Flowers as a "Liquid Asset"

[Astorre]

Recently, a curious phenomenon has been observed in local communities (community chats or used goods websites): the resale of gifted bouquets. For the classical consciousness, nurtured in the spirit of Romanticism, this act appears deviant, almost blasphemous. But if we put aside the initial reaction of “disgust,” we witness the finale of the drama of symbolic exchange being supplanted by market exchange.

Have we become too accustomed to the idea that a gift is not the transfer of an object, but the transfer of a part of the giver’s soul, imposing a bond of gratitude on the recipient?

By putting a bouquet up for sale, the subject radically severs the social bond. Flowers cease to be a “token of attention” and become a resource that must be optimized before they fade.

Jean Baudrillard, in “Symbolic Exchange and Death,” pointed out that in a consumer society, objects lose their uniqueness. In the modern Instagram era, a bouquet fulfills its primary function the moment it’s captured on camera.

Received—photographed—disposed of.

I would call this a triumph of pragmatic nominalism. If previously the value of a flower lay in its ephemerality (it’s precious because it will soon die), today its value is its residual liquidity value. This isn’t just “bad manners”; it’s a triumph of logic and common sense, where any emotion must have an economic impact. When an intimate gesture makes it into the classifieds, we see how the metanarrative of the “spiritual” finally capitulates to microeconomics.

On the other hand, the same should be said about the act of giving itself. It seems it has become a mechanic devoid of its “metaphysical” content.

Do you think the sale of gifted flowers signals the alienation of the metaphysical, whereby a person ultimately becomes a manager of their own emotions?

[Bizet]

I am not sure how to characterize your use of metaphysics here. We cannot help but use metaphysics in our notions, even Kant makes that clear in the preface to his Critique of Pure Reason. What is unclear, like usual with metaphysics it seems, is how to apply it.

I see it as a result of systems. People are putting more value on the economic value of things, since that is what people perceive as a result of the systems they live in.

I would argue that technology, as you have noted, enables this. And in combination economic pragmatism, an argument of what you have made, have shaped the perception as a result.

I find the metaphysical argument to be a bit superfluous, not to be argumentative. Perhaps I don’t quite know what you mean.

I perceive it more psychologically and systemically. I suppose I am more contemporary (in the popular sense) than your argument?

[Astorre]

Yes, let me clarify, perhaps the word “metaphysics” isn’t the most appropriate when describing the meaning behind a gift. But in this case, what was meant was “something beyond the material” that occurs when giving flowers.

[T_Clark]

Although I’ll be blunt, this is intended as a serious comment.

As a pragmatist, I just want to point out that you’re making this much more philosophical than it actually is or needs to be. This is not a philosophical question. It’s a matter of courtesy and community.

To summarize—if you resell flowers that were given to you as a gift, you’re a schmuck.

[baker]

@Astorre

Have we become too accustomed to the idea that a gift is not the transfer of an object, but the transfer of a part of the giver’s soul, imposing a bond of gratitude on the recipient?

I have to laugh. I have had Christians, religious people, spiritually advanced people tell me that they can do with a gift whatever they want, including throw it away, right there after receiving it, and that the giver must be okay with it.

@Astorre

By putting a bouquet up for sale, the subject radically severs the social bond. Flowers cease to be a “token of attention” and become a resource that must be optimized before they fade.

Just to be clear: Were those flowers that are being sold actually gifts, or were they stolen or otherwise somewhat questionably acquired?

There is, for example, especially around All Saints’ Day (November 1st) a whole black market for flowers and flower arrangements stolen from graves in cemeteries. Hospitals, too, dispose of a lot of flowers.

@Astorre

When an intimate gesture makes it into the classifieds, we see how the metanarrative of the “spiritual” finally capitulates to microeconomics.

Has there ever been a time when it was not this way??

@Astorre

Do you think the sale of gifted flowers signals the alienation of the metaphysical, whereby a person ultimately becomes a manager of their own emotions?

One is supposed to be a manager of one’s own emotions anyway.
One can even buy oneself flowers!

[Astorre]

Perhaps the fact that modern philosophers don’t see this question as a philosophical one is also telling. As you might have noticed, the original text isn’t about selling flowers, but about people. And the question here isn’t at all moralizing, as it (probably) seemed.

It would seem: what could be wrong with re-giving a gift or reselling it? This is probably no longer even up for discussion or a sideways glance, especially when it comes to a gift with high liquid value, like a car or an apartment. And people have been doing this for a long time: for example, squandering an inheritance (essentially a gift) is an ancient phenomenon.

This post, however, is about something else: reselling something that’s almost worthless. How much can you get for a used bouquet? Mere pennies—$10-$15. Perhaps people are driven to this by their dire financial situation or dislike for the giver. But the case I’ve highlighted is a fairly common occurrence in our area lately.

What was I writing about? For the average person, a consistent and pragmatic question arises: why throw away a potential asset? And I’m not condemning anything here. However, my post is a snapshot of the current situation—even something as trivial as a bouquet is considered a potential asset. Contemporary people have already reached this point.

On the other hand, I noted that the act of giving itself is often a tribute to old traditions. For example, in our area, it’s customary to give flowers to women on March 8th: at school, at work, to mothers, wives, and grandmothers. This tradition itself, from a pragmatist’s perspective, seems empty: you’re simply spending money to honor tradition. The recipient feels the same way: “They gave me five tulips at work, how sweet.” The meaning has long been blurred (the why, the purpose), but the tradition remains.

The same goes for stealing flowers from burial sites for resale: they’ll wither anyway, and no one needs them anymore.

I believe that some inner core—morality—should restrain one from such behavior. On this forum, and the forums before it, there’s a lot of criticism of moral principles; others try to justify them outside of God; still others (following Nietzsche) even claim that morality is only for slaves or weaklings. I’m not condemning any of this, or appealing to anything. But I do note: if the desire for small change becomes more important than morality (even if unfounded) or respect for tradition, then this is a serious sign of the state of the society in which I live.

In a world where information and resources move instantly, holding onto an asset (especially when you don’t need it) feels like a systemic error. Optimization is a natural systemic response. Important: I don’t refer to “morality” as “good,” but as a functional brake that limits. Today, morality and tradition are the inertia that prevents society from going crazy with the endless speed of exchange. If this brake is removed, any emotion and any gesture are instantly converted into currency.

But do you yourself like living in a “disenchanted world”?

[T_Clark]

@Astorre

And the question here isn’t at all moralizing, as it (probably) seemed.

I don’t think your OP was moralizing at all. That’s why I responded. I think the issue is personal and simple. It’s not that it’s immoral, but you’re a jerk if you do it. If that makes sense.

@Astorre

reselling something that’s almost worthless.

@Astorre

my post is a snapshot of the current situation—even something as trivial as a bouquet is considered a potential asset.

In the OP you wrote “Recently, a curious phenomenon has been observed in local communities…” My first thought when I read that was “is that really true?”

@Astorre

On the other hand, I noted that the act of giving itself is often a tribute to old traditions.

Reading your thoughts about tradition, I wondered if you come from a different culture than mine–maybe one where tradition is felt as more of a burden than it is here in the US. From my point of view, what’s wrong with a tribute to an old tradition?

Beyond that, for some of us, and me in particular, gift giving is almost always a personal act of recognition worthy of thoughtful attention, even when it grows out of a tradition. Finding gifts that have personal meaning for me and for those I give them to is a challenge and it’s fun. I love Christmas.

@Astorre

The same goes for stealing flowers from burial sites for resale: they’ll wither anyway, and no one needs them anymore.

My in-laws used to live next to a cemetery and often did this. Very creepy.

@Astorre

On this forum, and the forums before it, there’s a lot of criticism of moral principles; others try to justify them outside of God; still others (following Nietzsche) even claim that morality is only for slaves or weaklings.

As I see it, there are no moral principles, only standards of behavior I hold myself to. Those standards grow out of my respect and affection for the people in my community–you know, the Golden Rule.

@Astorre

holding onto an asset (especially when you don’t need it) feels like a systemic error.

It’s not an asset, it’s a gift–a sign of personal consideration from another person. Even if it’s not in reality, it is best for all of us if we pretend it is.

@Astorre

But do you yourself like living in a “disenchanted world”?

I’m a retired engineer and I call myself a pragmatist. I don’t think the world is enchanted, I just think you can’t really separate those parts that are physical from those that are human. Nothing is real that isn’t both.