Is there a term for rejecting something based on the people who like it?
September 11, 2014 11:57 AM Subscribe
Is there a formal term for situations where a person chooses not to buy something (or adopt some behavior) because the people who have bought it are "not like me"?
For example, in grad school, I remember one student saying that he wasn't sure if he would like They Might Be Giants, because there was another student who was socially awkward who liked TMBG a lot. His decision wasn't based on the music itself, but rather the people who liked it.
Other examples might include buying a Prius ("only a tree hugger would buy that, and I'm not a tree hugger"), play Dungeons and Dragons ("only a geek would do that"), wear Burberry ("only a chav would do that"), and so on. (Note that I'm not making any judgement calls here, I'm just trying to give some possible examples)
It sounds a bit related to "no true Scotsman" as well as the concept of in-group and out-group, but those don't quite capture what I'm looking for.
For example, in grad school, I remember one student saying that he wasn't sure if he would like They Might Be Giants, because there was another student who was socially awkward who liked TMBG a lot. His decision wasn't based on the music itself, but rather the people who liked it.
Other examples might include buying a Prius ("only a tree hugger would buy that, and I'm not a tree hugger"), play Dungeons and Dragons ("only a geek would do that"), wear Burberry ("only a chav would do that"), and so on. (Note that I'm not making any judgement calls here, I'm just trying to give some possible examples)
It sounds a bit related to "no true Scotsman" as well as the concept of in-group and out-group, but those don't quite capture what I'm looking for.
elitism?
posted by bruce at 12:14 PM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by bruce at 12:14 PM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Best answer: In the academic world, you're talking about status, which of course is used in a narrow precisely defined way, not the lay way. One of the key determinants of status is affiliations, including the affiliation between a company or brand to particular kinds of consumers.
The key book on this is Status Signals by Joel Podlny, once an academic, now at Apple, last I heard.
The thing you talk about -- contamination based on low-status (meaning people one does not want to see oneself as by affiliating with the same brands) consumers -- is a big thing in the book, but only alluded to in the book description here:
"Along the way, he shows how corporate strategists, tempted by the profits of a market that would negatively affect their status, consider not only whether to enter the market but also whether they can alter the public's perception of the market. "
Where the negative effect of entering a market that the quote speaks of is affiliation with consumers in that market, resulting in lower status for the brand and thus fewer purchases from the higher status market.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:20 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
The key book on this is Status Signals by Joel Podlny, once an academic, now at Apple, last I heard.
The thing you talk about -- contamination based on low-status (meaning people one does not want to see oneself as by affiliating with the same brands) consumers -- is a big thing in the book, but only alluded to in the book description here:
"Along the way, he shows how corporate strategists, tempted by the profits of a market that would negatively affect their status, consider not only whether to enter the market but also whether they can alter the public's perception of the market. "
Where the negative effect of entering a market that the quote speaks of is affiliation with consumers in that market, resulting in lower status for the brand and thus fewer purchases from the higher status market.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:20 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Possibly the term that you're looking for is a "positional good", which captures a lot of what you're describing. This Wikipedia article explains it reasonably well; but I became acquainted with the term through reading this post a few months ago, which maybe explains the term more clearly (and I should note that I am not endorsing or otherwise the argument of that second link by posting it).
posted by ClaireBear at 12:22 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by ClaireBear at 12:22 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Guilt by association, maybe.
posted by 2bucksplus at 12:24 PM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by 2bucksplus at 12:24 PM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The concept of habitus might be helpful here, as well (though it's not an exact fit). It's a concept most worked out by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (adopted from earlier scholars). One of his big questions was why different social classes and communities are so consistent in reproducing themselves -- that is, how do people know that something is "low class" or "geeky" or "fancy" or "appropriate to their station" or whatever? How do people find their way to the music they listen to or don't, the clothes they wear, the way they prepare food or carry themselves? His argument was that a whole set of modes of social being, from clothes and hobbies to accent and posture, are your "habitus," as in both "habits" and "habitat." You feel more at home when you recognize the habitus around you, and you reinforce it with the rhythm of your habits and choices. Public declarations of preference are both "what you like" and also "what you're like," helping you sort yourself and others into their place in the social arrangement. It provides a kind of code that helps the different classes "keep to their own" and maintain relationships of power and privilege in a society that prides itself on equality and mobility (he did his empirical work mostly in France). It can cut both ways -- something can be adopted by particular class (like Burberry) who change how it signals, and people who might previously have used it, however unconsciously, to reflect their allegiances now avoid it.
So a way of thinking about your question is that all the people in your examples are making a "habitus decision" -- it's not really about pleasure/efficiency/money/etc, it's about identifying where they belong, and how they identify, and using music, hobbies, cars, etc. to sort and distinguish themselves.
posted by deathmarch to epistemic closure at 1:10 PM on September 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
So a way of thinking about your question is that all the people in your examples are making a "habitus decision" -- it's not really about pleasure/efficiency/money/etc, it's about identifying where they belong, and how they identify, and using music, hobbies, cars, etc. to sort and distinguish themselves.
posted by deathmarch to epistemic closure at 1:10 PM on September 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
A snob is a snob.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 1:59 PM on September 11, 2014
posted by Lesser Shrew at 1:59 PM on September 11, 2014
Nietzsche used the term "ressentiment," which I paraphrase in this context as deciding what to do based on the actions of people you don't like.
posted by rhizome at 3:22 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 3:22 PM on September 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I realize I'm not hitting the mark here when it comes to finding a word or term to encapsulate the above, but your question raises another question that I think you'd find equally interesting.
"Identity through consumption" was tossed around a lot when I was a cultural anthropology student. It's the idea that in some cultures, what people choose to buy or like ("consume") is based on how they perceive themselves, and how they hope others will perceive them. In that way, when we are vocal with others about what we buy/like or don't buy/like and why we do or don't buy/like it, we are also 'performing' our identity through consumption. This can be compared to how people "perform" gender or "perform" ethnicity/race. It's interesting how much we focus on our 'consumption' as a defining factor of who we are. Choosing to buy a craft IPA rather than a Coors Light has a lot to do with what we taste and enjoy on a personal level --- of course. I'm not discounting authentic, personal pleasure for certain things. But for someone who sees him or herself as a belonging to a particular social group - the 'alternative' crowd/hipsters, 1st amendment defenders, gamers, whatever - consumption becomes critical to maintaining one's sense of social standing and authenticity as a member of said group. Somehow, if we fail to consume, our identity will unravel and be revealed to others as some kind of sham. (And here's where I could go on about Benedict Anderson's 'imagined communities' and the idea that groups/communities are the work of the imagination of those who perceive themselves as belonging to them.)
posted by nightrecordings at 4:36 PM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Identity through consumption" was tossed around a lot when I was a cultural anthropology student. It's the idea that in some cultures, what people choose to buy or like ("consume") is based on how they perceive themselves, and how they hope others will perceive them. In that way, when we are vocal with others about what we buy/like or don't buy/like and why we do or don't buy/like it, we are also 'performing' our identity through consumption. This can be compared to how people "perform" gender or "perform" ethnicity/race. It's interesting how much we focus on our 'consumption' as a defining factor of who we are. Choosing to buy a craft IPA rather than a Coors Light has a lot to do with what we taste and enjoy on a personal level --- of course. I'm not discounting authentic, personal pleasure for certain things. But for someone who sees him or herself as a belonging to a particular social group - the 'alternative' crowd/hipsters, 1st amendment defenders, gamers, whatever - consumption becomes critical to maintaining one's sense of social standing and authenticity as a member of said group. Somehow, if we fail to consume, our identity will unravel and be revealed to others as some kind of sham. (And here's where I could go on about Benedict Anderson's 'imagined communities' and the idea that groups/communities are the work of the imagination of those who perceive themselves as belonging to them.)
posted by nightrecordings at 4:36 PM on September 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Classism? I heard once that, in the UK, the lower class buy lotto tickets because they aspire to be middle class, but the middle-class never buy lotto tickets because upper-class people don't buy lotto tickets.
posted by kisch mokusch at 6:21 PM on September 11, 2014
posted by kisch mokusch at 6:21 PM on September 11, 2014
What we're talking about here is basically snobbery. Sorry OP, but it was the Burberry thing that gave you away.
On lottery tickets in the UK - yes, overwhelmingly it's working class people who buy them. It doesn't take much imagination to see why. They won't join the "middle class", whatever that is, if they win - but they'll certainly be able to stop working. People who have assets other than their labour aren't compelled to work anyway, so they don't feel the same desperation.
posted by rd45 at 12:24 AM on September 12, 2014
On lottery tickets in the UK - yes, overwhelmingly it's working class people who buy them. It doesn't take much imagination to see why. They won't join the "middle class", whatever that is, if they win - but they'll certainly be able to stop working. People who have assets other than their labour aren't compelled to work anyway, so they don't feel the same desperation.
posted by rd45 at 12:24 AM on September 12, 2014
3rding snobbery. I'm often guilty of it myself!
posted by STFUDonnie at 6:21 AM on September 12, 2014
posted by STFUDonnie at 6:21 AM on September 12, 2014
I see it as a small part of in-group-out-group bias, AKA in-group-favoritism, and as such doesn't have a formal term. It's a given that most people act in ways consistent with their identities, so I can see why academics wouldn't give it a name. It's like until the phrase 'thinking outside the box' came into use we never had a name for thinking inside the box because the opposite of thinking outside the box was the norm and thus didn't need special notice. FWIW, I have a masters in Social Psychology, the field which studies In-group-favoritism.
posted by Homer42 at 8:07 AM on September 12, 2014
posted by Homer42 at 8:07 AM on September 12, 2014
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by doreur at 12:10 PM on September 11, 2014 [4 favorites]