I just read an article about how self proclaimed environmentalists buy goods labeled “green” strictly for their social status. According to the study:

“…a series of experiments showed that activating status motives led people to choose prosocial green products over more luxurious, equally priced non-green products. In line with the predicted reputational benefits of self-sacrifice, status motives increased desire for less-luxurious green products when shopping in public, but not in private. Indeed, when people considered shopping in private, status motives produced a tendency toward self-indulgence rather than self-sacrifice.”

This reminds me of an idea I’ve had meddling in my head for a while, which may seem either obvious or crazy…that all of life involves trying to impress someone. I believe we all do it, and it’s because we want to find people like ourselves or people interested in us. Whether it’s turning up your favorite song secretly hoping someone will notice your musical tastes, wearing a t-shirt “expressing” yourself, going to church or giving a nod to someone with the same model of car as you…we always have a tendency to want to reach out. Even people who are loners are looking for people like themselves, or at least secretly hoping to find someone who “understands them.” They aren’t alone though, at least I don’t think they are, I believe everyone has a longing for recognition.

Life is full of incentives and I’d say the biggest incentive is recognition; and I believe this is why some children feel detached from their parents, they feel the need for rebellion because they didn’t get the recognition they feel they deserved. This idea could explain why there is strong correlation with single parent homes and higher rate of crime. I read a paper trying to disprove this fact of single parent homes and violence saying that step-parents entering the family did not lower the crime rate. I think this ignores a lot of data, such as when did the step-parent enter the family? That’s an important question, because based on my hypothesis the family is innately tribal and thus any instability in that tribe is going to rub off on all members. Once the child passes a certain age, the child is going to be drawn to a tribe that will recognize them…such as a gang or just a group of friends with bad influences.

Apart from the connection with crime, it also has a connection with wealth. How do you prove that you’re wealthy? You waste things. Think about it, a bigger house with bigger rooms, high ceilings; bigger cars, eating at expensive restaurants, buying more expensive goods. It’s apart of life, waste is a status symbol; It may not seem like waste, but anything in excess (waste) of standard living conditions is considered wealth. When a good that once was beloved by the wealthy becomes available to the masses, the wealthy generally abandon it or improve upon it. That’s what drives societies, it’s why capitalism works. Various studies have shown that the wealthy steer toward goods that the masses can’t afford, and the poor try to obtain the goods that the wealthy can afford. In the progression of society, the poor has benefited much more from this chase, even though the rich generally do become richer in the most advanced societies…the progession of material wealth (non-monetary) generally works toward the poor. Since 1980 the rich have been a fast growing base of capital, however can we really just measure wealth in money in stocks or bonds? Since that time, the number of televisions per household has increased drastically, as graphed below:

Not only has TV ownership improved, so has home ownership, computer ownership, mobile phone ownership. While the rich have gained, so have the poor, possibly even more so. There are very few things in the U.S. which can be obtained by the rich but not the poor thanks to market forces. In the U.S. being poor currently consists of being obese, only having 2 televisions, basic cable, and one family car; in other countries it consists of one serving of rice a day, and malaria. As Milton Friedman noted in Free to Choose:

Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.

All of these advancements were in the name of trying to impress someone…raising your social status. Studies also show that productivity among men in the work place rises when women are around. How does this fit into my hypothesis? Well, men naturally try to impress women…it’s an incentive of recognition. I think my hypothesis (which I’m not sure I’ve made all-too-clear) can help explain why people are currently experiencing a faster growing need for recognition. I think this is largely an evolutionary thing, and has a lot to do with just living in a wealthy society as well. In the past 20 years the world has become much smaller, but at the same time things have drifted apart. The family is now smaller, more liberal, and much less tribal. So now people are looking for recognition outside of the family, because they can. This probably leads to a sense of dissatisfaction and it takes more and more attention to relieve the need for it…and people are less impressed, less impacted by things because our society is wealthy. So now people are finding new ways to renew their statuses, such as going “green,” people are shifting away from waste and trying to establish a political identity. People are less concerned with living the lifestyle associated with it, but instead are looking for recognition…in a very tribal manner. Then sometimes we give up the essential things for the nonessential…not because it adds real value to our lives, but because it adds the perceived value of our lives, at least in a spiritual sense. Though at the same time, perhaps it does add real value. The spirit can be killed by the lack of luxuries (see socialism.) It’s a theory, I could be wrong. I had more to say, but now it’s 2am.

“Give me the luxuries of life and I will willingly do without the necessities.” – Frank Lloyd Wright