Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class
...point.” (p. 142). Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” was a point of view in nature, but Veblen, has his own “survival of the fittest” in human society. According to Veblen, educated men were the fittest and should rise to the top of society. Another social Darwinist point Veblen makes is that with natural selection there is a loser, so to speak. If someone is at the tip, then someone is at the bottom. “In the redistribution of the conditions of life that comes of the altered method of dealing with the environment, the outcome is not an equable change in the facility of life throughout the group. The altered conditions may increase the facility of life for the group as a whole, but the redistribution will usually result in a decrease of facility or fullness of life, for some members of the group.” (p. 144). The second theme Veblen writes about here is the wealthy class, or as he calls it “the leisure class.” Veblen’s assessment of this section of society is not good. Veblen saw the leisure class as the main problem in society. Part of this stems from the leisure class’ conservatism. “When an explanation of this class conservatism is offered, it is commonly the invidious one that the wealthy class opposes innovation because it has a vested interest of an unworthy sort, in maintaining the present conditions. The explanation here put forward inputs no unworthy motive. The opposition of the class to changes in the cultural scheme is instinctive, and does not rest primarily on an interested calculation of material advantage; it is an instinctive revulsion of any departure from the accepted way of doing and of looking at things – a revulsion common to all men and only to be overcome by stress of circumstances. All change in habits of life and of thought is irksome. The difference in this respect between the wealthy and the common run of mankind lies, not so much in the motive which prompts to conservatism as in the degree of exposure to the economic forces that urge a change. The members of the wealthy class do not yield to the demand for innovation as readily as other men because they are not constrained to do so.” (p. 146). This seems to be saying that they are afraid of change. They don’t want change, they hate it. They live their lives the way they do because of status quo. If things change, then wealth and social status will be redistributed. Thus the “leisure class” loses some of its stature. “This conservatism of the wealthy class is so obvious a feature that it has even come to be recognized as a mark of respectability. Since conservatism is a characteristic of the wealthier and therefore more reputable portion of the community it has acquired a certain honorific or decorative value.” (p. 146). This perception of conservatism equals wealth hurts society more than it helps. If everyone turned conservative to look wealthy then new ideas and innovations will have no chance in society. Veblen also goes on to say that the leisure class conservatism forces other parts of society to become conservative. This in turn, lowers their energy level for extra things in society. “From this proposition it follows that the institution of a leisure class acts to make the lower classes conservative by withdrawing from them as much as it may of the means of sustenance, and so reducing their consumption, and consequently their available energy, to such a point as to make them incapable of the effort required for the learning and adoption of new habits of thought. The accumulation of wealth at the upper end of the pecuniary scale implies privation at the lower end of the scale. It is commonplace that, wherever it occurs, a considerable degree of privation among the body of the people is a serious obstacle to any innovation.” (p. 148). The biggest issue in Veblen’s book is the theory of conspicuous consumption. To put it simply, it means that the wealthy people go to high scale places and buy high end products for others to see. They don’t buy those things, necessarily because they are the best, but because they are a status symbol. “The result is that the requirements of pecuniary reputability tend 1). To leave but a scanty subsistence minimum available for other than conspicuous consumption, and 2). To absorb any surplus energy which may be available after the bare physical necessities of life have been provided for. The outcome of the whole is a strengthening of the general conservative attitude of the community. The institution of a leisure class hinders cultural development immediately 1. by the inertia proper to the class itself, 2. through its prescriptive example of conspicuous waste and conservatism, and 3. indirectly throu...