The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions

“Virtually the whole range of industrial employments is an outgrowth of what is classed as woman’s work in the primitive barbarian community.”

Veblen points out on multiple occasions that women have been traditionally subjugated in patriarchal systems. In “barbarian” communities, they perform menial tasks that their male counterparts disdain. Thus, their traditional role as producers in an inferior position parallels the modern worker’s position.

“In the sequence of cultural evolution, the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership.”

As humans adapted to their environment and subsistence no longer became a problem, individuals began to develop a sense of property rights, which pitted them against each other for the ownership of resources. This is what ultimately fueled the development of social hierarchies and culminated in the emergence of the leisure class.

“Ownership began and grew into a human institution on grounds unrelated to the subsistence minimum.”

This passage dismisses the idea that ownership rights were born due to economic concerns. Rather, Veblen believes ownership rights were implemented not to protect their material possessions but honor. The pecuniary worth of the object does not matter as much as its symbolic value, which distinguishes the respectable upper class from the unenlightened poorer classes.

“These lower classes can in any case not avoid labour, and the imputation of labour is therefore not greatly derogatory to them, at least not within their class.”

This quote demonstrates how menial tasks are unsavory for the upper class because they are sufficiently rich to avoid work. However, these tasks in themselves are not necessarily debasing, and the laboring class do not consider them to be derogatory in nature.

“The beginning of a differentiation in consumption even antedates the appearance of anything that can fairly be called pecuniary strength. It is traceable back to the initial phase of predatory culture, and there is even a suggestion that an incipient differentiation in this respect lies back of the beginnings of the predatory life.”

Veblen once again highlights conspicuous consumption as a consequence of competition rather than an inevitable result of economic development. A difference in consumption patterns emerged as soon as people began to wish for social recognition, a factor independent of their actual wealth.

“[T]his tradition says that the woman, being a chattel, should consume only what is necessary to her sustenance—except so far as her further consumption contributes to the comfort or the good repute of her master.”

This quote argues that the woman’s role in patriarchal societies is no different from that of the slave. She is considered lower rank than men, is expected to perform menial tasks, and is seen as unfit for a life of leisure.

“The leisure class stands at the head of the social structure in point of reputability; and its manner of life and its standards of worth therefore afford the norm of reputability for the community.”

This passage illustrates why the standards of living of the upper class serve as the dominant model in society: Their wealth and influence allow them to develop a set of customs and manners that distinguishes them from lower classes and gives them respectability and honor.

“[T]he standard of expenditure which commonly guides our efforts is not the average, ordinary expenditure already achieved; it is an ideal of consumption that lies just beyond our reach, or to reach which requires some strain.”

In this passage, Veblen defends the idea that living standards are not a static measure, but ever-shifting, especially in an ascending pattern. The desire to emulate pushes people to always strive for distinction over their neighbors, which means their consumption pattern reflects their ever-shifting ideals rather than their actual wealth or needs.

“In modern communities, where the dominant economic and legal feature of the community’s life is the institution of private property, one of the salient features of the code of morals is in the sacredness of property.” 

This quote emphasizes the importance of property rights as a basis for conspicuous consumption. The capacity to own objects and services is what allows the leisure class to project and perform their superior rank to other members of the community.

“The utility of articles valued for their beauty depends closely upon the expensiveness of the articles.”

This is the definition of pecuniary culture. Objects are prized and admired for their pecuniary value, rather than their intrinsic worth. Standards of beauty therefore shift over time, depending on the dominant trend set by the leisure class at any given point.

“A political sage still living as summed up the conclusion of this whole matter in the dictum: ‘A cheap coat makes a cheap man,’ and there is probably no one who does not feel the convincing force of the maxim.”

This adage summarizes the central argument of Chapter 6 on dress codes and beauty standards. Veblen argues that often an object’s worth lies not in its intrinsic value but in its pecuniary strength in a society built on the principle of conspicuous consumption.

“Obviously, if each garment is permitted to serve for but a brief term, and if none of last season’s apparel is carried over and made further use of during the present season, the wasteful expenditure on dress is greatly increased.”

Dress codes and high fashion are examples of conspicuous consumption. Style is fickle and arbitrary, and it often does not revolve around comfort or ease of use for the wearer, which identifies fashionable clothing as an example of wasteful expenditure rather than an object of utility.

“[A woman’s] sphere is within the household, which she should ‘beautify,’ and of which she should be the ‘chief ornament.’”

This sentence demonstrates the role of the upper-class woman as a member of the vicarious leisure class. Her role as subordinate to men means she cannot participate in conspicuous consumption in her own right. Instead, her role is symbolic: she is there to perform her master’s rank vicariously.

“Institutions are not only themselves the result of a selective and adaptive process which shapes the prevailing or dominant types of spiritual attitude and aptitudes; they are at the same time special methods of life and of human relations and are therefore in their turn efficient factors of selection.”

Institutions are defined as social organizations and currents of thought. The dominant social opinion is often established by the leisure class, which is a result of a selective process. These dominant customs and traditions in turn shape people’s behavior in a community, which means they also act as a means of selection.

“Social structure changes, develops, adapts itself to an altered situation, only through a change in the habits of thought of the several classes of the community, or […] through a change in the habits of thought of the individuals which make up the community.”

Here, Veblen illustrates the methods through which a previously dominant attitude in society can change over time if there is a general consensus on the part of members of the community. This promotes the idea that standards of living may change over time, depending on external factors, such as economic development.

“The fact that the usages, actions, and views of the well-to-do leisure class acquire the character of a prescriptive canon of conduct for the rest of society, gives added weight and reach to the conservative influence of that class.”

Chapter 8 mainly argues that the leisure class is a conservative rather than progressive force. This is because it upholds traditional values, which its members establish to demonstrate their superiority. In comparison, the industrial class, which does not enjoy as much economic freedom, cannot afford to maintain a specific position if it is economically impractical.

“On the transition to the predatory culture, the character of the struggle for existence changed in some degree from a struggle of the group against a non- human environment to a struggle against a human environment.”

This quote describes the transition from what Veblen calls the “peaceable” stage of human evolution to the “predatory” stage. Primitive societies that have developed sufficiently beyond basic subsistence turn to warfare and competition. Their shift from peaceful to predatory against other members within the same community is a result of pecuniary emulation.

“The leisure class lives by the industrial community rather than in it.”

This quote sums up the unique position of the leisure class. The leisure class derives its wealth from the productive labor of others yet wants to set itself apart from the industrial community. This is a distinction made clear through conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption.

“As it finds expression in the life of the barbarian, prowess manifests itself in two main directions—force and fraud.”

This passage highlights the only ways in which people can accumulate wealth. Veblen believes people need to either adopt a relentlessly predatory temperament or resort to cheating to increase their profit.

“The gambling proclivity is doubtfully to be classed as a feature belonging exclusively to the predatory type of human nature.”

Here, gambling is illustrated as an economic behavior born purely out of a competitive spirit; Veblen believes those who have a more predatory temperament are more predisposed to gamble. Gambling is a method of conspicuous consumption because it does not increase one’s material wellbeing.

“As seen from the point of view of the later economic exigencies, devoutness is, perhaps in all cases, to be looked upon as a survival from an earlier phase of associated life—a mark of arrested spiritual development.”

This sentence demonstrates Veblen’s critical opinion of religious observances. People who are devout follow the same conspicuous consumption pattern as the leisure class: they engage in wasteful behavior for an invisible master and are perpetuating outdated rituals for the modern age.

“The survival of the predatory traits under the leisure-class culture is furthered both negatively, through the industrial exemption of the class, and positively, through the sanction of the leisure-class canons of decency.”

This passage demonstrates how the predatory traits developed in the “barbarian” stages of human evolution remain relevant today. On one hand, conspicuous leisure, the prerogative of the wealthy, is a vestige of predatory culture. On the other hand, decency, a social institution upheld by conspicuous consumption, remains relevant in modern society.

“Learning, then, set out by being in some sense a by-product of the priestly vicarious leisure class; and, at least until a recent date, the higher learning has since remained in some sense a by-product or by-occupation of the priestly classes.”

Veblen believes education in fields that are unrelated to mechanical and productive work, such as the humanities, are derived from religious teaching. This is best exemplified in older forms of higher education, in which tenured professors had, more often than not, some form of religious training.