Project 2 by

Paul Bloom's "Lure of Luxury"(secondary source)

allababiy — 2024-09-28 18:16:18 UTC

The appeal of luxury goods isn't just for the sake of owning something expensive or for aesthetics but rather for its history, value, and pleasure it provides.

Bloom's Central Idea

allababiy — 2024-09-28 19:07:59 UTC

Bloom states that he is "anti-anti- luxury goods" (Bloom 11). Essentially, he is in favor of buying those "unnecessary" items because people are sensitive to the value of history. There is a sentimentality and cultural value that many look for when buying extravagant things.

Evidence of Bloom's Claim: History

allababiy — 2024-09-28 19:24:31 UTC

When Bloom talks about auctioning off clothes that were worn by actors for charity, it exemplifies what people are willing to pay for a historical item, and why they are willing to do so. For instance, when the subjects had been told that George Clooney's sweater would be "thoroughly sterilized" before they would receive it, the offers were dropped. By sterilizing a sweater that was once owned and worn by an admirable famous person, it defeats the purpose, because then instead of it being George Clooney's sweater, it just becomes a sweater. The psychological tie between history and expensive luxury goods influences people to buy it because it enhances the senses and provides a depth in pleasure.

Evidence of Bloom's Central Claim: Value

allababiy — 2024-09-28 19:38:47 UTC

In addition to historical value that is associated with extravagant purchases, those luxury goods can provide a value to people's lives as well. While it's not a tangible value, it's a psychological one that associates inanimate objects to people's lives. It is one of the many reasons why people save their baby blankets or their first child's shoes

(Bloom 7). It becomes this priceless artifact that wouldn't want to be traded for a perfect duplicate because then that value is gone, and the psychological tie is broken. Not wanting a perfect duplicate is also applicable to a Rolex watch and it being offered as a knockoff that was "invisible to the senses" because there is no value behind it. It doesn't matter if it was the most expensive item on the market, if there is a historical value and it makes the person feel good about it, then it's worth it, because otherwise, there would be no point in buying something so expensive.

Bloom's Central Idea

allababiy — 2024-09-28 19:55:48 UTC

In correlation to history, Paul Bloom proclaims that the reason why many people focus on the history of many items is because of the pleasure that is essentially "signaled."

Evidence of Bloom's Claim: Pleasure

allababiy — 2024-09-28 19:56:24 UTC

Just owning something really expensive can provide that satisfactory feeling such as feeling good about owning a $30,000 Rolex, but if there is a historical tie that "concerns who has touched the object in the past, " it will influence the buyer even more. Similarly to George Clooney's sweater, John F. Kennedy's golf clubs sold for $772,500 (Bloom 6). Because John F. Kennedy was a president, he was a historical figure and was admired by many, and according to Bloom, he "possessed the 'touch.'" The "touch" was essentially the driving point that influenced the purchases, and that is what provided the pleasure many looked for and felt. By owning something someone famous once owned, it feels like you've come into contact with them.

Evidence of Bloom's Claim: Impressions

allababiy — 2024-09-28 19:56:32 UTC

Bloom argues that the way people value properties has to do with everything but impressing others and needing to know what they think (Bloom 9). It all ties to the pleasure that is we get from the product, not the pleasure from others' opinions because the goal isn't to impress other people. Bloom uses the example of "mom's cooking" and how the taste of the food is still exceptional even though no one is watching him eating. He is eating his mom's cooking because it's homemade, it was made with love, and it has a history to it; he isn't eating to show off what amazing skills his mom has in order to show off. That whole point all connects regardless of cost, and whether it's a homemade meal or a Rolex watch, if it provides that satisfaction, then its valuable.

Postrel's Claim

allababiy — 2024-10-01 18:34:36 UTC

Leading up to his main claim, Bloom describes Virginia Postrel's claim when it comes to buying expensive items. He states, "There is 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" (Bloom 4). Overall, Bloom agrees with Postrel's idea that people make extravagant purchases because it fulfills their desires for pleasure that can stem from the sensory properties of clothing. These sensory properties can include how something feels, how it smells, how it can make someone feel, etc. and overall, the aesthetic from clothes enables the pleasure people can get from material. However, he challenges this idea because he states, "I don't think any of this is mistaken. But it is seriously incomplete"(Bloom 4). Bloom thinks her idea is incomplete because there is a bigger meaning to buying such luxuries, and that is the history. But it's not just one branch of history, it can be the history of the brand itself, the cultural history in a family, the history of the material, and more.

Bloom's take on Signaling Theory

allababiy — 2024-10-05 00:18:58 UTC

One of the key features of Paul Bloom's essay is the idea of signaling and it's the way people may present themselves with their luxurious purchases. Signaling is defined as relaying information in a specific way, and it can be through gestures, actions, words, etc., and in this case of luxuries, signaling theory is essentially just people's ways of showing off. For example, Bloom mentions different examples of signaling because "it has been applied to everything," such as "your neighbors gasp as your car drives by; the attractive stranger at a bar is aroused by your choice of beer; your spouse and children love you because you bought the right brand of frozen pizza"(Bloom 3). These examples enhance the fantasy that one would have to feel better about themselves. Even as something simple as buying the right type of frozen pizza automatically invokes the "cool" factor that feeds into that fantasy. Because someone bought the correct brand, it is basically signaling that they know things and they are "cool" enough, so it also invokes a social approval from the children and spouse.