 | This articleis written like apersonal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Pleasehelp improve it by rewriting it in anencyclopedic style.(February 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | It has been suggested that this article bemerged intoRob K. Henderson. (Discuss) Proposed since August 2025. |
Luxury beliefs is a term used predominantly byconservative andnationalist commentators to describe variousleft-wing andliberal views.[1] The phrase is used to portray left-wing orliberal beliefs as being predominantly held by the privileged, and out of touch with theworking-class that they claim to support.[2]
The term was coined byRob K. Henderson, who describes them as beliefs which "confer status on the upper class at very little cost, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes".[3][4]
Exactly what counts as a luxury belief is not always consistent and may vary from person to person, and the term in general is considered to be controversial.[1][5]
The term is aneologism coined byRob K. Henderson in 2019.[4][6] Henderson alleges that, due to wider availability of material signifiers of wealth, power, fame and affluent Americans and British use their beliefs as a way to display theirsocial status.[7][8][9] Other commentators have previously drawn equivalences between opinions and material possessions.[10]
Henderson has citeddefund the police as a "classic luxury belief" along with his other examples ofdecriminalizing drugs, getting rid of theSAT, andrejecting marriage.[11]
Doug Lemov and co-authors in 2023 described Henderson's concept of the luxury belief as "an idea that confers social status on people who hold it but injures others in its practical consequences".[6] Matthew Goodwin, professor of political science at theUniversity of Kent, further argued in 2023 that such beliefs are held by people "who no longer measure somebody's status or moral worth through money, estates, titles or education but through the new lens of ideas and beliefs."[7]
Some have argued that the belief that marriage and the nuclear family are no better than alternative family arrangements is a luxury belief,[12][4] since there is evidence that family instability (which is equated to non-nuclear families, according to at least some who argue in favor of the term) is associated with poorer outcomes for children.[2][13] Holding such beliefs, according to proponents of the concept, is deemed fashionable for elites but the actual effects on those involved, such as children experiencing family instability, are harmful. Henderson notes that outcomes such as rates of incarceration, college degree attainment, and substance abuse are more strongly correlated with children not living with both biological parents than with poverty: poor outcomes are more likely for children without both parents, and especially for foster children, than for children in poverty but with both parents.[3]
In October 2023, former BritishHome SecretarySuella Braverman claimed in a speech that support for illegal migration, net zero, and habitual criminals are luxury beliefs.[14]
The editorial board ofThe Times has criticised transgender activists as holding luxury beliefs.[15]
A 2024 University College Dublin working paper using a signaling game found "no evidence that individuals signal using luxury beliefs", and found belief in supposed luxury beliefs were positively correlated with education level, but negatively correlated with income.[16]
In January 2024,The New York Times published a piece by opinion writerJessica Grose, where she voiced skepticism on the concept of luxury beliefs and their impact despite commonly being associated with the elites. Her critique centered on an instance where Henderson mentions a Yale classmate who denigrated monogamy and marriage despite coming from a stable two-parent family and intending to continue those practices. Grose pointed out that despite arguments suggesting that beliefs held by elite college students could have outsized influence since they disproportionately lead the country, she has yet to hear of any prominent political figure or corporate leader state that marriage is irrelevant. Throughout the article, Grose highlights different confounding factors that could explain declining views of marriage.[17] She concludes by stating:
"It's easy to point the finger at elites, cherry-pick their statements and stir a moral panic about the decline in the marriage rate over time. It's harder to meaningfully expand the safety net so that fewer children live in poverty—which really should be the focus of all this—even if their parents don't get hitched".[17]
Veronique de Rugy has criticised the application of the concept predominantly to the left, arguing that several ideas esposed by the modern right have negative impacts on working class communities. She citestariffs on imported goods in the Trump administration as an example.[1]
In a critical review of Henderson's memoir, Pippa Bailey criticized the concept as unevidenced and unsubstantiated.[5]
