Scan barcode
A review by jakeyjake
The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen
This is an early work of pop sociology published right at the end of the gilded age, but it's a far cry from what I used to from Malcom Gladwell and his imitators. No doubt, a good deal of Veblen's anti-consumerist sarcasm is lost on my 21st century vocabulary. It was hard for me to discern if his hyper-intellectual tone was satire, if he was just being ironically longwinded, or if he was just getting paid extra for each high-scoring scrabble word he used.
That said, some of Veblen's concepts have proved accurate and descriptive throughout the last century. He coined 'Conspicuous consumption' here and that term has endured as a useful concept in explaining the wealthy's preference for Mercedes Benz SUVs, iPhones, and Supreme sweatshirts over similar products lacking equal brand appeal. He also termed 'Conspicuous leisure' which I think is just a more general category and evokes for me tennis, SoulCycle, and perhaps... reading long satirical books about the wealthy from a hundred years ago?
'Conspicuous waste' is also used in along with these two terms, emphasizing Veblen's critical undertone. His thesis is that conspicuous leisure and consumption are a waste in terms of their contribution to society. I'm not sure if that categorization stands up in absolute terms (especially with things like conspicuous charitable giving), but I catch—and agree with—the overall drift.
Some of the chapters I found interesting:
Chapter 7 talks leisure class fashion. Pretty obvious stuff. Being able to buy the latest stuff is a sign of wealth, of c.
Chapter 8 stresses the leisure class' opposition to socio-economic progressivism. Their conservatism is rooted in not wanting things to change and displace them.
Chapter 12 argues that 'attending church services, participating in religious rites, and paying tithes, are a form of conspicuous leisure.'
Chapter 14 also lumps higher learning and education (academic, technical, religious) into the bucket of conspicuous leisure because it does not directly contribute to the economy of society.
I can't say this is a must-read. A perusal of the wikipedia article does most of the concepts justice. I'd be lying if I said I didn't skim some chapters in favor of just reading the summary, but it IS worth reading a few chapters just to try to pick up on Veblen's misanthropic sense of humor and his vaguely mocking tone towards his (mostly leisure class?) readers.
This NYT article was a nice balance of celebration of the still-accurate assessments and a modern challenge to some of Veblen's ideas: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/books/review/Gross-t.html
"The motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation."
A few examples of big scrabble words he's throwing around
prepotent
bellicose
impecunious
invidious pecuniary comparison
quiescence
obloquy
That said, some of Veblen's concepts have proved accurate and descriptive throughout the last century. He coined 'Conspicuous consumption' here and that term has endured as a useful concept in explaining the wealthy's preference for Mercedes Benz SUVs, iPhones, and Supreme sweatshirts over similar products lacking equal brand appeal. He also termed 'Conspicuous leisure' which I think is just a more general category and evokes for me tennis, SoulCycle, and perhaps... reading long satirical books about the wealthy from a hundred years ago?
'Conspicuous waste' is also used in along with these two terms, emphasizing Veblen's critical undertone. His thesis is that conspicuous leisure and consumption are a waste in terms of their contribution to society. I'm not sure if that categorization stands up in absolute terms (especially with things like conspicuous charitable giving), but I catch—and agree with—the overall drift.
Some of the chapters I found interesting:
Chapter 7 talks leisure class fashion. Pretty obvious stuff. Being able to buy the latest stuff is a sign of wealth, of c.
Chapter 8 stresses the leisure class' opposition to socio-economic progressivism. Their conservatism is rooted in not wanting things to change and displace them.
Chapter 12 argues that 'attending church services, participating in religious rites, and paying tithes, are a form of conspicuous leisure.'
Chapter 14 also lumps higher learning and education (academic, technical, religious) into the bucket of conspicuous leisure because it does not directly contribute to the economy of society.
I can't say this is a must-read. A perusal of the wikipedia article does most of the concepts justice. I'd be lying if I said I didn't skim some chapters in favor of just reading the summary, but it IS worth reading a few chapters just to try to pick up on Veblen's misanthropic sense of humor and his vaguely mocking tone towards his (mostly leisure class?) readers.
This NYT article was a nice balance of celebration of the still-accurate assessments and a modern challenge to some of Veblen's ideas: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/books/review/Gross-t.html
"The motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation."
A few examples of big scrabble words he's throwing around
prepotent
bellicose
impecunious
invidious pecuniary comparison
quiescence
obloquy