This is the last of a series about the book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899. Chapter Fourteen is titled "The Higher Learning as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture."
Veblen’s
Wikipedia entry says that after studying philosophy and obtaining a PhD from
Yale, he was unable to find a university post.
Most academics at that time held divinity degrees and Veblen was held to
be ‘insufficiently educated in Christianity’.
I’m inclined to believe he vented some frustration in this last chapter
of his book.
“…it
has generally held true that the accredited learned class and the
seminaries of the higher learning have looked askance at all
innovation. New views, new departures in scientific theory, especially
in new departures which touch the theory of human relations at any
point, have found a place in…the university tardily and by a reluctant
tolerance, rather than by a cordial welcome…the men who have occupied
themselves with such efforts to widen the scope of human knowledge have
not commonly been well received by their learned contemporaries.”
Veblen
refers to the ‘Maecenas function’, which apparently has to do with wealthy
patrons of the arts, though I gather in this particular instance it refers to
patronage of a student. He says this
leisure class function has an important bearing on the spread of knowledge and culture. Looking at this function from an economist’s
view point, and of course in keeping with his overall theme, Veblen points out
that this patronage is a ‘relation of status’.
‘The scholar under the patronage performs the duties of a learned
life vicariously for his patron, to whom a certain repute
inures after the manner of the good repute imputed to a master
for whom any form of vicarious leisure is performed.’ Veblen also notes that, historically, this
maintenance has not been in support of the sciences but rather of ‘classical
lore or the humanities’, the study of which he says lowers the industrial
efficiency of the community.
Outside
of the classical fields, the leisure classes interest themselves in the
knowledge of law and politics, expedient in the guidance of the leisure-class
office of government, which he sees as a predatory function, being ‘an exercise
of control and coercion over the population from which the class draws its
sustenance.’
Veblen
is not a fan of the classical education, which he says holds up ‘an
archaic ideal of manhood’ but also teaches learners to discriminated
between ‘reputable’ and ‘disreputable’ knowledge, the latter being associated
with industry or social utility. Of
course, Veblen has his own form of discrimination in what he views as useful vs
useless knowledge, for example, knowledge of the ancient language would not be
useful to a scientist or anyone not working in languages. Veblen says he doesn’t disparage the cultural
value of the classics but he does doubt their economic value, seeing that ‘classical
learning acts to derange the learner’s workmanlike attitudes…’.
Veblen
quotes Horace and Cicero in this chapter but also says that knowledge of the
dead languages is ‘gratifying to the person who finds occasion to parade
his accomplishments in this respect’.
He reiterates a position stated
in an earlier chapter that
“The
presumption that there can ordinarily be no sound scholarship where a
knowledge of the classics and humanities is wanting leads to a conspicuous
waste of time and labor on the part of the general body of students
in acquiring such knowledge. The conventional insistence on a modicum
of conspicuous waste as an incident of all reputable scholarship has
affected our canons of taste and of serviceability in matters of
scholarship in much the same way as the same principle has influenced our
judgment of the serviceability of manufactured goods.”
Although
conspicuous consumption has overtaken conspicuous leisure as a means of
asserting one’s position in the world, displaying knowledge of the classics has
‘until lately had scarcely a rival’ Veblen thinks that college athletics may have
overtaken a classical education.
“…but
lately, since college athletics have won their way into a recognized
standing as an accredited field of scholarly accomplishment, this latter branch
of learning — if athletics may be freely classed as learning — has become a
rival of the classics for the primacy in leisure-class education in
American and English schools."
Athletics
have an obvious advantage over the classics for the purpose of
leisure-class learning, since success as an athlete presumes, not only
waste of time, but also waste of money, as well as the possession of
certain highly unindustrial archaic traits of character and temperament.”
He
also lists Greek-letter fraternities, perfunctory duelling, ‘a skilled and
graded inebriety’ as leisure-class scholarly occupations which live up to the ‘virtues’
of archaism and waste.
The
use of “classic” English is required in ‘all speaking and writing upon serious
topics’ and ‘a facile use of it lends dignity to even the most commonplace
and trivial string of talk’;…elegant diction, whether in writing or speaking,
is an effective means of reputability’.
‘The obsolescent habit of speech’
which avoids the use of new words shows that the speaker’s ‘leisure class
antecedents’ and demonstrates that he has avoided ‘vulgarly useful occupations’. Correct spelling is also important, as ‘English
orthography satisfies all the requirements of the canons of reputability
under the law of conspicuous waste. It is archaic, cumbrous, and
ineffective; its acquisition consumes much time and effort; failure
to acquire it is easy of detection. Therefore it is the first
and readiest test of reputability in learning, and conformity to
its ritual is indispensable to a blameless scholastic life.’
“Classic
speech has the honorific virtue of dignity; it commands attention and
respect as being the accredited method of communication under the
leisure-class scheme of life, because it carries a pointed suggestion of
the industrial exemption of the speaker. The advantage of the accredited
locutions lies in their reputability; they are reputable because they are
cumbrous and out of date, and therefore argue waste of time and
exemption from the use and the need of direct and forcible speech.”
I hope you have enjoyed this series. I know some folks found it hard work; it was hard work to write as well but I'm glad I tackled the challenge and finished what I started.
