Scan barcode
adaracoco's review against another edition
3.0
A look into the leisure class and the role fashion plays in distinguishing them. Reasonable and frustrating read.
taciturn_sprocket's review against another edition
for something widely vilified on its first publishing, I found this book to have a foundation of biological essentialism that hasn't held up at all well after almost 150 years. although "conspicuous consumption" is still quite apt.
klagge's review against another edition
3.0
Reading this book was one of those interesting experiences in which the author's arguments seem obvious, but only because they were so insightful that they have become commonplaces. Veblen originated the concept of "conspicuous consumption" in this book, that is, consumption that is at least partially oriented not toward the direct utility generated by the act of consumption, but toward the status associations generated by the act of consumption. Flashy cars, etc.
I am glad to have read this book, but I can't say that I am wholly convinced by Veblen's arguments. First of all, many of his arguments rest on what I would call "just-so stories"--accounts of the genealogy of certain aspects of contemporary society, based on how primitive societies operated. They certainly have an air of plausibility to them, but I do not think Veblen is really drawing on any empirical evidence so much as conducting thought experiments. (Contrast, for example, David Graeber's arguments in "Debt," which are of a similar flavor but which are extensively sourced in academic anthropological studies.) I couldn't avoid feeling like Veblen could have made equally plausible arguments for opposite cases.
Second, Veblen is deeply cynical, in a way that is hard for me to get on board with. He sees elements of "conspicuous waste" in virtually every act. He acknowledges that there is often an admixture of less superficial motives (e.g. true care for workmanship), but it is abundantly clear which way he thinks the balance tips. (His general position is that people's choices are usually not consciously motivated by "invidious comparison," but that the societal pressure for invidious comparison sets constraints on what activities become accepted in society.) Moreover, I think there is an element of tautology in his arguments about conspicuous waste. He seems to see any activity that goes beyond providing for basic human sustenance as conspicuous waste. But if that is the case, then it hardly seems like a useful analytical concept. Any society that goes beyond a bare Malthusian sustenance minimum is going to be characterized by conspicuous waste in Veblen's view. "Activities going beyond the subsistence minimum" could equally well be characterized as "human flourishing."
All that said, I think it is an important book, and one that introductory economics students could benefit from reading (at least parts of). Most all of economics takes preferences and utility functions as given and unquestionable, but Veblen indicates some important ways that they are shaped by the institutions of a society. Having just read "Limits to Growth," I think some deep questions are raised when a culture of conspicuous consumption begins to encounter basic physical constraints.
I am glad to have read this book, but I can't say that I am wholly convinced by Veblen's arguments. First of all, many of his arguments rest on what I would call "just-so stories"--accounts of the genealogy of certain aspects of contemporary society, based on how primitive societies operated. They certainly have an air of plausibility to them, but I do not think Veblen is really drawing on any empirical evidence so much as conducting thought experiments. (Contrast, for example, David Graeber's arguments in "Debt," which are of a similar flavor but which are extensively sourced in academic anthropological studies.) I couldn't avoid feeling like Veblen could have made equally plausible arguments for opposite cases.
Second, Veblen is deeply cynical, in a way that is hard for me to get on board with. He sees elements of "conspicuous waste" in virtually every act. He acknowledges that there is often an admixture of less superficial motives (e.g. true care for workmanship), but it is abundantly clear which way he thinks the balance tips. (His general position is that people's choices are usually not consciously motivated by "invidious comparison," but that the societal pressure for invidious comparison sets constraints on what activities become accepted in society.) Moreover, I think there is an element of tautology in his arguments about conspicuous waste. He seems to see any activity that goes beyond providing for basic human sustenance as conspicuous waste. But if that is the case, then it hardly seems like a useful analytical concept. Any society that goes beyond a bare Malthusian sustenance minimum is going to be characterized by conspicuous waste in Veblen's view. "Activities going beyond the subsistence minimum" could equally well be characterized as "human flourishing."
All that said, I think it is an important book, and one that introductory economics students could benefit from reading (at least parts of). Most all of economics takes preferences and utility functions as given and unquestionable, but Veblen indicates some important ways that they are shaped by the institutions of a society. Having just read "Limits to Growth," I think some deep questions are raised when a culture of conspicuous consumption begins to encounter basic physical constraints.
acaplaamall's review against another edition
Really interesting and high key relevant for the first few chapters as he explains the actual theory, and I really recommend it. But in later chapters as he starts going into the minutiae of how various parts of 1890s society are shaped by his theory (collegiate sports, gambling habits etc) I kinda drifted off
jvasconcellos's review against another edition
Audiobook- super high level vocab with a monotonous narration was just too much. It made me fall asleep every night and I was constantly rewinding
kristin16's review against another edition
2.0
Great ideas, incredibly boring and repetitive execution.