What is a Luxury Belief, Anyway?
Contra Rob Henderson (kind of)
Conservative writers often criticize so-called “luxury beliefs” espoused by out-of-touch elites. Rob Henderson, the writer who coined the term, generally describes them as “ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class but often inflict real costs on the lower classes.” Common examples given of modern luxury beliefs include “defund/abolish the police”, drug legalization and use, going into the trades, joining the military, having a child out of wedlock, and non-monogamy.
But are these all “luxury beliefs”? What actually makes a belief a luxury belief, versus just an opinion?
In order for “luxury beliefs” to be a coherent category, it has to leave space for ordinary opinions which are not luxury beliefs. Otherwise, any opinion that an upper-class person happens to hold—for any reason—could be called a luxury belief. There are many opinions and views out there that members of the Professional Managerial Class (PMC) sincerely espouse and practice in daily life. Any definition of luxury beliefs has to exclude views like supporting index funds, drinking coffee, regular exercise, reading books, and so on.
Rob Henderson has fleshed out this idea across several pieces over the years, and the concept permeates his work. However, the more I read from him, the more that his categorization seems inconsistent.
Henderson emphasizes that luxury beliefs are primarily a status ritual. A rich person espouses a luxury belief, and then their peers nod and give them status points. Meanwhile, everyone in attendance understands that nobody actually puts these beliefs into practice.
The best example of this comes from his WSJ article:
Some would, for instance, tell me about the admiration they had for the military, or how trade schools were just as respectable as college, or how college was not necessary to be successful. But when I asked them if they would encourage their own children to enlist or become a plumber or an electrician rather than apply to college, they would demur or change the subject.
A rich person says one thing (”the trades are just as respectable as white-collar jobs”) while knowing full well that the trades are low-status and dangerous, and acts accordingly. Henderson concludes that, since they evidently don’t believe that working in the trades is good, they must be faking it for social clout instead.
Consider the “Champagne Socialists” of yesteryear, where upper-class people would espouse sympathy for the proletariat and claim to want to smash capitalism, while everyone present was sitting on a trust fund.
On the other hand, Henderson also gives the example of supporting drug legalization and drug use. Rich people can indulge in drugs once in a while without it ruining their lives, while lower class people more often spiral into addiction. Here, the upper class does practice the espoused belief (”Drugs are fine and shouldn’t be banned”), albeit in moderation. When rich people do fall into addiction, they can pay for their drugs without going bankrupt, they can hire lawyers to deal with any legal consequences, and they can afford to go to rehab. Addiction doesn’t usually ruin their lives.
Drug use is very different for the lower classes. Rob puts it bluntly, still in the WSJ piece (emphasis added):
Reflecting on my own experiences with alcohol, if drugs had been legal and easily accessible when I was 15, you wouldn’t be reading this. My birth mother succumbed to drug addiction soon after I was born. I haven’t seen her since I was a child. All my foster siblings’ parents were addicts or had a mental health condition, often triggered by drug use.
These two examples—going to trade school, doing drugs—are very different. What’s going on? Are rich people playing status games with empty words, or are they indulging in a luxury activity that only they can afford?
There’s definitely a there there. Henderson is gesturing at a real phenomenon. Is it possible to square the two examples?
I think so. I propose that a belief becomes a luxury belief when:
The believer wants to be seen as the type of person who believes it,
It is costly to espouse,
It is costly to practice, and
The believer can afford these costs because of their membership in the upper class.
The Four Kinds of Motivation
Damon Sasi proposed in 2022 that the question “Why are you doing X?” has four broad answers:
I like doing X.
I want X to be done.
I want to be the type of person who does X.
I want to be seen as the type of person who does X.
Levels 1 and 3 have to do with internal motivation. Level 2 can be either internal or external, depending on why the person wants the activity to be done. Level 4 is entirely external motivation and status signaling.
There is a common trope of someone who is only doing an activity because they want the social status of “Being an Xer,” while disliking the actual activity and deriding the ones who do it for fun.
We can apply this same framework to beliefs:
I think X is true/good.
I want X to be implemented.
I want to be the type of person who endorses X.
I want to be seen as the type of person who endorses X.
Much like with activities, there is a corresponding trope of someone who only endorses a belief because they want to be seen as a believer, regardless of whether they sincerely believe that the idea is true or good at scale.
A luxury belief is when the signaling is done by an upper class person in order to gain status among fellow upper class people.
Costly Beliefs
The sense in which a belief can be “costly” is twofold. There is a cost to espouse a belief, and a cost to practice it.
A belief is costly to espouse when it requires special knowledge and shibboleths. Someone must spend time studying the correct vocabulary and mannerisms in order to pass as a believer. The more esoteric and impenetrable, the better. Lower class people do not have the time to waste on such pursuits; they’re too busy struggling to survive.
Espousing a belief can also carry negative social costs. This is why Henderson specifies that a luxury belief must be somewhat counter to the “mainstream” or lower class view—it makes the believer look weird to the hoi polloi, but confers status when displayed among other elites.
The costs to practice a belief are more obvious—e.g. the cost to buy drugs, the cost of going to rehab. Alternatively, a person espousing a luxury belief might understand full well the practical cost, and not pay it at all—e.g. endorsing the trades while not going to trade school, supporting drug legalization while not doing drugs.
Not all costly beliefs are luxury beliefs. Simply having a weird costly counterculture belief is not enough—it must be a costly belief whose public display confers status from the other members of the elite.
Not all costs are high. If a belief’s cost is low enough for anyone to pay, then it ceases to be a useful status signal. These beliefs must come with a hefty price tag—either in money, time, or social status—to be a luxury meant only for the rich.
So that’s how support for the trades and support for drug legalization could both be considered luxury beliefs. The important part is that a belief is costly to practice, not necessarily whether the espouser actually pays it.
Go back to Henderson’s list of examples: drug legalization and use, going into the trades, joining the military, “abolish/defund the police,” having a child out of wedlock, and non-monogamy. We’ve covered the first three, but do they all fit?
Click here for Part 2, where I go through these criteria to figure out whether polyamory counts as a luxury belief.
Exciting to see the draft being split into several pieces! Looking forward to reading other ones!