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

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1899

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapters 1-4

Chapters 5-7

Chapters 8-11

Chapters 12-14

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

The Leisure Class, “Decent” Consumption, and the Promotion of Conservatism

The Theory of the Leisure Class is a critique of social conservatism, a trait characteristic of the leisure class. Veblen argues that the wealthy have traditionally maintained the status quo because their lifestyle is built on traditions and habits that maintain their dominance. Over time, the cultural institutions they develop shape society and favor the standards of social stratification that keep them above the middle and working classes. Thus, wealthy men cling to the “habits of thought, points of view, [and] mental attitudes and aptitudes” (127) they establish throughout history. They are, therefore, more reluctant to accept progress and change, especially when these changes challenge pecuniary culture.

In contrast, the industrial class is more likely to adapt and accept progress. This is because progress, here defined as a “readjustment of institutions and habitual views” (128), is only inevitable if people do not have the pecuniary means to avoid it. Veblen does not necessarily believe the industrial class is more innately accepting of progress: they simply cannot avoid it with as much ease as the leisure class. In Chapter 5, he discusses the ease with which members of the industrial class increase their conspicuous consumption as their resources grow and that socially, it would be seen as odd not to engage in more conspicuous consumption as one becomes wealthier. On the other hand, it is difficult for members of any class—especially the leisure class—to reduce their standard of living both in terms of physical comfort and the moral or spiritual comfort that items of wasteful expenditure provide. This compulsion, driven by a capitalist society’s belief in the innate value of conspicuous consumption, is the main reason that social change is difficult.

When progress does happen, as in the case of economic advancement, and a majority of society comes to accept these changes, Veblen remains skeptical about the fair redistribution of resources. He notes that even with a new standard of living and new institutions, conditions will usually favor the comforts of one group over another. This is because historically, the dominant culture is established by the wealthy, as one of waste and conspicuous leisure. What is considered “decent” and “respectable” in all of society has always been the culture of the upper class. For example, the white generation following the American Civil War was eager to return to conservatism as a reaction to the chaos of warfare and changes that threatened their social dominance. They desired social order and hierarchical structures that would restore their traditional way of life. Their business habits were predatory, and they became more devout, more eager to believe in luck and other supernatural forces. All of this indicates that, even after a tremendous social shakeup, the leisure class remains the group most capable of reinforcing their values over others.

The Industrial Class as Productive but also Emulative

Throughout the book, Veblen repeatedly contrasts the leisure class with the industrial class. The former sets itself apart because it is wealthy enough to avoid productive labor. In contrast, the industrial class is too poor to avoid producing material goods that ensure society’s collective survival. Over time, this gap between the classes widens to reflect not only economic disparity, but also different levels of respectability. The menial labor that the industrial class must perform for survival is increasingly seen as dishonorable among the rich, even though the labor itself is not intrinsically “repulsive.” The industrial class emulates the leisure class because its members want to be seen as respectable. They can differentiate their status from that of their peers by emulating the conspicuous consumption of the leisure class even if the goods they are buying are of lesser quality; as long as they mimic the styles, tastes, and practices of the leisure class, members of the industrial class can gain a measure of respectability among their peers.

The industrial class does not as much time to spend on the wasteful activities of the leisure class, such as vacations, lavish celebrations, hunting, and sport, so their emulation most often takes the form of purchases that mimic those of the wealthy. Ironically, these goods can lead to a decrease in respectability if they are found to be of far lesser quality than their authentic counterparts. Notably, such consumption is not intended to increase physical comfort or utility and is even, at times, impractical. Clothing worn by the industrial class must be sturdy and suitable for labor while the clothing of the upper classes does not need to have any utility beyond covering the body. Its main function is symbolic in that it is expensive and reflects the latest trends in high fashion. For members of the industrial class to emulate the leisure class’s fashion in this way is costly, both in the financial sense and in the sense that they buy such clothing at the expense of sturdier, more utilitarian clothing. Thus, people of the industrial class seldom get to display the clothing that is supposed to bring them respectability and status.

Although the industrial class does not have the pecuniary means to eschew the debasement of engaging in productive work, and although they themselves do not see productive work as inherently dishonorable, in a “barbaric” society, they are nonetheless compelled to emulate the habits and standards of the leisure class. Veblen considers dynamic between the upper and lower class as preventing social progress and perpetuating the cycle of conspicuous consumption.

Religion as an Institution of Subservience and Wastefulness

Veblen is overtly critical of wasteful consumption patterns and includes religious customs within this framework. In Chapter 12, he proposes two approaches for considering religious institutions as mirroring the pecuniary culture of the leisure class. First, he categorizes religious groups, which he refers to in general as “cults,” as part of the broader vicarious leisure class. As such, clergymen and other worshippers are tasked to perpetuate pecuniary culture for the invisible deity they serve. Their habits and rituals are therefore categorized as conspicuous consumption because they are used to project a symbol rather than to bring material benefit to the consumer or the collective. Second, Veblen argues that devout observances, which are found in every type of religious institution, are devoid of economic value since they do not address the needs of the practical world. Thus, any holidays dedicated to ceremony or items sacrificed to the gods serve no material purpose.

Religion as an institution is subservient to the leisure class because it bases its practices on serving a higher being. Its goal is to demonstrate, through actions, dress, rituals, and customs, the superior power of the deity, a symbolic master. In this sense, the clergy’s role is the same as that of the woman under a patriarchal system. Veblen concludes that religious institutions replicate the vicarious leisure system whereby its members lead respectable lives through wasteful expenditure, in order to better demonstrate the superior power of their deity. This is seen through the fact that the clergy must follow a set of rules for proper behavior, and their manner of dress sets them apart from the laity. They must conduct themselves in a way that is “aloof, leisurely, perfunctory, and uncontaminated with the suggestions of sensuous pleasure” (82). Finally, they must be recognizable at a glance: Their status as the vicarious leisure class, as servants of their lord, must be immediately visible.

Similarly, for Veblen, the customs and devout observances of the religious world are economically wasteful because they primarily serve the purpose of projecting an image of decency without bringing actual material comfort. Religious artifacts, ceremonies, and other expressions of faith are often ornate and ostentatious—even if the local community surrounding them is not (81). In other words, donations to the sacred bring no economic benefits to the community but only enrich the church, the symbolic master. Similarly, even though wealthy, sacred locations are characterized with an air of austerity—though rich, they are not to be lavish or comfortable for their worshippers because their purpose is not to lead a life of comfort but to extol the virtues of their deity. This is conspicuous consumption exemplified: people are encouraged to spend on symbolic grounds, rather than for material benefit.