When did reminders of meaning become substitutes for it?
When we purchase products, we aren’t always buying functionality. Oftentimes, we’re buying a symbol of a deep human desire.
This symbol is a purchasable stand-in—a proxy—for a source.
Symbols depend on sources to have any real value. For instance, a wedding ring is a beautiful symbol of love and commitment. But the ring itself means nothing—and might even hurt—if we are betrayed by our partner.
Be sure to check out the full article, Symbols vs. Sources, at Poetry Culture.
Here is a brief excerpt:
Symbols can be bought, but sources—the fundamental origins of human happiness—are generally not for sale (although money can make achieving them easier.)
We understand this intuitively—nobody seriously thinks wearing Jordans will put you in Game Six. We know an expensive suitcase can be brought to Paris but it won’t take you there automatically. We know that buying a watch won’t give you generational wealth or let you play chess with an estranged son.
But billions in marketing dollars are spent every year to convince us that symbols of happiness are the same—or more important—than actual sources. Symbols aren’t just luxury products: they’re how we show up on social media, how we dress, the accent we use, and more.
In a world of vast wealth and income inequality, luxury symbols have counterintuitively never been more important. Research suggests that economic precarity only increases lower class appetite for luxury goods. It’s almost certainly a coping mechanism, but it’s understandable.
You can’t afford a house, but you might be able to Afterpay a Gucci bag.
Here’s another link, if you’d like to read more of Symbols vs. Sources
You can also check out the Symbols vs. Sources homepage.
