I’m currently attending the Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (CADAAD) conference in Budapest. Yesterday’s
keynote was about elite products/services and discursive construction of
luxury. The speaker (Crispin Thurlow) opened his talk with a personal story of
losing his membership in the British Airways “Elite” Club after his husband and
he adopted a child. He described the benefits of the elite programs, examined
the symbolic construction of the elite, talked about luxury resorts, etc. When
the talk was over, a keynote speaker who gave her talk the day before raised
her hand and suggested that it’s important to distinguish between “luxury” and “practicality.”
She explained that, as a frequent traveler, she values some of the elite benefits,
such as having a more comfortable place to wait for flights, being able to take
a shower, etc. She concluded that those are not about luxury but practicality.
For me, this comment raises interesting questions about the
relativity of luxury and the limits of scholarly reflexivity. For one, the
distinction between luxury and practicality is rather arbitrary and depends on
the positionality of the speaker. Wouldn’t a person who suffers from hunger and
thirst consider a luxury the idea of transatlantic travel, not to mention taking
a shower while waiting for a plane? I’m also thinking about the potential danger
of being securely positioned as an expert who reflectively examines the world
and constructs a social critique. The expert status may obscure the extent to
which this person and his/her evaluations are implicated in the system of
power/knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment