The Theory of the Leisure Class

by Thorstein Veblen, Robert Lekachman (Introduction)

Overview

A classic of sociology and economics, originally published in 1899

With exquisite irony, Veblen, the "best critic of America that America has produced" (C. Wright Mills), lays bare the hollowness of our canons of taste and culture. 

For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780140187953
Publisher:	Penguin Publishing Group
Publication date:	02/01/1994
Series:	Twentieth Century Classics Series
Edition description:	Reprint
Pages:	416
Product dimensions:	5.02(w) x 7.73(h) x 0.95(d)
Age Range:	18 Years

About the Author

Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) was a Norwegian-American sociologist and economist and a leader of the Efficiency Movement. In 1919, Veblen, along with Charles Beard, James Harvey Robinson and John Dewey, helped found the New School for Social Research (known today as New School University).

Robert Lekachman was a professor of economics at Lehman College, City University of New York, and is the author of The Age of Keynes and Capitalism for Beginners.

Read an Excerpt

Chapter I

Introductory

The institution of a leisure class is found in its best development at the higher stages of the barbarian culture; as, for instance, in feudal Europe or feudal Japan. In such communities the distinction between classes is very rigorously observed; and the feature of most striking economic significance in these class differences is the distinction maintained between the employments proper to the several classes. The upper classes are by custom exempt or excluded from industrial occupations, and are reserved for certain employments to which a degree of honour attaches. Chief among the honourable employments in any feudal community is warfare; and priestly service is commonly second to warfare. If the barbarian community is not notably warlike, the priestly office may take the precedence, with that of the warrior second. But the rule holds with but slight exceptions that, whether warriors or priests, the upper classes are exempt from industrial employments, and this exemption is the economic expression of their superior rank. Brahmin India affords a fair illustration of the industrial exemption of both these classes. In the communities belonging to the higher barbarian culture there is a considerable differentiation of sub-classes within what may be comprehensively called the leisure class; and there is a corresponding differentiation of employments between these sub-classes. The leisure class as a whole comprises the noble and the priestly classes, together with much of their retinue. The occupations of the class are correspondingly diversified; but they have the common economic characteristic of being non-industrial. These non-industrial upper-class occupations may be roughly comprised under government, warfare, religious observances, and sports.

At an earlier, but not the earliest, stage of barbarism, the leisure class is found in a less differentiated form. Neither the class distinctions nor the distinctions between leisure-class occupations are so minute and intricate. The Polynesian islanders generally show this stage of the development in good form, with the exception that, owing to the absence of large game, hunting does not hold the usual place of honour in their scheme of life. The Icelandic community in the time of the Sagas also affords a fair instance. In such a community there is a rigorous distinction between classes and between the occupations peculiar to each class. Manual labour, industry, whatever has to do directly with the everyday work of getting a livelihood, is the exclusive occupation of the inferior class. This inferior class includes slaves and other dependents, and ordinarily also all the women. If there are several grades of aristocracy, the women of high rank are commonly exempt from industrial employment, or at least from the more vulgar kinds of manual labour. The men of the upper classes are not only exempt, but by prescriptive custom they are debarred, from all industrial occupations. The range of employments open to them is rigidly defined.

Table of Contents

The Theory of the Leisure Class - Thorstein Veblen Introduction by Robert Lekachman
Preface
Chapter I: Introductory
Chapter II: Pecuniary Emulation
Chapter III: Conspicuous Leisure
Chapter IV: Conspicuous Consumption
Chapter V: The Pecuniary Standards of Living
Chapter VI: Pecuniary Canons of Taste
Chapter VII: Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture
Chapter VIII: Industrial Exemption and Conservatism
Chapter IX: The Conservation of Archaic Traits
Chapter X: Modern Survivals of Prowess
Chapter XI: The Belief in Luck
Chapter XII: Devout Observances
Chapter XIII: Survivals of the Non-Invidious Interest
Chapter XIV: The Higher Learning as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture

Reading Group Guide

1. Describe the process by which property and ownership gain an important status in the early stages of a civilization’s development. What relationship does Veblen see between the accumulation of wealth, the establishment and maintenance of a leisure class, and the display of virtue and prowess in early cultures? What are the distinctions between those members of an early community who display virtue and those who, because of position or capacity, cannot?

2. “Conspicuous consumption” is Veblen’s most famous coinage. What is the role of the conspicuous consumer in the leisure class? How is conspicuous consumption related to conspicuous leisure? Give examples of people in or associated with the leisure class who devote their lives to conspicuous displays of consumption or leisure and describe how doing so enhances their position in their society. Similarly, describe the function of vicarious consumption and vicarious leisure.

3. A standard criticism of The Theory of the Leisure Class is that, although Veblen’s analysis of the development of a leisure class does describe social pressure to maintain or acquire certain social distinctions, he focuses too closely on the economic aspects of class and does not give the proper due to purely social processes. Do you believe, as Veblen can be said to, that the upper or leisure class is primarily an economic entity, or are there characteristics of this class that are as important as money, or perhaps more important? If so, what are they and how do they relate to the purely economic aspects of the leisure class and its development?

4. One of the most striking recurring elements of Veblen’sdescription of the leisure class is his depiction of the role of women and servants. Describe and account for the change in the role of women in the upper class as they cease to be servants and property of men and become conspicuous consumers. How do servants fulfill roles similar to those of women in each step of the development of the leisure class? Although the first chapter clearly explains how the status of the head of a household is enhanced by his ability to treat women and servants as property, the effect of conspicuous consumption by women and servants on the status of the head of a household is less clear. Describe the process by which consumption by women and servants enhances the position of a household, especially in the middle class, where, according to Veblen, the wife is “the ceremonial consumer of goods.”

5. Describe the ways that dress, religious observances, gambling, and education have come to serve as markers of social position. To what extent is Veblen’s description of them accurate? To what extent are these still effective markers of class?

6. In the last paragraph of chapter II, Veblen claims that, with regard to his use of the word “invidious, ” “there is no intention to extol or depreciate, or to commend or deplore any of the phenomena which the word is used to characterise, ” that “the term is used in a technical sense.” Is this a legitimate claim on his part? Does his use of terms such as “invidious pecuniary comparison” and “waste” and “chattel” really lack a pejorative connotation, as he claims, or is he making moral judgments? Do you believe that Veblen provides an objective account of the leisure class, or is there an implied moral content in his writing?

Editorial Reviews

**** Reprint of the classic Macmillan text of 1889. Recommended by Books for College Libraries 3rd ed.. Annotation c. by Book News, Inc., Portland, Or.

Booknews

The best critic of America that America has produced.”

C. Wright Mills

The most impressive satirist of his day.”

praise for the author Time magazine

"In his first and most fascinating book, Veblen was mocking a process as old as civilization. He expressed his skepticism in a rough-hewn prose style which made him the most impressive American satirist of his day." —Time "Every brash, upcoming generation should discover Veblen, and most complacent adults need to rediscover him." —The Minneapolis Tribune

From the Publisher