Project 2: Paul Bloom's "The Lure of Luxury" Essay Argumentative Map by Laura Ladino Furque

Paul Bloom's Central Thesis: The History Behind the Luxury

lal308 — 2025-02-17 16:11:05 UTC

Paul Bloom explains through his essay that the appetite of consumers for luxurious items has no one concrete explanation. However, Bloom suggests that history and the context of an item more accurately explains a person's desire to obtain such item, more than signaling and sensory theory. As such, luxury items should not be criticized on the basis of incomplete concepts.

Evidence that supports Bloom's Thesis

lal308 — 2025-02-17 16:12:14 UTC

Paul Bloom addresses the fact that the ideas of Signaling Theory and Sensory Theory are not completely wrong, they have truth behind them. "I don't think any of this is mistaken. But it is seriously incomplete. There is a further explanation for our love of such goods, which draws upon one of the most interesting ideas in the cognitive sciences: that humans are not primarily sensory creatures. Rather, we respond to what we believe are objects' deeper properties, including their histories" (Bloom 4). Bloom understands how humans are not solely sensory creatures and that humans have the tendencies to find deeper meaning in anything, including luxury objects.

Argument One: Signaling Theory explains the Lure of Luxury.

lal308 — 2025-02-17 16:30:00 UTC

Is it making people jealous?

Argument Two: Sensory Theory explains Consumer preferences towards Luxury.

lal308 — 2025-02-17 16:34:38 UTC

Is it Aesthetically pleasing?

Key Idea of Argument 2:

lal308 — 2025-02-17 23:52:55 UTC

Based on Virginia Postrel's book "Substance of Style", Bloom takes into consideration the idea that "we want things because of the pleasure we get from looking at and interacting with high quality products" (Bloom 2). If a consumer buys a luxurious product, then according to this concept, it is only due to the fact that they find it aesthetically pleasing.

Key Ideas of Argument 1:

lal308 — 2025-02-17 23:53:07 UTC

In reference to Geoffrey Miller, evolutionary psychologist, Bloom includes the idea that "the hunger for these luxury goods is a modern expression of the evolved desire to signal attractive traits--such as intelligence, ambition, and power-- to entice mates"(Bloom 3). In other words, Bloom references how Miller argues that the general reason people purchase luxuries is to show off to others and enhance their status.

Argument Three: The value Consumers place on items is Determined by its History.

lal308 — 2025-02-17 23:58:21 UTC

What's the story behind it?

Key Idea of Argument 3:

lal308 — 2025-02-18 00:01:02 UTC

Bloom uses the concept of the importance of historical value to describe the consumers' gravitation towards certain objects that may not initially have high value due to their price tag. Endowment-effect explains that "You come to value an object, such as a mug, more if you own it. You also value an object more if you purposefully chose it than if it was just handed to you. And you value it less if you had previously rejected it. You enjoy something to a greater degree if you had to work to get it..." (Bloom 6). In general, this concept shows how some items, whether super popular or luxurious, might be nothing to some consumers but priceless to others. It all depends on the context they bring with them.

Connection between Signaling theory and Sensory theory:

lal308 — 2025-02-18 01:16:15 UTC

Bloom takes into consideration how Signaling theory and Sensory theory are indeed valid thought processes and can both effectively explain certain scenarios. For example, "An appreciation of beauty explains certain accessible and universal consumer pleasures—Postrel begins her book in Kabul after the Taliban fell, describing how the women there reveled in their freedom to possess burkas of different colors and to paint their nails—while signaling theory applies to the more extravagant purchases. A crimson burka? Aesthetics. A $30,000 watch? Signaling" (Bloom 4). Both theories appropriately represent the difference between an aesthetically pleasing luxury item and a money-flaunting luxury item. However, according to Bloom, both theories are incomplete and are only able to effectively describe some instances.

Connection: History vs. Sensory

lal308 — 2025-02-18 02:03:56 UTC

Bloom argues that us humans do not focus solely on appearance, we take other aspects into consideration. " We are not empiricists, obsessed with appearance. Rather, the surfaces of things are significant largely because they reflect an object's deeper meaning" (Bloom 8). He recognizes that visual interpretation is incredibly important, but not the only factor that plays into how important an item is to an individual.

Evidence for Argument 2:

lal308 — 2025-02-18 03:52:58 UTC

Bloom references Postrel and how she states that "People pet Armani clothes because the fabrics feel so good. Those clothes attract us as visual, tactile creatures, not because they are 'rich in meaning' but because they are rich in pleasure" (Bloom 5). Postrel expresses that there is no other reason why people like fancy clothing other then it feels and looks good.

Evidence for Argument 1:

lal308 — 2025-02-18 03:54:23 UTC

To give some examples of signaling, Bloom claims that "Advertisements are often pure signaling fantasies. Your neighbors gasp as your car drives by; the attractive stranger is aroused by your choice of beer; your spouse and children love you because you bought the right brand of pizza" (Bloom 3). The theory of signaling can be seen in various scenarios from showing off the brand of pizza one buys to flaunting the type of logo on one's car to others.

Evidence for Argument 3:

lal308 — 2025-02-18 03:56:33 UTC

For example, Bloom claims that "Consumers are more likely to buy something that has been touched or tried on by a physically attractive person. Celebrities, in particular, possess the "touch" --one reason why people want objects that have had some contact with them"(Bloom 6). Due to the history of that object being touched by someone who society deems as highly relevant, as a result, Bloom concludes that the object's value increases solely because of that reasoning; if an A-List celebrity touched it, it is automatically valuable.

Counterargument Sensory and Signaling vs. History

lal308 — 2025-02-24 11:28:35 UTC

Bloom, when speaking on the matter of dupes versus the authentic thing, he points out that "If pleasure is triggered by the physical properties of what we are looking at or touching, then it shouldn’t matter what we think it is. But it does matter. To most, an Armani is worth more than a knockoff, even if the difference is invisible to the senses" (Bloom 5). This idea contradicts Signaling and Sensory theory because if the quality of a dupe is undistinguishable to the original, then there should be no difference in value of a fake Armani and real Armani. But that is not the case. Bloom recognizes that the origin and history of the brand is more valued than its quality and price.

Evidence for Argument 2:

lal308 — 2025-02-24 11:43:08 UTC

Bloom once again quotes Postrel where she herself quotes James Twitchell's Living it Up where "Twitchell’s daughter is captivated “not so she can impress anyone else or feel affiliated with prestigious brands. She wants these luxuries because they are aesthetically appealing, because they are, in a word, beautiful”(Bloom 5). Sensory Theory is indeed extremely relevant in this scenario and further argues that Signaling Theory is not relevant because of the fact that Twitchell's daughter is not trying to make anyone jealous, she is truly just enjoying the merchandise because she finds it beautiful.

Evidence for Argument 3:

lal308 — 2025-02-24 11:48:53 UTC

Bloom also expresses the importance that history has on items and how it can make or break its reputation. For instance, "When The Supper at Emmaus was thought to have been painted by Vermeer, it was priceless; when it was discovered to be the work of forger Han van Meegeren, it became a relatively worthless curiosity. Its appearance didn’t change, just its history, but people no longer wanted to look at it" (Bloom 10). Regardless of how cherished the art was before, once the truth was discovered that famous artist Vermeer was not its painter, the artwork was no longer treated as a spectacle.

Counterargument Sensory vs. History

lal308 — 2025-02-24 11:55:43 UTC

Bloom, on the contrary, argues that "Postrel is too quick to dismiss Twitchell’s claim about meaning. The shoppers know, after all, that they are stroking Armani suits. Would they react the same way if reaching into the discount rack at Marshalls offered the same sensory experience?" (Bloom 5). "After all, a brand is a way of explicitly marking an object’s distinctive history. The genius of marketing is crafting the story told about that history" (Bloom 7). Although it is true that many consumers might buy luxurious clothing because of the quality, Bloom acknowledges that the reason consumers buy such expensive items is because of the fact that it is a historically known luxurious brand that is known to be of rich quality.

Evidence for Argument 1:

lal308 — 2025-02-24 12:06:14 UTC

Furthermore, "Building from the insights of Thorstein Veblen" Bloom recognizes the idea that because of the nature of mankind, "...we buy such things as status symbols. Though we are often unaware of it and might angrily deny it, we are driven to accumulate ostentatious goods to impress others" (Bloom 3). Bloom acknowledges this argument within the essay, understanding that Signaling theory is meant to explain the constant subconscious and conscious urge to buy items that flaunt one's status.

Counterargument for History:

lal308 — 2025-02-24 12:20:35 UTC

Bloom admits that "The moralist will complain that they are superficial, that an obsession with consumer products corrodes the soul. The utilitarian will worry that the money spent on these goods could be better spent elsewhere and might not be impressed with the luxury-goods-as-art argument" (Bloom 11). In other words, Bloom suggests that people believe it is better to focus more time and money on more important , less superficial things than luxury goods.

Counterargument for Counterargument:

lal308 — 2025-02-24 12:23:44 UTC

However, Bloom quickly points out that " the moralist and the utilitarian can’t ignore the pleasure we get from luxury goods. The moralist should recognize that our appreciation of them is psychologically on par with other, more respected, human wants. The utilitarian should acknowledge that they are not pollution; they add to the value of our lives" (Bloom 11). Focusing on topics such as this matter, Bloom concludes, is necessary because it allows for the further study of mankind and the understanding of both non-instinctual and instinctual actions. Ultimately, it can help justify our selfish or unselfish desires and critique them more accurately.

Counterargument Signaling and Sensory vs. History

lal308 — 2025-02-24 12:27:48 UTC

Although Signaling theory may work for some scenarios, Bloom proves that not all materialistic things are meant to be rubbed in people's faces. For example Bloom explains "there are more personal cases. Think about your wedding ring or child's baby shoes. Such objects serve no practical purpose, they need not be beautiful in any sensory way, and they are useless as signals" (Bloom 7). The objects mentioned do not brightly express a person of higher standing and riches. Rather, they express that even the most mundane of objects, like baby shoes, can hold incredible value. Overall, Signaling theory does not adequately explain the importance of such objects.