Quote:
Originally Posted by grimlock
At the risk of going off-topic, I'd like to look at the larger social aspects of hobbying.
To what extent is the conversation on function - the enjoyment of it? And to what extent is it about establishing a pecking order within a social group?
I'd say in any group, aspects of both exists.. as they should.
You discuss the topic at hand, and as all interaction between humans entails the subconscious undertones of social hierachy.. - the establishment of rank or relative worth, which determines access to 'resources', although I can't imagine what that means here except for direction of conversation.. but hierachy is entrenched in the human psyche even if it is inconsequential in the narrower context.
On fakes, the disgust from authentic supporters comes from the robbing of value from their hard-pursued acquisitions - entirely their right, and which serves as deliniation for social groups. However, there is also a game being played by the manufacturers -as is with all marketed products that serve a social value other than it's utilarian function - that of created or imagined value, or the concept of "social proof" - conspicuous items to display wealth, a proxy for mating desirability. (are all things about sex after all?)
The stretched-thin pursuer of authentics may have lost view of this "illusion", however to the multi-millionaire and billionaire, such a price level for such simple items does not contain an afterthought and is thus 'rational'. To everybody else, it's a misrepresentation and an attempt to flatter you own worth. Just as a faker (seriously or not) wants others to think he is more than he actualy is, the authentic-er also wants the same thing, just that he has invested more, and so predictably is greatly angered by those dabbling in "his game" but who, perhaps wisely, see the irrationality of it and only bets a nominal wager for fun.. rather than his life savings.
(No feelings were intended to be hurt..)
|
What's the threshold between a watch offering a "misrepresentation" of an individual and a watch offering a proper representation of that individual, and who or what decides that threshold?
To wit, I can conceive of a situation with a single individual making the median U.S. personal income ($26,989) financing and eventually owning a $10k Rolex submariner. I don't want to make this about your personal feelings on what constitutes financial imprudence. Such an individual may have a generally low discretionary income and/or low (and possibly negative) net worth, but nonetheless I can imagine a scenario where he's physically able to make payments for and eventually own a $10k watch.
The question is, are people
implicitly obliged to have a certain social status or income or net worth when sporting a watch that costs $x. We can go even further - does the
manner in which they come to obtain the funds necessary to pay for an $x watch matter? Person A is a self-made multi-millionaire CEO. Person B is a trust fund baby. Person C is a fast food worker who won the lottery. Person D is the hypothetical individual mentioned above - a hard working and otherwise frugal individual who perhaps spread himself thin buying a $10k watch while making $26k/year. What is 'x' and what is that threshold?