Oppression Of The Differences Between Luxury And Social Class

The concept of luxury has played a very important role throughout history to differentiate between the social class and is even prevalent now in the present. Historically, luxury has only been the privilege of the ruling and the aristocratic class-world of old money and royalty (Wong and Ahuvia,1998) Luxury is particularly slippery to define. A strong element of human involvement, very limited supply and the recognition of value by others are key components‖ (Cornell 2002, p. 47). The word luxury ―defines beauty; it is art applied to functional items. Luxury items provide extra pleasure and flatter all senses at once . Luxury is the appendage of the ruling classes‖ (Kapferer 1997, p. 253). Whereas necessities are utilitarian objects that relieve

In contrast to Mandeville, Sombart maintains that luxury can be meaningfully defined through its relationship to necessity, even if what is necessary is not fixed. Luxury is a “relational concept” (Relationsbegriff), whose content becomes intelligible when one knows what ‘the necessary’ is.
What is deemed necessary differs “according to the climate of the historical epoch”, but can be determined either by subjective judgment that is ethical or measured against some kind of objective yardstick – a basic human physiological minimum (Notdurft) or what Sombart calls cultural necessity (Kulturnotdurft) (Sombart, 92,

He states that luxury was a moral issue until the seventeenth century. In Classical Greek thought, luxurious living was a concern because it was believed to be unhealthy, corrupt individual and society, and threaten the very existence of the polis. Men who lived a life of luxury were thought to become soft and emasculated, which made them incapable as warriors, undermining the polis’ ability to defend itself and its interests. Furthermore, luxury was seen to incite maleficent desires which took society beyond the concern for need satisfaction. Unlike needs, desires were boundless and insatiable; they led to invidious comparison, envy and dispute, and therefore had to be kept in check. Greek philosophers, such as Plato, saw luxury as a threat to the social order, subject to measures of control and moderation. The Romans adopted key ideas and assumptions on luxury from the Greek, but added issues of their own and went further in institutionalizing means for regulating it. Luxury was a preoccupation of both Roman moralists and legislators. Their discussions of virtue and corruption emerged in response to Rome’s perceived decadence, and lead to the first sumptuary laws. Examples included the regulation of women’s dress (no colored robes) and possession of gold (Lex Oppia) and expenditures on feast days (Lex Fannia) limiting the number of non-family guests