In my last post, I told you that Veblen believed that society's views about an appropriate and desirable standard of living were not just about money, but influenced attitudes in all manner of ways, including
'...the sense of duty, the sense of beauty, the sense of utility, the sense of devotional or ritualistic fitness, and the scientific sense of truth’.
You may recall that employment by the church was amongst the acceptable occupations for the leisure class and he discusses this more fully in a later chapter. In chapter six he addresses a slightly different aspect of religious practises.
"Devout consumption is of the nature of vicarious consumption. This canon of devout austerity is based on the pecuniary reputatbility of conspicuously wasteful consumption, backed by the principle that vicarious consumption should conspicuously not conduce to the comfort of the vicarious consumer."
"...the end of vicarious consumption is to enhance, not the fullness of life of the consumer, but the pecuniary repute of the master for whose behoof the consumption takes place."
He says that in ceremonies where the deity (he supposedly speaks about all religions and cults) is presumed to be present, the religious artifacts and priestly vestments will be richly ornamental, but where the religious official takes more of the role of a consort, these will be very much plainer. I wasn't sure how to follow this logic. After discussing it with Bill I looked up the term 'transubstantiation'. Apparently this term explains the (or a) difference between Catholic Eucharist and Protestant Communion. I love social history, but theological debate bores me rigid, so I doubt I'll ever really take it all on board. It apparently comes down to whether one thinks one is truly eating the body and blood of Christ or if it is only a representation. I've yet to visit a Church of England, but after looking at interiors on the internet, I guessed correctly that they reject the idea of transubstantiation.
Veblen says that priestly demeanor at its best is aloof, leisurely, perfunctory and without any suggestion of sensual pleasure. Aloof, because of the seriousness of their function. Leisurely, to fullfil the requirement of vicarious leisure; we generally prefer our religious leaders to have only this one role, not to be a car salesman or an accountant on the side. Veblen also says it is human nature to imagine the characteristics of the deity and to make these the characteristics of the ideal man, also those of the religious official. So, according to Veblen, the deity, the priest and the ideal man all share the characteristics of being serene and leisurely. He doesn't address the issue of sensual pleasure any further...
Veblen says all rituals tend to become perfunctory, particularly in the 'maturer cults' and this is fitting because it acknowledges that the deity actually has no need of truly proficuous (useful) service from his servants. They are 'unprofitable' servants and it does honour to the deity for them to be unprofitable. In this, Veblen draws an analogy between the office of the priest / minister and that of footmen, for they are both demonstrators of vicarious leisure.
Thus does Veblen put forth his argument that the pecuniary canons of taste influence about religious devotions.