples and found this a pretty funny read for a work that constantly borderlines on the academic. my favorite aspect of this book has to be the end sections on poptimism and monoculture, and the conclusion positing that conscious consumption can pave the way out of the banal “let people enjoy things” ethos of today.
November 10, 2022
This is an engaging, pop culture savvy extrapolation of Veblen, Bourdieu and other sociological studies of status and social capital. The core insights- that trends are largely driven by the desire to imitate people with greater levels of social capital, and that those with high levels of social capital need to adopt alternate strategies in order to signal status- are nothing new, but they’re perfectly well integrated, and the use of examples from pop culture is likely to make them more engaging to lay readers. Is it some brilliant new synthesis? No, but it’s a perfectly acceptable repackaging of the sociology of consumption literature, designed to appeal to the sort of pop social science readers who have made Gladwell a star.
May 8, 2025
"The American lower middle class bought TVs not just to be entertained but to signal economic success, which seems to explain why so many families placed their first TV sets on pedestals in their living room."
The author does a great job of introducing a word, defining it, using detailed examples, then linking it to the next word. This is especially beneficial with words like culture that have pretty ambiguous definitions globally. You don't get left behind wondering, "Wait, what does cachet mean again?" because the specific examples and constant call-backs don't let you forget. The use of references and examples to both current day and the past also makes the content more digestible. He constantly uses well-known examples, like Coco Chanel, Cadillacs, Anna Delvey, and the Beatles to really cement a point. There were perfect segues between sections, and the book as a whole was divided up perfectly into four parts. Part 2: Status and Creativity had exceptionally seamless movement from classes to subcultures to the mainstream. The writing may not be anything special to most people but I thought it was great and I had a fun time reading it.
My favourite section was the one focusing on art and artistry. I've often heard people questioning why artists like Van Gogh were so popular, noting that they could make the same art now. I've probably said the same thing before, but the author takes the time to explain that the art all those "overrated" artists made was revolutionary at the time. The whole point of art is to answer a relevant question of that time period: "A work of art is a problem posed and solved. For centuries a long-standing problem in painting was how certain techniques and conventions could create lifelike representations of the world. When photography "solved" this problem, late-nineteenth-century painters moved on to new concerns." I also liked the focus on different kinds of status seeking. Writers and artists seek artist status, often not caring for monetary gain, which is why the starving artists stereotype is so prominent.
The section on how the media ties into mass production and mass culture was notable as well. The high status striving for something unique, the elites adopting it, the mass media reporting it, and the companies taking it and producing it at the smallest fraction of the original cost, then selling it off to the masses, creating conventions and culture. I do like that he noted this was rarely, if never, done in reverse as the high status will often be credited either way. If someone with low status creates something, it's not common for the masses to follow based solely on that individuals low status. This creation, if it ever picks up steam, will usually be relegated to the local community, never reaching globalization. The only way it can become a convention and seen as cultural capital is if it's taken and used by a high status individual. In that regard, I appreciate that he was able to point out the reason cultural appropriation was and still is so pervasive.
The final part focuses on present day, with the focal point being the internet. It discusses the paradox of nostalgia we find ourselves trapped in, and the real fear of a permanent cultural stasis. The beginning discusses how all the previous notions of a status hierarchy were almost replaced when the vast majority of people started using the internet. The revitalization of kitsch and the hatred towards the elites and their snobbery seemingly ushered in an age of "nothing is cringe, let people like what they like", which you would think would have no snags. However, what this really did is basically kill the idea of cultural capital and replace it by centering actual capital. If everyone can signal their status online, you're not getting any browny points with this generation by knowing the true value of a Persian rug, and instead the emphasis is on how much you make and what you spend your money on. There's been a growing worry over the "lack of critical thinking" when it comes to consuming any kind of content, whether it be books, movies, or physical art. People do not value cultural capital the way they used to, which is great because it removes the barriers for the lower status population that doesn't have access to the education the elites have, but it has created the issue of constant nostalgia for the past and a reluctance for anything truly radically new, leading to a "slow cancellation of the future."
This book was by far the best one I've read so far this year. Again, I was worried how the author would wrap up a pretty depressing conclusion, but he did manage to give a few "solutions" and also an explanation as to why status hierarchies will never truly go away, no matter what economic system we are under. There's been many times throughout my life where I questioned why people were buying something or participating in a trend when it seemed so stupid or pointless, and this book really just lays out the foundations to answer those inquiries and any more I may have in the future. It doesn't throw out any neurological scientific studies to explain how culture starts, focusing instead on following trends throughout history and trying to make sense of them. In the end, the final answer points to status as the biggest culprit.
Also this is literally the plot of that one episode of Black Mirror 🤣
____________
My favourite quotes:
The use of taste is essentially a metaphor—equating our capacity to make proper aesthetic judgements with the deeply ingrained ability to detect flavour.
Since deep knowledge opens up a wider range of appreciation, we see how elite taste engages with more difficult art forms—and why educational capital often correlates with cultural capital.
Inauthenticity is not just an act of cunning deception but implies a lack of self-confidence to resist external forces—those who end up always jumping on the bandwagon. Pretension is another manifestation of this personal deficiency: the sin of acting more erudite that one's education and social position justify.
Any pursuit of social approval, however, may lead to conflict with the wayward desires of our inner self. These choices and desires always feel more authentic to us because they emerge directly from our consciousness. Charles Taylor writes that we "tend to think that we have selves the way we have hearts and livers" with "our thoughts, ideas, or feelings as being 'within' us." Yet we now understand that these desires, at least in parr, derive from community conventions so internalized they become distinguishable from instinct.
Fashion is a never ending process of "chase and flight." Low-status individuals chase high-status individuals by imitating their conventions, which forces elites to flee to new ones. Since this fleeing will lead to another round of chasing and then fleeing, fashion creates perpetual cultural change, with status serving as the motor.
Any notion of "correct" cultural choice worked to bolster the class structure. For liberals and socialites, preferences for abstract art and uncomfortable sofas were no longer enlightened aesthetics, but subversive class warfare against the poor and powerless.
Hierarchy is inevitable as long as we continue to grant esteem to individuals who demonstrate impressive talents and feats. This is precisely why Rousseau blamed the downfall of humanity on esteem.
The author does a great job of introducing a word, defining it, using detailed examples, then linking it to the next word. This is especially beneficial with words like culture that have pretty ambiguous definitions globally. You don't get left behind wondering, "Wait, what does cachet mean again?" because the specific examples and constant call-backs don't let you forget. The use of references and examples to both current day and the past also makes the content more digestible. He constantly uses well-known examples, like Coco Chanel, Cadillacs, Anna Delvey, and the Beatles to really cement a point. There were perfect segues between sections, and the book as a whole was divided up perfectly into four parts. Part 2: Status and Creativity had exceptionally seamless movement from classes to subcultures to the mainstream. The writing may not be anything special to most people but I thought it was great and I had a fun time reading it.
My favourite section was the one focusing on art and artistry. I've often heard people questioning why artists like Van Gogh were so popular, noting that they could make the same art now. I've probably said the same thing before, but the author takes the time to explain that the art all those "overrated" artists made was revolutionary at the time. The whole point of art is to answer a relevant question of that time period: "A work of art is a problem posed and solved. For centuries a long-standing problem in painting was how certain techniques and conventions could create lifelike representations of the world. When photography "solved" this problem, late-nineteenth-century painters moved on to new concerns." I also liked the focus on different kinds of status seeking. Writers and artists seek artist status, often not caring for monetary gain, which is why the starving artists stereotype is so prominent.
The section on how the media ties into mass production and mass culture was notable as well. The high status striving for something unique, the elites adopting it, the mass media reporting it, and the companies taking it and producing it at the smallest fraction of the original cost, then selling it off to the masses, creating conventions and culture. I do like that he noted this was rarely, if never, done in reverse as the high status will often be credited either way. If someone with low status creates something, it's not common for the masses to follow based solely on that individuals low status. This creation, if it ever picks up steam, will usually be relegated to the local community, never reaching globalization. The only way it can become a convention and seen as cultural capital is if it's taken and used by a high status individual. In that regard, I appreciate that he was able to point out the reason cultural appropriation was and still is so pervasive.
The final part focuses on present day, with the focal point being the internet. It discusses the paradox of nostalgia we find ourselves trapped in, and the real fear of a permanent cultural stasis. The beginning discusses how all the previous notions of a status hierarchy were almost replaced when the vast majority of people started using the internet. The revitalization of kitsch and the hatred towards the elites and their snobbery seemingly ushered in an age of "nothing is cringe, let people like what they like", which you would think would have no snags. However, what this really did is basically kill the idea of cultural capital and replace it by centering actual capital. If everyone can signal their status online, you're not getting any browny points with this generation by knowing the true value of a Persian rug, and instead the emphasis is on how much you make and what you spend your money on. There's been a growing worry over the "lack of critical thinking" when it comes to consuming any kind of content, whether it be books, movies, or physical art. People do not value cultural capital the way they used to, which is great because it removes the barriers for the lower status population that doesn't have access to the education the elites have, but it has created the issue of constant nostalgia for the past and a reluctance for anything truly radically new, leading to a "slow cancellation of the future."
This book was by far the best one I've read so far this year. Again, I was worried how the author would wrap up a pretty depressing conclusion, but he did manage to give a few "solutions" and also an explanation as to why status hierarchies will never truly go away, no matter what economic system we are under. There's been many times throughout my life where I questioned why people were buying something or participating in a trend when it seemed so stupid or pointless, and this book really just lays out the foundations to answer those inquiries and any more I may have in the future. It doesn't throw out any neurological scientific studies to explain how culture starts, focusing instead on following trends throughout history and trying to make sense of them. In the end, the final answer points to status as the biggest culprit.
Also this is literally the plot of that one episode of Black Mirror 🤣
____________
My favourite quotes:
The use of taste is essentially a metaphor—equating our capacity to make proper aesthetic judgements with the deeply ingrained ability to detect flavour.
Since deep knowledge opens up a wider range of appreciation, we see how elite taste engages with more difficult art forms—and why educational capital often correlates with cultural capital.
Inauthenticity is not just an act of cunning deception but implies a lack of self-confidence to resist external forces—those who end up always jumping on the bandwagon. Pretension is another manifestation of this personal deficiency: the sin of acting more erudite that one's education and social position justify.
Any pursuit of social approval, however, may lead to conflict with the wayward desires of our inner self. These choices and desires always feel more authentic to us because they emerge directly from our consciousness. Charles Taylor writes that we "tend to think that we have selves the way we have hearts and livers" with "our thoughts, ideas, or feelings as being 'within' us." Yet we now understand that these desires, at least in parr, derive from community conventions so internalized they become distinguishable from instinct.
Fashion is a never ending process of "chase and flight." Low-status individuals chase high-status individuals by imitating their conventions, which forces elites to flee to new ones. Since this fleeing will lead to another round of chasing and then fleeing, fashion creates perpetual cultural change, with status serving as the motor.
Any notion of "correct" cultural choice worked to bolster the class structure. For liberals and socialites, preferences for abstract art and uncomfortable sofas were no longer enlightened aesthetics, but subversive class warfare against the poor and powerless.
Hierarchy is inevitable as long as we continue to grant esteem to individuals who demonstrate impressive talents and feats. This is precisely why Rousseau blamed the downfall of humanity on esteem.
April 2, 2023
A 1 star review may seem harsh but it represents 20% of the total possible score and only 20% of this book is actually worth reading.
The concepts and ideas that are raised in the book are very interesting and worth exploring. But long drawn out sentences with unnecessary anecdotes which serve to remind us of the authors extensive academic and global experience do nothing but confuse, frustrate and undermine the credibility of the narrative.
“The worst part is, the 20% that is actually worth reading” according to reader Ewan Kavanagh, ‘are quotes from other books.’
And it’s almost always presented in this split quotation style, which I have reluctantly mimicked to show how infuriating it is.
Marx’s constant aim seems to be drawing attention back to himself, rather than let the reader focus on the material. Whether this is egotistical or inadvertent I don’t know. And I’m not sure which would be worse.
Would I recommend this book? Perhaps to an editor who could condense it down to the maximum of 30 pages that it ought to be. But to anyone else? No. Just read the bibliography and you’ll find hundreds of other books far more worth your time than this one.
The concepts and ideas that are raised in the book are very interesting and worth exploring. But long drawn out sentences with unnecessary anecdotes which serve to remind us of the authors extensive academic and global experience do nothing but confuse, frustrate and undermine the credibility of the narrative.
“The worst part is, the 20% that is actually worth reading” according to reader Ewan Kavanagh, ‘are quotes from other books.’
And it’s almost always presented in this split quotation style, which I have reluctantly mimicked to show how infuriating it is.
Marx’s constant aim seems to be drawing attention back to himself, rather than let the reader focus on the material. Whether this is egotistical or inadvertent I don’t know. And I’m not sure which would be worse.
Would I recommend this book? Perhaps to an editor who could condense it down to the maximum of 30 pages that it ought to be. But to anyone else? No. Just read the bibliography and you’ll find hundreds of other books far more worth your time than this one.
August 1, 2023
What's it about?
It explains how every purchase decision is made to signal status in one form or another.
How I Discovered It?
Referenced in a GQ article: https://www.gq.com/story/welcome-to-t...
Thoughts?
The best attempt i've yet discovered to explain why we like what we like.
What I Liked About It
Loved the insights about taste, status and hierarchies. So many references from Philosophers like Kant and others - super well researched
What I Didn't Like About It
I don't fully agree with the books conclusion. Using status as a reason for every purchase decision seems slightly cynical and i like to believe there are genuine other reasons too.
Who Would Like It?
Anyone who works in the fashion industry, or is interested in culture and social hierarchies
Favorite Quotes
Besides signals and cues, there is an important third category of information used in status appraisals: significant absences. Appraisers also look for what is missing. An absence can be a refusal to participate in a convention, or participation in a different one from what is expected. In societies where businessmen wear neckties, not wearing a necktie offers useful information to suss out an individual’s occupation. This may lead to ambiguities: tielessness is customary among blue-collar workers but also employees in the creative industries. But the fact that not doing things plays a role in status appraisals means no one can ever opt out of making status claims. Everything we do, say, and own—or choose not to do, say, or own—becomes a sign. Knowing this, we hide parts of ourselves that may get in the way of our status claims.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 55). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The principle of detachment means all status symbols require alibis—reasons for adoption other than status seeking. Fancy cars always tout desirable features. The ultrapremium Eldorado Brougham Cadillacs of the late 1950s came with “anti-dive control, outriggers, pillarless styling, projectile-shaped gull-wing bumpers, [and] outboard exhaust ports.” Companies that produce luxury goods, from Louis Vuitton to Tiffany, Rolex, and Dom Perignon, understand the need for alibis, and their marketing provides detailed explanations of great craftsmanship, rare materials, unsurpassed comfort, and the highest levels of quality control. And yet, luxury goods never work as luxury goods based purely on functionality. They also must have status value.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 57). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Status symbols gain value when associated with elites, but may also lose that value once associated with lower-status groups instead. Too much usage among non-elites, writes Adam Smith, means a status symbol “loses all the grace which it had appeared to possess before, and being now used only by the inferior ranks of people, seems to have something of their meanness and awkwardness.”
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 59). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
To maintain cachet a convention must be exclusive to a high-status group. Rich people drink water, but the act of drinking water carries no cachet, because everyone drinks water. There must be a marked difference protected through barriers to imitation. In economics, these are called signaling costs—the cost it takes for an individual to acquire a certain signal. A lapel badge that says “I am extremely rich” isn’t convincing because its creation and possession incur no significant costs. A Ferrari 812 Superfast, on the other hand, is more convincing because its $350,000 price tag makes imitation difficult. Successfully claiming high status requires not just demonstrating the ability to pay the signaling costs but to easily pay those costs.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 59). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
In the eighteenth century, philosopher Immanuel Kant asserted three still authoritative criteria for artistic genius: (1) the creation of fiercely original works, (2) which over time become imitated as exemplars, and (3) are created through mysterious and seemingly inimitable methods.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 145). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
While having good taste qualifies us for normal status, we can aim for higher status by developing great taste. We can “cultivate” ourselves over time to make more advanced choices that will garner more respect. To develop a sophisticated taste for wine, the oenophile Allan Sichel says, the student should first “trust his own palate.” But after that point, there must be a conscious desire to learn more. Then, “as experience grows and perception becomes keener, his taste is certain to change and wines which at first pleased may now bore or actively displease.” To gain status from great taste involves progress across three attributes: deep knowledge, congruence, and bounded originality.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 73). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
What we shouldn’t do, however, is to look at mass culture and declare it a perfect expression of the vox populi. The culture industry certainly promotes the idea of a meritocratic market: good things rise, bad ones fall. But so many consumers adopt based on status value rather than any intrinsic qualities. Majorities seem to be satisficing when it comes to their consumer choices—settling on things they find satisfactory but not ideal. And if individuals are consuming simply because others are consuming, this so-called cumulative advantage enables random things of suspect quality to rise as smash hits. Mass culture may only be a “mirror” of consumer sentiment in that it illustrates the principle that most people prefer to consume the same things as others.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 201). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
It explains how every purchase decision is made to signal status in one form or another.
How I Discovered It?
Referenced in a GQ article: https://www.gq.com/story/welcome-to-t...
Thoughts?
The best attempt i've yet discovered to explain why we like what we like.
What I Liked About It
Loved the insights about taste, status and hierarchies. So many references from Philosophers like Kant and others - super well researched
What I Didn't Like About It
I don't fully agree with the books conclusion. Using status as a reason for every purchase decision seems slightly cynical and i like to believe there are genuine other reasons too.
Who Would Like It?
Anyone who works in the fashion industry, or is interested in culture and social hierarchies
Favorite Quotes
Besides signals and cues, there is an important third category of information used in status appraisals: significant absences. Appraisers also look for what is missing. An absence can be a refusal to participate in a convention, or participation in a different one from what is expected. In societies where businessmen wear neckties, not wearing a necktie offers useful information to suss out an individual’s occupation. This may lead to ambiguities: tielessness is customary among blue-collar workers but also employees in the creative industries. But the fact that not doing things plays a role in status appraisals means no one can ever opt out of making status claims. Everything we do, say, and own—or choose not to do, say, or own—becomes a sign. Knowing this, we hide parts of ourselves that may get in the way of our status claims.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 55). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The principle of detachment means all status symbols require alibis—reasons for adoption other than status seeking. Fancy cars always tout desirable features. The ultrapremium Eldorado Brougham Cadillacs of the late 1950s came with “anti-dive control, outriggers, pillarless styling, projectile-shaped gull-wing bumpers, [and] outboard exhaust ports.” Companies that produce luxury goods, from Louis Vuitton to Tiffany, Rolex, and Dom Perignon, understand the need for alibis, and their marketing provides detailed explanations of great craftsmanship, rare materials, unsurpassed comfort, and the highest levels of quality control. And yet, luxury goods never work as luxury goods based purely on functionality. They also must have status value.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 57). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Status symbols gain value when associated with elites, but may also lose that value once associated with lower-status groups instead. Too much usage among non-elites, writes Adam Smith, means a status symbol “loses all the grace which it had appeared to possess before, and being now used only by the inferior ranks of people, seems to have something of their meanness and awkwardness.”
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 59). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
To maintain cachet a convention must be exclusive to a high-status group. Rich people drink water, but the act of drinking water carries no cachet, because everyone drinks water. There must be a marked difference protected through barriers to imitation. In economics, these are called signaling costs—the cost it takes for an individual to acquire a certain signal. A lapel badge that says “I am extremely rich” isn’t convincing because its creation and possession incur no significant costs. A Ferrari 812 Superfast, on the other hand, is more convincing because its $350,000 price tag makes imitation difficult. Successfully claiming high status requires not just demonstrating the ability to pay the signaling costs but to easily pay those costs.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 59). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
In the eighteenth century, philosopher Immanuel Kant asserted three still authoritative criteria for artistic genius: (1) the creation of fiercely original works, (2) which over time become imitated as exemplars, and (3) are created through mysterious and seemingly inimitable methods.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 145). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
While having good taste qualifies us for normal status, we can aim for higher status by developing great taste. We can “cultivate” ourselves over time to make more advanced choices that will garner more respect. To develop a sophisticated taste for wine, the oenophile Allan Sichel says, the student should first “trust his own palate.” But after that point, there must be a conscious desire to learn more. Then, “as experience grows and perception becomes keener, his taste is certain to change and wines which at first pleased may now bore or actively displease.” To gain status from great taste involves progress across three attributes: deep knowledge, congruence, and bounded originality.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 73). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
What we shouldn’t do, however, is to look at mass culture and declare it a perfect expression of the vox populi. The culture industry certainly promotes the idea of a meritocratic market: good things rise, bad ones fall. But so many consumers adopt based on status value rather than any intrinsic qualities. Majorities seem to be satisficing when it comes to their consumer choices—settling on things they find satisfactory but not ideal. And if individuals are consuming simply because others are consuming, this so-called cumulative advantage enables random things of suspect quality to rise as smash hits. Mass culture may only be a “mirror” of consumer sentiment in that it illustrates the principle that most people prefer to consume the same things as others.
Marx, W. David. Status and Culture (p. 201). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
April 21, 2025
This is a very detailed book on how status shapes human behavior.
The first part of the book dwells on why humans seek the game of status: it defines the division line amongst people, especially strangers. When we don’t know other people, we seek status signaling to tell us if the person is “one of us”, “better than us” or “worse than us” in order for us to understand and calculate how we’d (or we wouldn’t) interact with said person.
First of all - the author emphasized that humans all have to play the game of status, regardless if they like it or not. Because of this, the game of status gets divided into people who like to play it, and people who don’t like to play it.
People who like to play it
This would be a group of people who either through inheritance or own merit (or both), have accomplished something and attempt to show off their accomplishments. The author divides them into 3 groups:
The new money: The newly minted wealthy’s objective is to show the world that they’re wealthy. Thus, the best way to do it is through materialistic showings. This can manifest in fancy homes, cars, clothings etc. The “taste” of the new money aims to be able to be seen universally - thus, even (or especially) the very bottom poor will see new money and understand the new money’s wealth. The new money also loves to constantly purchase new items, chasing the fad.
The old money: The orderly minted money does not like to compete with the new money in flashy showings. The author noted that it also has to do with the fact that their money is often tied up to trusts, thus, they don’t have the firing power the new money tends to have. Thus, they tend to show off through the usage of heritage: clothings, accessories or decorations that’s passed down through generations. Something the new money can’t (and often doesn’t care) to copy.
The professional class: while not as wealthy as the new money, the professional class aims to show off their wealth through accomplishments and knowledge. Such as degrees from prestigious colleges, or jobs from prestigious firms. In terms of knowledge, they aim to show off more curated understanding of certain subjects: let it be arts, music or literature.
In sum, the above status game is all about gate keeping: make the gate high enough, difficult enough to acquire that an impostor wouldn’t be able to acquire said item. Let the item be an actual item, or in the form of knowledge or accomplishments.
The author also spent long paragraphs describing the game’s ultimate craving of “authenticity”. In essence, copying other people is seen as “pony” and the best way to play a game would be someone who is “authentically” themselves. The concept itself is rather confusing, given copying other people - buying the same brand, same item (in the form of new money), showing off similar kind of generational items (in the forms of old money) and going to similar schools and jobs (in the forms of the professional class) - is the way to define one’s own class. The author believes that the game of “authenticity” in essence is truly only for the wealthy. That they can be authentic precisely because they no longer need to play the game other people have to play.
This, then, brings us to the other group of people. People who do not like to play the status game:
People who don’t like to play the game
Just because one doesn’t like to play the game - often because one isn’t in the privileged class - doesn’t mean one can live life without playing it. Thus, the strategy for those groups of people changes: they make their own game.
The author listed numerous ways to make their own game. One way to make their own game is simply generate a new game altogether with their unique rituals.
(Was going to type more but I’m exhausted typing this much. Might come back to this review later.)
The first part of the book dwells on why humans seek the game of status: it defines the division line amongst people, especially strangers. When we don’t know other people, we seek status signaling to tell us if the person is “one of us”, “better than us” or “worse than us” in order for us to understand and calculate how we’d (or we wouldn’t) interact with said person.
First of all - the author emphasized that humans all have to play the game of status, regardless if they like it or not. Because of this, the game of status gets divided into people who like to play it, and people who don’t like to play it.
People who like to play it
This would be a group of people who either through inheritance or own merit (or both), have accomplished something and attempt to show off their accomplishments. The author divides them into 3 groups:
The new money: The newly minted wealthy’s objective is to show the world that they’re wealthy. Thus, the best way to do it is through materialistic showings. This can manifest in fancy homes, cars, clothings etc. The “taste” of the new money aims to be able to be seen universally - thus, even (or especially) the very bottom poor will see new money and understand the new money’s wealth. The new money also loves to constantly purchase new items, chasing the fad.
The old money: The orderly minted money does not like to compete with the new money in flashy showings. The author noted that it also has to do with the fact that their money is often tied up to trusts, thus, they don’t have the firing power the new money tends to have. Thus, they tend to show off through the usage of heritage: clothings, accessories or decorations that’s passed down through generations. Something the new money can’t (and often doesn’t care) to copy.
The professional class: while not as wealthy as the new money, the professional class aims to show off their wealth through accomplishments and knowledge. Such as degrees from prestigious colleges, or jobs from prestigious firms. In terms of knowledge, they aim to show off more curated understanding of certain subjects: let it be arts, music or literature.
In sum, the above status game is all about gate keeping: make the gate high enough, difficult enough to acquire that an impostor wouldn’t be able to acquire said item. Let the item be an actual item, or in the form of knowledge or accomplishments.
The author also spent long paragraphs describing the game’s ultimate craving of “authenticity”. In essence, copying other people is seen as “pony” and the best way to play a game would be someone who is “authentically” themselves. The concept itself is rather confusing, given copying other people - buying the same brand, same item (in the form of new money), showing off similar kind of generational items (in the forms of old money) and going to similar schools and jobs (in the forms of the professional class) - is the way to define one’s own class. The author believes that the game of “authenticity” in essence is truly only for the wealthy. That they can be authentic precisely because they no longer need to play the game other people have to play.
This, then, brings us to the other group of people. People who do not like to play the status game:
People who don’t like to play the game
Just because one doesn’t like to play the game - often because one isn’t in the privileged class - doesn’t mean one can live life without playing it. Thus, the strategy for those groups of people changes: they make their own game.
The author listed numerous ways to make their own game. One way to make their own game is simply generate a new game altogether with their unique rituals.
(Was going to type more but I’m exhausted typing this much. Might come back to this review later.)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews