The Theory of the Leisure Class

53 pages • 1 hour read

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

Chapters 1-4Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 1 Summary & Analysis: “Introductory”

The first chapter introduces Veblen’s economic framework, which he references throughout the rest of the book. He begins by defining two key terms: industrial work and conspicuous leisure. Industrial work refers to work that produces the “material means of life,” whereas conspicuous leisure is time spent in a wasteful manner that produces nothing of social value (12). Veblen claims that conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption—two economic behaviors that constitute pecuniary culture, or the practice of wasting resources and time—are traditionally seen as respectable in Western society because they have been adopted by the upper class.

Veblen uses the term “industrial” to mean work that is manual, domestic, agricultural, or trade-related. In Europe’s feudal systems of the past, wealthy people were exempt from industrial work and instead held symbolic roles (such as the military or the clergy), which have a certain degree of honor attached to them, but, in Veblen’s terms, are not truly productive. He calls people who comprise this group the “leisure class.” In what Veblen calls “higher barbarian cultures” (such as feudal Europe and feudal Japan), people belonging to the leisure class are employed in a specific range of fields—warfare, government, religious, and sports—but they are all non-industrial types of work.

In contrast, societies that are in earlier stages of “development,” such as “Polynesian islanders,” do not have a distinct leisure class that works within a specific range of fields. Societies that are even less evolved may not even have fully developed a leisure class. This is the case of “any one of the North American hunting tribes,” which do not have a group of people whose superior social position exempts them from work (8). Veblen claims that differentiation is instead observed in these societies between the sexes, where women work to produce food and goods, and men participate in warfare, hunting, sports, and religious rituals. Veblen states that this is a result of the physiological differences between the sexes: he argues that men are, in general, physically stronger and more predisposed to activities such as hunting. Although both types of work are crucial to survival, men disdain the jobs associated with women and consider them menial or lacking in skill and prestige. The same disdain is replicated among the leisure class of developed societies in which idleness, like men’s work in “primitive” communities, is a sign of prestige, and those in industrial employment performing “menial” tasks take on the role of women.

Industrial work requires diligence but, because it comes with lower status, it is seen as drudgery, dull, and dishonorable. Veblen terms activity that do not produce food or goods “exploit,” and the leisure class of distinguishes exploit from menial tasks by claiming that they require “prowess” or refined skill.

Veblen claims that “savage” societies of the past did not distinguish between class and occupation. These societies did not have an economic hierarchy and were generally small in size. According to Veblen, they were sedentary, relatively peaceful, poor, and lacked a system of private ownership. Here, Veblen draws on the erroneous archetype of the “noble savage” in characterizing unindustrialized societies. The “noble savage” is an 18th-century English concept that romanticizes Indigenous peoples as being innately good and simple because they live close to nature. This trope in no way describes real Indigenous culture; it is an imaginary that 18th- and 19th-century European intellectuals used to critique their own overly stratified, wealth-obsessed cultures. Veblen considers modern American and European society “barbaric” and Indigenous cultures—such as those in India, southern Africa, and North America—“savage” because he sees them as less developed.

By contrasting developed “barbaric” societies with their undeveloped “savage” counterparts, Veblen traces the creation of institutions that give rise to the leisure class. In communities in which some members do not have to perform industrial labor, men become infatuated with a “predatory habit of life,” and a leisure class develops (11). In this model, goods obtained by force, such as hunting trophies and spoils of war, have more value than goods produced through industrial labor and bought at a fair price. Since objects taken by force acquire the status of trophies, which denote prestige, people from the industrial class want to gain similar prestige through their own acts of consumerism: The shift to conspicuous consumption occurs when obtaining goods through violence becomes a prized accomplishment.

Such cultural shifts occurred in European society during the feudal era of the 9th-15th centuries. In the modern industrialized world, though many aspects of society have changed, certain social and economic attitudes remain. People of high status tend to scorn menial jobs; from this arises a sense of individual and class superiority and inferiority, which leads to discrimination. Veblen concludes the chapter with a disclaimer that his claims come from psychology rather than ethnology, which is why he provides limited data for his theories. In other words, there is little or no factual evidence to substantiate his ideas about social development and temperament.

Chapter 2 Summary & Analysis: “Pecuniary Emulation”

In Chapter 2, Veblen observes that the rise of the leisure class occurs at the same time as the establishment of private ownership as a basic human right. These two factors ultimately contribute to the establishment of pecuniary emulation, the middle- and working-class desire to emulate the wealthy through conspicuous consumption.

Veblen notes the difference between the terms “leisure class” and “idleness.” The leisure class is not simply a group of people who enjoy idleness or leisure but a proper economic class that distinguishes itself from the lower classes by its exemption from and disdain for industrial labor. Similarly, the term “ownership” is not synonymous with “consumption” on a broad scale. It refers specifically to the rise of private ownership as a conventional right.

Veblen claims that in “lower barbarian” societies, objects (which he also calls “extraneous things”) in one’s possession are not considered privately owned. This changes when warfare turns people—specifically female captives—and objects into trophies. Veblen theorizes that the first form of ownership is women being owned by “able-bodied men of the community” (20). This practice is motivated by 1) the satisfaction of men’s propensity for coercion, 2) the display of women as proof of men’s prowess, and 3) the desire to exploit women’s labor. This process is institutionalized through marriage and makes men the head of the family unit and the possessor of women’s bodies and labor. This framework is replicated in the practice of slavery, which expands ownership to include men and women who have no social status. Veblen claims that both marriage and slavery are the result of men’s desire to display their personal prowess.

Veblen believes the desire to emulate is the fundamental factor behind people’s desire to own and consume. In “earlier” societies, a sense of honor and prestige was conferred on an individual whose skill at warfare allowed the community to gain significant spoils of war; however, without the institution of private ownership, his honor was the community’s honor. He was not elevated above any other member of the community, and any gains from the war were held in common.

This is no longer true when an institution of private ownership takes root in a society. Men who become self-sufficient (often through privately-owned slave labor) eventually come to see their possessions not as a proof of the community’s success, but as evidence of their personal dominance. For Veblen, private ownership does not arise out of a desire for subsistence but from greed for individual honor.

With industrialization, the accumulation of material goods substitutes for the spoils of war. Thus, the possession of wealth itself begins to confer honor and power on its possessor (24). A societal standard is gradually established, and members who do not meet it are scorned by their peers. Private ownership shifts the standard for self-respect: rather than an intrinsic sense of self-worth, people begin to look for outside approval based on how much they earn and consume.

The established standard for acceptability does not remain static for long. Once comfortable with a certain degree of wealth, people begin to seek more, making “the present pecuniary standard the point of departure for a fresh increase of wealth” (25), thereby creating a cycle that forces individuals to race to the top. Veblen dubs this phenomenon “pecuniary emulation” (26). Purposeful effort is therefore directed at collecting and displaying accumulated wealth, whether or not it actually improves one’s quality of life.

Chapter 3 Summary & Analysis: “Conspicuous Leisure”

Veblen argues that the leisure class arose during the “predatory stage” of social development but solidified only in the following, “quasi-peaceable” stage. The distinction between the productive and leisure classes was at first ceremonial, existing only because the leisure class pronounced itself to be so, when in reality, its activity still contributed to society. Only when chattel slavery became widespread did the leisure class become exempt from all sources of productivity.

In the “predatory” stage of a society’s development, the distinction between the leisure class and the laboring class only exists symbolically. Although people at the bottom are not free from the temptation of pecuniary emulation, their subsistence relies too much on productive labor for them to disdain it. Meanwhile, the “superior” pecuniary class, whose identity is founded on its ability to abstain from productive work, differentiates itself from the laboring class. The pecuniary class declares industrial labor debasing and incompatible with achieving higher spiritual enlightenment, which is why self-respecting people of leisure are encouraged to avoid productive work. Over time, this principle solidifies into an axiom that the social order perpetuates.

While this shift in mentality occurs first during the “predatory stage” of social development, it is solidified when peaceable societies adopt chattel slavery, thereby allowing the community’s continued subsistence through owning another’s labor. Individuals able to abstain from productivity—i.e., slave owners—are displaying, through that very abstinence, their superior position and pecuniary achievements.

In Veblen’s theory, the leisure class occupies itself in one of four fields: government, war, sports, and religion. He maintains that although these fields may be seen as indirectly productive, they remain fundamentally different from industrial labor because they are primarily predatory in nature.

Gradually, possessing wealth becomes in itself meritorious while labor gradually becomes a mark of intrinsic flaws. As a population grows and its society develops, the upper classes are increasingly zealous about developing rigorous and consistent frameworks that regulate private ownership. This bars entry for lower classes to ascend to higher social echelons: Private ownership laws prevent them from seizing wealth through industry and acquisition. At the same time, leisure is no longer considered a symbol of wealth but is a prerequisite for basic propriety.

Thus, in Veblen’s view, the abjectly poor live in economic discomfort but are “morally unable to stoop to gainful pursuits” for fear of being seen as depraved (32). In his argument, the shame associated with labor can thus override a self-respecting man’s sense of self-preservation.

The producing of consumer goods is proof of menial labor while medals and other types of insignia signal the exploits of the leisure class. As a society grows in size and complexity, authorities must design hierarchical rankings to categorize these exploits. Immaterial goods, such as the production of art and knowledge, do not contribute to basic human survival and act as a symbol of achievement for the leisure class.

Gradually, the leisure class sees wealth not only as material possessions, but also as proof of one’s rank, displayed for others to validate. This is the beginning of the creation of another group, which Veblen calls the “vicarious leisure class.” People in this group are primarily servants or women associated with a man of the leisure class. Their primary task is performance: they signal to society that their master or husband is not a working man. This vicarious leisure class is different from the leisure class proper because servants do not own their leisure; they belong to their master and are required to “know their place” (44).

The vicarious leisure class develops when performing leisure for others to see is the norm. Rules, such as decorum, ceremony, and manners, are established to signal rank. Although these rules may help organize society and contribute to its existence, their primary goal is to distinguish people leading honorable lives from those who survive performing menial tasks in the public eye; Their value is derived from their performance rather than their substance. Conformity, therefore, is a mark of genteelness and divergence proof of vulgarity.

Veblen claims that the master-servant relationship in which the master is part of the leisure class and his servant does not have to perform menial tasks—is a refined version of the earlier “barbaric” custom of owning women and the products of their labor. Veblen believes this began during the “quasi-peaceable” stage of human development. As slavery expanded to include other groups, certain women (such as the “chief wife” of a powerful man) grew to occupy a comparatively higher social position. Women who belonged to men of leisure were thus considered more genteel and were exempt from menial tasks; instead, the labor was delegated to servants. This elevation of women within the leisure class is primarily motivated by men who see their female counterparts as another trophy to validate their superior status.

For Veblen, these developments shape the field of domestic work in modern societies. The customs of the vicarious leisure class imitate those of their masters, in that they are hierarchical and are concerned with demonstration. For example, reputable servants pass on their credibility to their children, and women (wives of masters) are valued based on how many menial tasks they can relegate to lower- ranking servants. The work of this vicarious leisure class is thus characterized by a lack of productive labor; their main duty is to display their master’s leisure through their own leisure.

Chapter 4 Summary & Analysis: “Conspicuous Consumption”

Veblen discusses conspicuous consumption, a term he defines as the propensity for people to possess certain goods or consume certain types of food that project an image of wealth and respectability—regardless of whether the people are actually wealthy or respectable. This propensity is characteristic of the leisure class, but it also adopted by the servants and women who live vicariously through their masters in “developed” societies.

Veblen claims conspicuous consumption has existed since the time of “predatory culture,” when consuming goods that were not essential was seen as honorable. Subservient groups—primarily women, children, and servile men—were barred from accessing these luxury goods to maintain the status of the men who could access them. This is the case of alcohol, especially in cultures in which alcohol is expensive to produce: respectable women serve the beverage to men and but barred from consuming it.

Conspicuous consumption expands during a culture’s “quasi-peaceable” stage with the introduction of chattel slavery; the working class is required to consume no more than what is necessary for survival, but the masters consume conspicuously. Veblen argues that women are chattel slaves under a patriarchal system, which is why their consumption of goods must be restricted. This changes in later stages, as argued in the previous chapter, insofar as a woman’s access to luxuries contributes to her master’s (husband’s) reputation. Women remain subservient because their access to conspicuous consumption is dependent on men.

Conspicuous consumption is not only characterized by the consumption of non- essential items, but also of foods that are not necessary for survival: The leisure class marks its superiority by accessing higher quality essential and nonessential foods.

Veblen is critical of conspicuous consumption. Though he portrays consumption patterns as a natural progression of the so-called stages of social evolution (peaceable, quasi-peaceable, barbaric, and so forth), he does not believe a society’s development into one that supports conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure is good; nor is he a proponent of women’s subjugation or chattel slavery. On the contrary, he critiques the economic practices of Europe and the United States that increase the wealth gap between rich and poor and subjugate women. He presents his argument for a society’s development and its increase in conspicuous consumption as if it were fact; while his discussion of conspicuous consumption’s negative consequences is accurate, the basis of his argument in civilizational stages is faulty.

Veblen moves onto another factor that increases conspicuous consumption, the expansion of private ownership. Whereas in less-developed societies, conspicuous consumption was previously restricted to the leisure class, in developed societies, it now be imitated by the industrial class through the distribution of wage labor. Veblen claims that higher-ranking servants are given access to conspicuous consumption if, through an insignia or other symbols, their access to non-essential goods can explicitly signal their master’s reputation. This is the case with uniforms or honorific titles, which distinguish higher-ranking servants from those required to perform menial or laborious tasks.

In such societies, performing leisure through conspicuous consumption gradually becomes the norm, and the tradition is usually upheld by women in patriarchal societies. Thus, Veblen claims, an impoverished man reduced to work will still want to signal his respectability through allowing his wife access to leisure and conspicuous consumption—even if only in appearance. Vicarious consumption is much more accessible to lower ranks than vicarious leisure, and it is therefore more widely practiced. This indicates that the lifestyle signaled by the leisure class is seen as a standard to which the rest of society should aspire.

Vicarious consumption is favored over vicarious leisure as a society develops more rigid structures to differentiate social class. This is because consumption of luxury goods, which wastes resources, is more accessible and more demonstrative than leisure, which wastes time. Veblen claims that as a society’s methods of communication and travel develop and people’s circles expand beyond the narrow peripheries of their immediate neighbors, their capacity to pay more becomes a universal language while their ability to waste time is harder to demonstrate. This is why people in urban areas (where people are more mobile and transient observers are more numerous) practice conspicuous consumption to signal their wealth and respectability. In contrast, people in rural areas move in tighter and more homogeneous circles where their pecuniary status is already known, and they have a lesser propensity to engage in conspicuous consumption than their urban counterparts.

Veblen anticipates that with further industrial development and with an increase in importance of advertising, conspicuous consumption, rather than leisure, will gradually become the greater marker of respectability. This happens for two reasons: First, consumption is more universally recognizable and can more easily and more immediately signal wealth. Second, with industrial progress, people will come to increasingly value productive efficiency, which Veblen calls “the instinct of workmanship” (64). Being able to maximize the production of consumer goods through labor is considered more significant than a waste of effort. This shift in attitude is facilitated by a transition from slave labor to wage labor, which occurs when a society moves from the quasi-peaceable stage to the industrial stage. Whereas a slave’s labor is not considered meritorious, wage laborers are treated with less contempt because they reap at least some benefit from their ability to engage in pecuniary culture.

In industrial societies in which production extends well beyond subsistence, leisure is performed through “make-believe of purposeful employment” (66). For the leisure class, social work is another line of respectable employment designed to improve worker efficiency. The leisure class performs its idleness by, paradoxically, busying itself founding private organizations and charities. The middle-lower classes emulate this activity through domestic service: the modern image of the working housewife lies in her productivity and efficiency in managing household chores.

Veblen concludes by remarking that the term “waste” in modern usage is inherently derogatory and implies moral laxity and disregard for an object’s value. This is a clear result of developing the “instinct of workmanship.” However, Veblen’s own use of the term is purely practical: its connotation is not derogatory but functions purely as an economic term. In The Theory of the Leisure Class, waste designates any type of consumption not essential to sustenance on a biological level. It is not necessary for the consumer to recognize it as waste as it does not need to conform to societal expectations for what is considered essential.