status symbols and luxury goods 51
These constant processes of emulation and differentiation stand at the
heart of the “trickle down” model of symbol diffusion and lead to an inher
ent fluidity in the structure of status symbols. Social mobility, technological
changes, and symbol diffusion ensure that no symbol survives forever. Once
too many “imposters” gain access to a certain status symbol, an observer
can no longer differentiate between legitimate members of that social class
and those who carry “fake ID cards.” Hence, those who wish to separate
themselves from pretentious “illegitimate” newcomers are forced to rein
vent new status symbols in the hope of creating more effective restrictions
on new admissions to their exclusive club.^18
In order to protect their advantageous position, the upper classes depend
on credible status symbols. Such symbols must include restrictive mecha
nisms that reduce the possibility of fraud and thus limit social mobility
and curb wasteful consumption cycles. Increasing the probability of fraud
detection can generate deterrence, because being exposed as an imposter
inflicts “immediate humiliation and sometimes permanent loss of reputa
tion” (Goffman 1959 , 50 ). In other words, credible status symbols require
an effective test of status (Goffman 1951 , 296 ).^19 Goffman suggests several
structures of restrictions that can serve as effective tests of status. Among
those that are relevant to international relations are intrinsic restrictions
(mainly through cost and access to technology), natural restrictions, and
cultivation restrictions.
Symbols that contain intrinsic restrictions are directly connected to the
property they represent (Goffman 1951 , 298 ). Only a wealthy actor can
purchase an extortionately expensive luxury; only a nation with advanced
technological capabilities is able to develop a space program. For Veblen,
cost is the most effective mechanism of intrinsic restriction, and thus the
consumption of luxuries offers an effective test of status for economic ca
pabilities. Intrinsic restrictions, by definition, are relatively immune to at
tempts at misrepresentation. They create very high costs for any imposters.
However, in a competitive environment an actor may decide to redistrib
ute her assets in a way that would clear enough resources for the procure
ment of the desired status symbol even if this risks the ruinous trajectory of
a “Gatsby effect.” A country can decide to invest in a large, impressive car
rier while forgoing maintenance, training, commandandcontrol systems,
or even basic defenses that could be crucial for the survivability of the vessel
in a case of actual conflict. The Thai aircraft carrier, as described in chap
ter 3 , provides an illustrative example of the Gatsby effect in international
relations. This type of misrepresentation can work in the short term, but
