Why are we “perceived” through what we own?

In the 21st century, we have reached levels of consumerism that would have been shocking to earlier generations. Trends emerge and disappear almost as quickly as the seasons change, yet our instinct as human beings is still to claim some part of those trends as a show of status. Owning the latest clothing brand or carrying the newest bag has become a marker of social class. Those who cannot acquire the “next big thing” are often seen, consciously or unconsciously, as lower in the social hierarchy.

This theme is emphasised in David Ruth’s Dressed to Kill: Style, Consumption and the Gangster. Ruth explores how fashion shaped and defined the identity of the gangster. Clothing carried cultural weight: “Pin stripe tailoring, diamond stickpin and silk shirt proclaimed him a gangster and a gang victim.” (Ruth 63) In this world, style became more than appearance—it was a label. To own certain pieces of clothing was to be immediately placed into a category. Success was measured not by personal character but by possessions, from the car one drove to whether one’s apartment was properly furnished.(Ruth 66)

In this sense, the gangster’s pursuit of status reveals a sharp tension with the American Dream. While the dream celebrates success through hard work, the gangster achieved it through illegal means. Yet both paths are united by the same logic: wealth and material possessions are the clearest signs of having “made it.” This raises a provocative question—does the gangster’s way of life fall outside the American Dream, or is it simply a faster route toward the same goal?

What stands out most in Ruth’s analysis is how familiar this materialism feels today. If anything, it has only intensified. Consumerism now moves at a relentless pace, with trends driven by social media and mass marketing. Individuality is increasingly sacrificed for the sake of “keeping up” and signalling belonging. Reading this piece, I was struck by how little has changed: then as now, society often values people not for who they are, but for what they own.

« »