In Defnese of Luxury

In the article "A Mild Defense of Luxury", James Twitchell paints a vivid picture of how luxury is perceived. He gives us a close snapshot about how we fell about luxury in our society. Our society has defined so many materials like clothing, liquor, appliances, furniture, etc., that we have created our own standard when compared to what luxury should be and how can we attain it.

Many years we classified what is considered luxury by having majestic homes and servants. What a big difference from today. These people remained in their own worlds, classifying them apart from others. They created their individual systems independent of the other, while creating an atmosphere that made them untouchable. This type of behavior was passed down from generation to generation.

Upon the birth of the industrial market, came a new blood line. These people became the new generation who brought along with them a new make up of wealthiness. These people presented a newer sense of luxury that gave them a newer, differentiated social class and status.

In the olden era, society's elite or rich, were merely considered the older males who took up residence in areas or communities that reeked of high rent and social status. These people chose to stay in these areas thus creating a genre of wealthy status. As time progressed, a newer generation of wealthy people moved into those communities. With

them, they bought their new attitudes and own ideologies of what being wealthy should be like. During this time, people's level of wealth changed, but their happiness levels remained the same.

For the most part, being rich or wealthy doesn't guarantee happiness. Society's mindset has been programmed to think that they will be happy if we can attain all of the material things that require the most amount of money. Society has maintained its own standards within communities, to consider one to be rich or wealthy. This article has given focus to our individual quest to obtain the luxury lifestyle. It is in depths look at equating happiness with obtaining material possessions versus happiness in other areas of ones life.

A definition of luxury is defined as something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity or living with things that are not really needed. How can one give a defense of something that isn't necessary and compare it with happiness or being content? Happiness is attained just like the life of luxury. In all actuality, you don't need to be happy. You seek out stimuli to make you feel good. "Luxury is no longer something 'out there,' restricted by income levels, personal wealth, or spending budgets. It's an experience everyone wants and believes they deserve." (Danziger).

Can we actually be happy having reached the ladder of success in terms of material possessions? Living the life of luxury has nowadays been abused and overrated. Because there is nothing else to look forward to in terms of living in the highest of luxury, many are seeking the life like it used to be. Nowadays, we see many things that that we saw in the past. We can now walk into a clothing store and notice something that we have worn or seen when we were young children. A good example of this is the vintage clothing. This clothing represents a time when our society was not focused on spending a large amount of cash for a pair of jeans or a t-shirt. We are now trying to reserve what once was because there's nothing else to look forward to. Have we run out of ideas? Has society reached its highest point in terms of what it can accomplish? Anyone can formulate their individual opinions towards this question. In my opinion, society will never reach that highest point of luxury because this is an on going process.

In the article of "The Free Market,