The Debate on Luxury

The Debate on Luxury

Vogue India, 2008Marie Claire, France 2009

18th Century DebateThis was a time luxury was accepted as a valuable part of economic growthThe thinkers of the time can be divided into two types : those in favour of luxury : Mandeville, Adam Smith, David Hume, VoltaireThe philosophers against luxury : Rousseau, VeblenThe Fable of Bees

Bernard MandevilleProductivity is aligned with growth may have vice but better than simplicity2 choices : work ethic and luxury OR simplicity and virtue

Relationship between work ethic and wealth : encourages drive for consumptionWork ethic creates respect for luxury unlike lottery winners 80% instant winnings not maintainedSecond Argument : Not luxury that weakens man but folly

Goya, the Blind Hen and Witches Sabbath Other Thinkers take on Luxury Adam Smith Believes luxury is a selfish interest, but f each is driven towards selfish gain then that makes for a strong society collectivelyDavid Hume advocates the view that luxury helps society advance its skills, private ownership of property is justified

Jean Jacques RousseauJean Jacques Rousseau contributed to many branches of social philosophy. The Social Contract is a classic defense of the democratic form of government. Rousseau trusted the general will of a democratic people, as expressed by a vote of the majority, to make all important decisions. He wrote very directly.

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.Force does not constitute right... obedience is due only to legitimate powers. Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost. It is unnatural for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized and united for specific action, and a minority can.

RousseauRousseauThe luxury generates vanity at those which affect it. This desire to be characterized by frivolous objects replaces noble pride. The unjust inequality of the richnesses which watch the luxury is harmful with the unit of the social body. It returns under all their difficult condition: with the rich person who want to have more and the poor who undergo hard a posted inequality, when the idleness, by which the luxury is always accompanied, does not become a contempt discouraging for the worker. The enthusiast man of luxury is dependant on factitious needs. He becomes a slave who does not defend any more his freedom and prefers to buy his defense with mercenaries. Conversely freedom, frugality and virtue go in concert and only the small republics can cultivate such values.The luxury can be necessary to give bread to the poor: but if there were luxury, there would be poor, because there would be no inequality.RousseauThe common thread that runs through bothof these types of display is "the element of waste that is common to both.... In the one case it is a waste of time and effort, in the other it is a waste of goods"Veblen's Theory of Conspicuous ConsumptionVeblen identifies two main ways in which an individualcan display wealth; through extensive leisure activities and through lavish expenditure on consumption and services. Being able to engage in such wasteful activities is the key way in which members of the leisure class display their wealth and status.The Debate on Luxury is still alive Both in terms of definition and context.