The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class

A solid and entertaining look at one of my favorite intersections: economics and animal behavior, as demonstrated by class hierarchies and irrational consumption.

The main thesis of the book is that, in this crazy post-modern, post-industrial, declining West, we're experiencing increasing class stratification via new (zany!) forms of conspicuous consumption (the finest breastfeeding accessories!) coupled with inequality-exacerbating “inconspicuous” consumption (the finest tutors, the finest healthcare). Elizabeth Currid-Halkett is a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, and the book is a fairly solid combo of quantitative research (though it is awash, I say, AWASH in frustratingly weakly-identified correlations), as well as a general lit review of interesting economists and sociologists: Thomas Picketty, William Easterly, Tyler Cowan, Ed Glaeser, a bunch of other notables.

It spoke my language, and it spoke right to me: especially since I am, by Currid-Halkett's definition, a member of the “aspirational class” (basically the new bourgeoisie). As such, a lot of the behaviors and “lifestyle choices” she described were cringe-inducingly on-point.

But let's back up! Imagine, if you will, the Past, when the wealthy sought to differentiate themselves by buying relatively scarce, expensive goods. Silverware, fine china, rugs, etc. Thanks to globalization and industrial development, most consumer goods have become very cheap and spending yourself into debt has become normalized - and so the wealthy have, since the 90s or so, needed to find fresh new ways to differentiate themselves. Currid-Halkett describes a lot of these new forms of conspicuous consumption, especially as mediated by America's myth of a classless society. She makes some interesting points about a new “aspirational” class, which has blurred income boundaries (e.g. the hipster earning $30k vs. the tech C-level executive earning $200k) but shared values and similar signaling. She talks a lot about how “value-driven” consumption and production has risen in a post-modern world, and how these behaviors - for example, to buy organic food, to breastfeed, to buy “fair trade” coffee - are all imbued with moral weight, even if they pretend to be completely detached from basic economic realities and privilege.

The book's sections were super in my wheelhouse as well: childbirth and childrearing, food, and urban living as giant (secret) signals of class wrapped up and presented as signals of knowledge and good (liberal) values. Also, the worship of productivity, and the values of “aspirational” class people to “buy time” and to make their leisure time “productive”. Shit, man, I was listening to this as an audiobook on 1.8x speed while exercising - i.e. I was LITERALLY DOING WHAT SHE WAS DESCRIBING - all so I could “perform” my class: performing my well-read-ness (thanks, Goodreads platform), performing my health savviness (thanks, disposal income for gym membership), performing my productivity (multitasking! no second left unturned!), and so on.

The section on food was in the same vein - basically, Whole Foods/Paycheck is a ruse of marketing - but here, I had to dig in my heels, because Big Food in America is a big issue in my heart, and I do think Whole Foods offers (AT LEAST ON THE CHEESE FRONT) some light. And yes, you pay through the nose for it. Good food should not only be for the rich!!! But, as the Italian chefs said at a cooking class I took a while ago (allow me to perform my rich, cultural knowledge), the best place to get Italian ingredients is... Whole Foods.

Speaking of cheese, two things kinda grated on me about the book.

First, Currid-Halkett's supplies ample, ample quantitative research. Unfortunately, all of this is marred by (a) the inherent, philosophical problems of measuring consumption (I was reminded of Angus Deaton's meticulous agonies over how to define a consumption bundle) and (b) AAALLLLL of this was correlated with AAAALLL the rest of it. There's nothing we can really do about (b) - you can't really randomize class... - but it was dizzying and frustrating how incredibly entangled all these data points were. Example: one of C-H's BIG points is that the aspirational/upper classes are spending increasingly more on “inconspicuous” consumption goods: that is, goods that offer huge advantages but aren't on display. Namely, education - health - childcare. But... all those “inconspicuous” goods have just gotten WAY MORE EXPENSIVE in the last 30 years -

See this chart by the American Enterprise Institute

- and this is something C-H only vaguely acknowledges. But this confuses everything! If these goods are getting more pricey, then everyone should be spending more, in absolute terms, on them. And the poor should be spending more, as a % of income. If they're NOT, then that needs explaining. Is there a binary “drop-off” point at which the poor just STOP spending on this stuff (e.g. you can't buy part of a college education)? This wasn't explored/discussed/disentangled enough.

My second critique - and this is more of a wish - is that C-H never acknowledges the very interesting animal behavior/hairless ape hierarchy stuff that, well, drives the whole business of class and preening consumption anyway. Okay, okay, she's not an animal behaviorist or biologist, but this is such a missed opportunity! Econ in general is not the smartest about this (the myth of homo economicus - i.e. a rational agent - is still the core of things, and behavioral economics - i .e. the acknowledgement that we're systematically irrational, i.e. that we're human beings - is a recent, late 20th century development; when will we take the next step and realize that we're not just human, we're, ahem, animal). But I think it's SO INTERESTING that (a) we're apes and thus (b) we have weird social hierarchies built-in that (c) manifest via economic systems like money, “work” and spending. Man. MAAAN. Someone should write THAT book - and they can call it Animal Spirits!