By+Elizabeth+Currid-Halkett

In 1899， the economist Thorstein Veblen2 observed that silver spoons and corsets were markers of elite social position. He coined the phrase “conspicuous consumption” to denote the way that material objects were paraded3 as indicators of social position and status. More than 100 years later， conspicuous consumption is still part of the contemporary capitalist landscape， and yet today， luxury goods are significantly more accessible than in Veblens time. This deluge4 of accessible luxury is a function of the massproduction economy of the 20th century， the outsourcing of production to China， and the cultivation of emerging markets where labour and materials are cheap. At the same time， weve seen the arrival of a middle-class consumer market that demands more material goods at cheaper price points.

However， the democratisation of consumer goods has made them far less useful as a means of displaying status. In the face of rising social inequality， both the rich and the middle classes own fancy TVs and nice handbags. They both lease SUVs， take airplanes， and go on cruises. On the surface， the ostensible5 consumer objects favoured by these two groups no longer reside in two completely different universes.

Given that everyone can now buy designer handbags and new cars， the rich have taken to using much more tacit signifiers of their social position. Yes， oligarchs6 and the superrich still show off their wealth with yachts and Bentleys and gated mansions. But the dramatic changes in elite spending are driven by a well-to-do， educated elite， or what I call the “aspirational class”. This new elite cements its status through prizing knowledge and building cultural capital， not to mention the spending habits that go with it—preferring to spend on services， education and human-capital investments over purely material goods. These new status behaviours are what I call “inconspicuous consumption”.

The rise of the aspirational class and its consumer habits is perhaps most salient7 in the United States. The US Consumer Expenditure Survey data reveals that， since 2007， the countrys top 1 per cent （people earning upwards of $300，000 per year） are spending significantly less on material goods， while middle-income groups （earning approximately $70，000 per year） are spending the same， and their trend is upward. Eschewing8 an overt materialism， the rich are investing significantly more in education， retirement and health—all of which are immaterial， yet cost many times more than any handbag a middle-income consumer might buy.endprint

The vast chasm9 between middle-income and top 1 per cent spending on education in the US is particularly concerning because， unlike material goods， education has become more and more expensive in recent decades. Thus， there is a greater need to devote financial resources to education to be able to afford it at all. According to Consumer Expenditure Survey data from 2003—2013， the price of college tuition increased 80 per cent， while the cost of womens apparel10 increased by just 6 per cent over the same period.

While much inconspicuous consumption is extremely expensive， it shows itself through less expensive but equally pronounced signaling—from reading The Economist to buying pasture-raised eggs. Inconspicuous consumption in other words， has become a shorthand11 through which the new elite signal their cultural capital to one another. In lockstep with the invoice for private preschool comes the knowledge that one should pack the lunchbox with quinoa crackers and organic fruit.12 One might think these culinary13 practices are a commonplace example of modern-day motherhood， but one only needs to step outside the upper-middleclass bubbles of the coastal cities of the US to observe very different lunch-bag norms， consisting of processed snacks and practically no fruit.

Knowing these seemingly inexpensive social norms is itself a rite of passage14 into todays aspirational class. And that rite is far from costless： The Economist subscription might set one back only $100， but the awareness to subscribe and be seen with it tucked in ones bag is likely the iterative result of spending time in elite social milieus and expensive educational institutions that prize this publication and discuss its contents.15

Perhaps most importantly， the new investment in inconspicuous consumption reproduces privilege in a way that previous conspicuous consumption could not. Knowing which New Yorker articles to reference or what small talk16 to engage in at the local farmers market enables and displays the acquisition of cultural capital， thereby providing entry into social networks that， in turn， help to pave the way to elite jobs， key social and professional contacts， and private schools. In short， inconspicuous consumption confers social mobility.

More profoundly， investment in education， healthcare and retirement has a notable impact on consumers quality of life， and also on the future life chances of the next generation. Inconspicuous consumption—whether breastfeeding17 or education—is a means to a better quality of life and improved social mobility for ones own children， whereas conspicuous consumption is merely an end in itself—simply ostentation. For todays aspirational class， inconspicuous consumption choices secure and preserve social status， even if they do not necessarily display it.endprint

1899年，經济学家托尔斯坦·凡勃伦评述称银质汤匙与束腰衣是精英阶层的标志。他创造了“炫耀性消费”一词来表明物质商品如何被炫耀成社会地位与阶层的标志。一百多年之后，炫耀性消费仍然是当代资本主义世界的一部分，然而奢侈品如今获得起来要远比凡勃伦的时代容易。如今不再遥不可及的奢侈品之所以能够大量涌现，是因为20世纪是大规模生产经济的时代，生产被外包至中国，而且劳动力与原材料成本低廉的新兴市场被培养起来。与此同时，我们看到中产消费市场的到来：他们需要更多价格更低的物质商品。

然而，消费品的大众化使它们在很大程度上不再是彰显身份地位的有效手段。面对与日俱增的社会不平等，富人与中产阶级都用得起昂贵的电视机和奢华的手提包。他们都租用SUV车、搭乘飞机、乘坐游轮旅行。表面上来看，备受这两个群体青睐的炫耀性消费品不再存在于两个完全不同的世界。

由于现在人人都能买得起设计师品牌的手提包和新车，富人阶层开始用更为含蓄的方式来表达自己的社会地位。没错，寡头和超级富豪仍然用游艇、宾利车和门禁森严的豪宅来炫富，但是精英阶层消费所发生的巨大变化是由家境富裕、受过良好教育的精英（或我称之为“有抱负阶级”）所推动的。这一新精英阶级通过崇尚知识、构建文化资本来巩固其阶层，更不要说随之而来的消费习惯——他们偏好在服务、教育和人力资本上投资而非在纯物质商品上消费。这些新阶级的行为我将其称为“非炫耀性消费”。

有抱负阶层及其消费习惯的崛起或许在美国最为明显。美国消费者支出调查数据显示，2007年以来美国的前1%人群（年收入超过30万美金）在物质商品方面的花销明显减少，而中等收入人群（年收入约为七万美金）在这方面的花销则没有变化，而且有增加的趋势。富人阶层避开招摇的物质方面，转而在教育、退休和医疗方面大幅加大投资——这一切都是非物质的，然而与任何中等收入消费者可能购买的手提包比起来，所需花费要多许多倍。

中产阶级与前1%人群在教育支出之间的巨大鸿沟尤其让人担忧，因为不像物质商品，教育费用在近几十年来愈发昂贵。因此，人们更加需要将经济资源投入到教育中去才能够负担得起。2003—2013年消费者支出调查数据显示大学学费上涨80%，而女性服饰价格同期仅上涨6%。

虽然非炫耀性消费极其昂贵，但其表现方式却不那么昂贵而又同样显眼——无论是阅读《经济学人》杂志还是购买散养鸡下的蛋。换句话说，非炫耀性消费已经成为新精英阶层之间相互示意自身拥有文化资本的方便信号。如果家长有钱让孩子上私立幼儿园，那么家长一定知道应该给孩子饭盒里准备藜麦饼干和有机水果。有人或许会认为这些餐饮习惯对于现在的母亲们而言只是再寻常不过的事情，但他们只需要走出美国沿海城市的中上层阶级的生活圈子就会看到非常不一样的餐饮习惯：都是些加工零食，几乎没有水果。

了解这些似乎不算昂贵的社会规范本身就是一种加入到当今有抱负阶级的仪式。而这一仪式绝不是没有成本的：订阅《经济学人》杂志可能只需要花费100美金，然而一个人如果具备订阅该杂志的意识而且有意把这本杂志放在包里随身携带，那么这个人很可能长期出入精英社交圈，而且在崇尚这本杂志并且会探讨杂志内容的昂贵教育机构接受过教育。

或许最重要的就是在非炫耀性消费方面的新兴投资可以使阶层优势延续，而之前的炫耀性消费则不能。在当地农贸集市上，如果你知道引用哪篇《纽约客》杂志文章或者参与到什么样的闲聊中去，那么你就能够获得并且展现对文化资本的掌握，从而让你跻身某些社会关系网，而这些关系网反过来会为你获得高端的工作、建立关键的社会与职业联系，以及接触私立学校铺路。简而言之，非炫耀性消费会带来社会流动性。

更为重要的是，教育、医保与退休方面的投资对于消费者的生活质量有着重大影响，而且对于下一代未来的生活机会更是影响重大。非炫耀性消费——不论是母乳喂养或是教育——都是通往更为优质的生活、帮助孩子向社会上层流动的手段，而炫耀性消费本身就只是一种目的而已——仅仅是为了炫耀。对于当今有抱负阶级来说，非炫耀性的消费选择能够稳固、维持其社会阶层，尽管他们并不是一定要展现出来。

1. conspicuous consumption： 炫耀性消费，铺张浪费；intangibles：[复数]无形资产。

2. Thorstein Veblen： 托尔斯坦·凡勃伦（1857—1929），挪威裔美国人，经济学家、制度经济学鼻祖，但他却作为一个辛辣的社会批评家而为公众所知，代表作是《有闲阶级论》。

3. parade： 炫耀，夸示。

4. deluge： 同时涌来的大量事物。

5. ostensible： 表面上的，貌似真实的。

6. oligarch： // 寡头政治家。

7. salient： // 显著的，突出的。

8. eschew： 避开，避免。

9. chasm： 巨大差距，裂隙。

10. apparel： /（尤指不寻常或正式的）服饰，衣着。

11. shorthand： 简略的表达方式。

12. in lockstep with： 与……前后紧接，步伐一致地前进；invoice： 发票；quinoa： 藜麦。

13. culinary： 烹饪的。

14. rite of passage： （标志进入人生重要阶段的）通过仪式，成人仪式。

15. iterative： 重复的，反复的；milieu：社会环境。

16. small talk： 闲谈。

17. breastfeeding： 母乳喂养。endprint