The Theory of the Leisure Class
The Theory of the Leisure Class is a book, first published in
1899, by the American
economist Thorstein Veblen while he was a professor at the
University of Chicago.
Veblen claimed he wrote the book as a perceptive personal essay criticizing contemporary culture, rather than as an economics textbook. Critics claim this was an excuse for his failure to cite sources. Nonetheless,
Theory of the Leisure Class is considered one of the great works of economics as well as the first detailed critique of
consumerism.
In the book, Veblen argues that
economic life is not driven by notions of utility, but by social vestiges from pre-historic times. Drawing examples from his time (turn-of-the-century America) and
anthropology, he held that much of today's society is a variation on early tribal life.
According to Veblen, beginning with primitive tribes, people began to adopt a
division of labor along certain lines. The "higher-status" group monopolized
war and
hunting while
farming and
cooking were considered inferior work.
He argued this was due to
barbarism and
conquest of some tribes over others. Once conquerors took control, they relegated the more menial and labor-intensive jobs to the subjugated people, while retaining the more warlike and violent work for themselves. It didn't matter that these "menial" jobs did more to support society than the "higher" ones.
To Veblen, society never grew out of this stage; it simply adapted into different forms and expressions. For example, he noted that during the
Middle Ages, only the nobility was allowed to hunt and fight wars. Likewise, in modern times, he noted that manual laborers usually make less money than
white-collar workers.
Veblen, in this book, coined the now-common concepts of
conspicuous consumption and
conspicuous leisure.
He defined conspicuous consumption as the waste of money and/or resources by people to display a higher status than others. One famous example he used was the use of
silver utensils at meals, even though utensils made of cheaper material worked just as well or, in some cases, better.
He defined conspicuous leisure as the waste of time by people to give themselves higher status. As examples, he noted that to be a "
gentleman", a man must study such things as
philosophy and the
fine arts, which have no economic value in themselves.
Whereas
classical economics defines humans as rational,
utility-seeking people who try to maximize their pleasure, Veblen recast them as completely irrational creatures who chase after
social status without much regard to their own happiness.
He used the word
emulation to describe these actions. For example, people tend to try to mimic the more respected among each other in order to gain more status for themselves.
As an example from modern-day life, certain
brands and
stores are considered more "high-class" than others, and people may shop at them, even though they cannot afford them, and cheaper alternatives would ease their financial lives.
Following this line of reasoning, Veblen also concluded that businessmen were simply the latest manifestation of the leisure class. He noted that businessmen do not produce goods and services, but simply shift them around whilst taking a
profit. He thus argued that the modern businessman is no different from a barbarian, in that he uses prowess and competitive skills to make money from others, and then lives off the spoils of conquests rather than producing things himself.
Veblen outlined a number of consequences of this social order. To name a few:
* The subjugation of women. As women were once used as "trophies of war" by barbarians, in modern times, the
housewife also served as a trophy to show off a man's success. By not allowing their wives to take outside professions, a man could show off her conspicuous leisure as proof of his status (Veblen didn't consider housecleaning useful), and spend money on his wife through conspicuous consumption.
* The growth of
sports such as
football. Veblen argued that, while sports could be advantageous to the community (
The physical vigor acquired in the training for athletic games - so far as the training may be said to have this effect - is of advantage both to the individual and to the collectivity), it was merely a side effect (
relation of football to physical culture is much the same as that of the bull-fight to agriculture), and that the true reason for the popularity of sports were their usefulness as means of displaying conspicuous leisure. Moreover, when Veblen spoke of the social "advantage" of sports, he claimed that it was only advantageous from a leisure-class (or barbaric) viewpoint.
*
Religion was a group expression of both conspicuous leisure and consumption. A
church, to Veblen, was simply a waste of building space, and the
clergy a group paid to do nothing useful.
* Such things as
manners and
etiquette were nothing but practices of conspicuous leisure with no practical value.
Even Veblen's supporters disagreed with many of these assertions. Moreover, many of these views reflected (and excused) Veblen's own personal habits. To wit: Veblen's house was often a mess, with unmade beds and dirty dishes; his clothes were often in disarray; he was an
atheist; and he tended to be extremely blunt and rude while dealing with other people.
Also, Veblen, unlike many of his colleagues, came from a relatively poor background, the son of
immigrant farmers. His disdain for luxuries and high society reflects this upbringing. Unable to speak
English until he attended college, he tended to view American society as an outsider, even though he was a natural-born U.S. citizen.
In the end, Veblen argues that in the modern world (or at least in Veblen's), it is not the ownership of the means of production that matters (as
Karl Marx argued). Instead, it is the ownership of the means of
consumption that matters.
Theory is often considered a
satire on modern society. For example, this following passage is possibly the most often-quoted from his book:
A better illustration [of conspicuous leisure], or at least a more unmistakable one, is afforded by a certain king of France who was said to have lost his life in the observance of good form. In the absence of the functionary whose office it was to shift his master's seat, the king sat uncomplaining before the fire and suffered his royal person to be toasted beyond recovery. But in so doing he saved his Most Christian Majesty from menial contamination.The book's popularity and commercial success is based largely on this satire. After
William Dean Howells gave the book a rave review as a social satire, it became a bestseller.
Ironically, Veblen did not intend for
Leisure to be a satire, but a serious economic analysis of contemporary America. For example, his theories on businessmen would find a more serious forum discussion in his
1904 book,
The Theory of Business Enterprise.
While Veblen was an economist and published this book as a treatise on economics, most modern economists ignore him. The primary reason for this appears to be his attack on the
rational expectations theories that continue to dominate the discipline. Only in recent years, with the rise of such theories as
butterfly economics, is Veblen being given serious consideration by economists.
Within the field of
sociology, in contrast, Veblen was quickly picked up and integrated into their work. The classic
Middletown studies made much use of Veblen's theories. More to the point, these and many other sociological studies supplied
empirical evidence that confirmed Veblen's theories. In the Middletown studies, for example, researchers learned that lower-class families were willing to go without basic necessities such as food or new clothes to maintain a certain level of conspicuous consumption.
The concept of conspicuous consumption has been carried forward to this day, and is often used to criticize
advertising and to explain why poorer classes have been unable to advance economically. His views on the uselessness of "businessmen," while usually discarded, have been adopted in modified form by none other than
Warren Buffett, who has harshly criticized the growth of practices such as
day trading or
arbitrage, which makes money solely through abstract means. However, the technocratic society predicted by Veblen in later books has not come to pass.
While few observers deny the practice of emulation and conspicuous consumption, there is considerable debate over which luxuries and practices can be labeled as such. Part of the problem is that
Theory does not comprehensively define it. As
H.L. Mencken sarcastically remarked:
Do I enjoy a decent bath because I know that John Smith cannot afford one - or because I delight in being clean? Do I admire Beethoven's Fifth Symphony because it is incomprehensible to Congressmen and Methodists - or because I genuinely love music? Do I prefer terrapin à la Maryland to fried liver because plowhands must put up with the liver - or because the terrapin is intrinsically a more charming dose? Do I prefer kissing a pretty girl to kissing a charwoman because even a janitor may kiss a charwoman - or because the pretty girl looks better, smells better and kisses better? (Mencken, "Professor Veblen," from
Prejudices, First Series, 1919).
In other words, what some people define as "wastes of money", others define as "enjoyable luxuries", and these tastes often differ depending on the individual, as seen by the activities Veblen named above. For example, Mencken considered
golf to be conspicuous leisure; a dedicated golf player would no doubt disagree (Mencken,
Baltimore Evening Sun, Nov. 9, 1948).
Attempts to universally define conspicious consumption are often attacked as being
elitist, most notably
Herbert Marcuse's suggestions (which involve a supposedly-higher-educated group being given the power to define which items are luxuries, and which aren't).
Nonetheless, there have been attempts to objectively define universal expressions of conspicious consumption. One way is to look for so-called
Veblen goods, which are defined as goods whose desirability decreases with their price and availability, and that this effect will be stronger in more "socially visible" goods than in goods consumed privately.Some studies (Chao & Schor, 1998,
Empirical tests of status consumption: Evidence from women's cosmetics. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 107-131) support this conclusion. However, such studies rely on
statistical analysis and as such, like the above examples, only reveal what a majority of people consider conspicuous consumption, a view that may not be shared by a minority of people.
A final criticism of the book holds that, while Veblen's theories were correct, they only held true when he wrote
Theory.
Robert Heilbroner, in his book
The Worldy Philosophers, held this view. Although Heilbroner devotes an entire chapter to Veblen (an honor he bestowed on only a few other economists, including
Adam Smith and
John Maynard Keynes), he argued that while Veblen's theories and views were valid for his time (the
1890s and the
Gilded Age) and his location (the
United States in general, and the city of
Chicago in particular), but these theories are now outdated.
A paperback edition was issued in Mineola, N.Y. by Dover Publications in
1994 with ISBN 0486280624. Although it was published in 1899, Penguin Books published it as part of its "Penguin Twentieth Century Classics" paperback series.
Editions of
Theory are often distinguished by the author of the publication's introduction, the most noteworthy authors being
C. Wright Mills and
John Kenneth Galbraith.
*
Free ebook of The Theory of the Leisure Class at
Project Gutenberg*
Veblenite edition of The Theory of the Leisure Class
