We have recently moved the
Creative Class Exchange.

Please update your bookmarks with our new address at www.creativeclass.com

We look forward to your comments and discussion.

Thank you.

Posts by Author

  • Global Trends
  • Ask Rana: Advice on Work, Life and Play
  • Urban Digs, Creative Class Communities
  • Workplace
  • Entrepreneurship, Creative Class Strategies
  • Creative Class Research and Indicators
  • Architecture + Design

Video Interview

Watch a Speech

Hear a Speech




January 31, 2007

Richard Florida

Design and class

« Dangerous politics of a spiky world | Main | Exhibition title of the year »

Over at the design blog, Drawing on Promises, "Blank" raises some intriguing questions about the relationship between design and social class.

Like it or not, design has class. And no, I don’t mean it's classy as in elegant or fashionable, although design is a very trendy business world accessory of late. And I don't mean design has class as in groups that share the same common attributes. I mean design has class as in an artificial social hierarchy--much of it self inflicted. This more subtle definition of class creates a division where one group is perceived as "better" or "higher" or "more refined" than the other. This trend is nothing new. Art, architecture, literature, culture, music, etc. all have created similar class systems. And we as designers are somewhat guilty for creating artificial divisions in design. Let me explain.

I recently listened to an online video given by Malcom Gladwell, well known author of the Tipping Point and Blink. He tells the story of how in the early '70's Grey Poupon Dijon mustard broke into a field dominated by two plain yellow mustards. How? First, they created a different type of mustard that was spicy and brown. Then through design and advertising they created an artificial mustard social class, where plain yellow mustards should be perceived as "common" and Grey Poupon as "upper class" mustard. Grey Poupon became a mustard to aspire to, not merely consume. Soon, many in advertising and design were following their lead, creating products and services that were based on aspiration and social hierarchy where there had been none before. Think computers: Mac (creative class) vs PC (corporate working class). Think cars: Ford (working class) vs BMW (upper crust).

This last sentence really caught my attention. Could it be that part of the problem at Ford and GM goes far beyond - and far deeper - than the quality and performance of their cars - that at least part of the problem is the way their cars are perceived as conveying a certain class status?  More to the point, with all the talk over niche markets and long-tails, could it be that the perception of social class remains a powerful tool in marketing to consumer groups? Your thoughts?

There used to be only two manufacturers of spaghetti sauce on the national scene: Ragu and Prego. Ragu dominated the market. Their sauces were based on what was considered at the time to be the perfect, authentic Italian pasta sauce: thin and watery with one basic flavor. Spaghetti sauce makers aspired to a single perfect sauce in the mould of Grey Poupon. Ragu hired a fellow to help them revive their struggling product in the face of the dominant Ragu sauce. What he discovered was that there is no perfect sauce to aspire to. There are perfect sauces. In other words, there is no class system (social or aspirational) in spaghetti sauce. There are many classes (i.e. different kinds) of spaghetti sauce that would appeal to many different folks. Interestingly, he found that one third Americans actually like chunky sauce versus the authentic Italian thin, watery sauce. Prego created a chunky sauce plus 20 other variations and began to dominate the sauce market. So, what does this have to do with design again?
  Think back to the last time you presented several design concepts to a client. And of course there was one concept you thought was the perfect solution. We'll call it the Poupon concept. The others were not as "good" for whatever reason. And of course, the client chose one of the "weaker" concepts. Or maybe you just presented a single, Pouponesque concept and the client rejected it. We all know how that feels. You argue your point and still the client wants some "lower class" concept. Maybe they even pull out something that their friend did for them as an example. You hold your head (and nose) high and try not to look too offended by the assumption that this concept could be in the same design "class" as yours.
  Like it or not, we're creating an unnecessary class system in design. One design is not in a higher social class than another any more than Dijion is in a higher social status than yellow mustard. They are just computers with different strengths and weaknesses. The sooner we recognize that design should be devoid of social hierarchy, the more creative both designer and the designed will become.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Design and class:



I disagree with the final sentence 'Like it or not, we're creating an unnecessary class system in design. One design is not in a higher social class than another any more than Dijion is in a higher social status than yellow mustard. They are just computers with different strengths and weaknesses'

This is one of the roles of design, to act as a means of signalling personal taste, values and need to belong to (or stand out from) the crowd. It has nothing to do with the designer (except that of they understand it, they can enhance the effect) - if we really did do as this writer suggests, it wouldn't change a thing.

Design has long been seen as a marker of class, from Simmel and Veblen's analyses of fashion and taste (the concept of 'conspicuous consumption', for example, whereby purchasing expensive clothes made of fragile material was the only way to signal that you had money and didn't have to work for a living - that's what drove fashion, not designers).
Pierre Bourdieu analysed the role that design has as a marker of class in 'Distinction', while in 'From aesthetic principles to collective sentiments: The logics of everyday judgements of taste', Ian Woodward and Michael Emmison suggest taste is more a means of managing relationships (Poetics 29 (2001) pp 295-316 - I have a PDF if interested)

I give a quick overview of some of these theories in the second chapter of my own book, 'Visual Communication: From Theory to Practice' (apologies for the plug - details on my home page).


Jonathan - Very nicely put. It seems to me that with all the talk of fracturing and niches, consumption patterns still follow broad and coherent social patterns. There may be more indie bands out there for example, but the person buying this stuff may be buying stuff from lot's of bands, and lot's of bebop, and lot's of sengalese music.... And like you say, Simmel and Veblen explained this a long time ago. Actually, Jon Seabrook's recent take on this "Nobrow" ain't bad either. Your stuff is terrific too.

The comments to this entry are closed.