The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions

This chapter expands upon the principles established in Chapter 8. Previously, Veblen argued that conspicuous consumption and industrial exemption are two methods through which the leisure class controls institutions and promotes conservatism. Veblen notes that the leisure class’s influence extends even further: by selectively facilitating the survival of certain human traits over others, they can alter individual human character and affect social evolution. Ultimately, modern society is selectively conserving two opposing human temperaments: predatory traits, which serve pecuniary ends for the leisure class, and cooperative traits, which serve the advancement of the industrial class.

Veblen lays out his theory on ethnic evolution, which he declares is “not indispensable to the discussion” (143). Given the outdated and unsupported claims spouted therein, this summary will only briefly visit its key points. First, Veblen divides industrial communities into three main ethnic types: the dolichocephalic-blond, the brachycephalic-brunette, and the Mediterranean. From these types are derived two variations: the ante-predatory and the predatory variants. Western communities are a hybrid of these types, with the dolicho-blond being more predatory and violent than the other two. Modern ethnic types are variants of their primitive counterparts, conditioned by barbarian culture.

The main point of Chapter 9 is that human nature is fixed during the most primitive stages of evolution, when people live in relative peace: Early humans value an “unreflecting, unformulated sense of group solidarity” (144).

Veblen states these fundamental traits are not suitable in the next stages of social development, such as the predatory stage, which favors individualism and violence. At that point, the community transitions from struggling collectively against their environment to fighting other communities until finally it fosters antagonism within members of the same group.

Nevertheless, the fundamental nature of humanity is not altered in the process, however long the “predatory” period may stretch. This is because genetic features such as good-nature, equity, and sympathy cannot easily be altered or eliminated, even when they are disadvantageous traits to have in a competitive social environment. Veblen concludes that while competitive environments have selectively favored predation and selfishness, the fundamental human traits of solidarity and sympathy are useful for the purpose of the collective, which is why they persist to this day.

For Veblen, the unaltered nature of humanity explains why, in recent years, people have begun to instinctively appreciate workmanship and “race solidarity” (145). “Advanced” industrial societies that value efficiency and productiveness have moved beyond the stage of individual competition. A successful industrial community is one that serves the collective interest, and corporations can best achieve this by hiring workers who exhibit traits such as diligence, honesty, and selflessness. From the point of view of the collective, then, pacifism and solidarity are prerequisites to development. Veblen cautions, however, that it remains to be seen whether the corporate pursuit of complacent workers is moral or ultimately beneficial to the collective.

In a culture of conspicuous consumption, individuals’ self-interests are best served if they do not abide by peacefulness and sympathy. Capitalism breeds a comparative mindset in which people view others as competitors or rivals. Thus, modern societies are divided into two categories of labor: pecuniary system, which employs the leisure class and promotes ownership and acquisition, and the industrial system, which values workmanship and production and employs the working class. They differ greatly in their values and their reputability, with pecuniary work requiring a predatory mindset but enjoying greater reputability. For example, management positions in a company are often occupied by people who exhibit shrewdness and other “predatory” traits whereas manual laborers are not pressed to emulate their superiors or participate in pecuniary competitiveness.

Veblen believes the leisure class is responsible for keeping predatory attitudes alive. A selective process exists to gain admittance to their ranks, and valued traits include “clannishness, massiveness, ferocity, unscrupulousness, and tenacity of purpose” (155). In contrast, the industrial class develops best with cooperative members who value solidarity. Veblen cautions that these characteristics are not universal but are rather the dominant traits of each class; there is no fundamental difference in the spiritual makeup between the upper and lower classes. Rather, environmental conditions, including the people’s propensity to emulate and their adherence to the principle of conspicuous waste, condition people of various ranks to adopt the dominant traits in their rank.

This chapter observes how the predatory traits of the “barbarian” age persist in the contemporary world. Veblen considers collective predatory activity as a result of people’s “martial spirit” (161). Among the leisure class, war is considered honorable, and this is emulated only in one other social class: the lower-class delinquents. Veblen claims that in every other group in modern times, the spirit of aggression and warfare is widely considered impractical. For example, the institution of the duel, which is based on individual propensity for combat and used to settle disputes, is mainly practiced among members of the leisure class concerned with maintaining their reputation.

Young boys in the leisure class are raised to pursue physical challenges, and those who refuse or cannot lose their peers’ esteem. Their childhood years and adolescent years are spent struggling for recognition and developing their fighting spirit. Finally, they settle down in adulthood and their martial spirit fades somewhat. Veblen sees this same pattern in human development, when communities transition from the “predatory” to the “quasi-peaceable” age, finally settling in the modern “industrial” phase. Their fighting spirit can be ignited if their mentors or certain formative institutions set violence as an example. This is the case of the “boys’ brigades” established by military organizations, the “college spirit” of athletic fields in universities, and the fostering system established by the clergy.

Sport—especially hunting—is worthy of note because it symbolizes the human impulse to exploit and commit violence outside of warfare. Veblen believes hunting fuels a boyish, immature spirit and stunts men’s moral development. The main draw for sportsmen is glory and prowess, not a desire for recreation (which can be otherwise satisfied) nor a desire to enjoy nature (which they are destroying in the process). The same is the case for athletic sports, which are attractive to the leisure class because they provide an arena for emulation and allow players to demonstrate their skills. Sport justifies itself with a make-belief purpose of fostering sportsmanship but is ultimately wasteful and without productive substance. In sum, hunting and athletic sport allow people to emulate the predatory characteristics of the “predatory” age without losing respectability.

To the leisure class, encouraging exercise through sport is advantageous because it promotes fitness. Similarly, pushing people of the industrial class who have accumulated enough wealth to participate in sport is advantageous because they ultimately become strong workers who in turn can be economically serviceable. Beyond these pecuniary incentives, sports are attractive because they recall the dominant aesthetic and ethical standards of past eras.

Sports are a means to emulate the lifestyle of a previous “barbarian” age. Thus, in Veblen’s day, women and poor people, who were treated as chattel to the men of that era, are noticeably absent from sports. Veblen concedes that sport does, under certain circumstances, promote the spirit of workmanship. This explains why, on the whole, the leisure class, which is more nostalgic about warlike attitudes than the industrial class, is more fervently in favor of the institution of sports.

War and sports allow individuals to demonstrate their prowess. During the “barbarian” era, there were two primary methods to achieve success: force and fraud. Force is symbolized by physical dominance while fraud is about cunning, planning, and strategy (all of which can devolve into falsehood and chicanery). Both of these traits, cultivated during the “barbarian” age, are present in war and sport. They are considered desirable even in modern times because they are economically serviceable, have aesthetic value, and fuel pecuniary culture.