Part LV - Classicism and Conservatism in Higher Education

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.

Part LIV – Rituals, War and Women

This is a series about a 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 says that much of higher education falls under the category of ‘conspicuous leisure known as manners and breeding’ because ‘the learned class in all primitive communities are great sticklers for form, precedent, gradations of rank, ritual, ceremonial vestments, and learned paraphernalia generally.’  Such things as ‘the cap and gown, matriculation, initiation, and graduation ceremonies, and the conferring of scholastic degrees, dignities, and prerogatives in a way which suggests some sort of a scholarly apostolic succession.’  ‘Matriculation’ is a term I never encountered until I came to Britain.  Obviously I didn’t attend a posh university back in the States.

Veblen notes that when schools are founded for teaching useful knowledge to the lower classes, the growth of ‘ritualistic ceremonial and paraphernalia and of elaborate scholastic “functions”’ goes along side of the transition from practical studies into the higher, classical sphere of ‘the humanities’.   The initial aim of fitting the young of the industrial classes for work is changed to preparing them for the priestly and leisure classes or of an incipient leisure class, ‘for the consumption of goods, material and immaterial, according to a conventionally accepted, reputable scope and method.’  

He sees this pattern particularly in the newer communities formed in the 19^th century, where the pupils tend to have been raised with the habits of industry and thrift and the ‘reminiscences of the medicine-man have found but a scant and precarious acceptance in the scheme of college life.’  However, with the accumulation of wealth in the community, the college is influenced towards more ritual and conformity to ancient, barbaric standards.  Apparently the adoption of the cap and gown ‘as learned insignia’ was a recent change in his day, one that previously would not have been accepted without the changed attitudes towards the leisure class scheme of life.  

He attributes this change to the ‘psychologically disintegrating effects of the Civil War’ and of course war and predatory habits of thought are characteristic of the leisure class.

“…the generation which follows a season of war is apt to witness a rehabilitation of the element of status, both in its social life and in its scheme of devout observances and other symbolic or ceremonial forms. Throughout the eighties, and less plainly traceable through the seventies also, there was perceptible a gradually advancing wave of sentiment favoring quasi-predatory business habits, insistence on status, anthropomorphism, and conservatism generally. The more direct and unmediated of these expressions of the barbarian temperament, such as the recrudescence of outlawry and the spectacular quasi-predatory careers of fraud run by certain “captains of industry”, came to a head earlier…”

“The adoption of the cap and gown is one of the striking atavistic features of modern college life, and at the same time it marks the fact that these colleges have definitely become leisure-class establishments, either in actual achievement or in aspiration.”

It is understood that women did not ordinarily attend higher education.  These establishments were devoted to the education of the priestly and the leisure classes whereas women were the original subservient class and have remained so to the present.  In Veblen’s day only a small percentage of colleges accepted women, and then grudgingly.  The pursuit of knowledge was considered unfeminine. 

“It is felt that the woman should, in all propriety, acquire only such knowledge as may be classed under one or the other of two heads: (1) such knowledge as conduces immediately to a better performance of domestic service; (2) such accomplishments and dexterity, quasi-scholarly and quasi-artistic, as plainly come in under the head of a performance of vicarious leisure.”

“There has prevailed a strong sense that the admission of women to the privileges of the higher learning…would be derogatory to the dignity of the learned craft.”

I can recall in just the past few years reading the observation that as more and more General Practitioners / Vicars are women, the status of those positions is dropping.  So perhaps some things still haven’t changed that much...

Part LIII - Higher Education and the Occult

This is a series about a 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."

I think this is a weird chapter for Veblen to have end his book; it seems to me that it should have been somewhere in the middle so he could end with the change in modern society as described in his last chapter.  The other thing about this chapter is that it is something of a rant.  Reading even the first paragraph about Veblen’s academic career gives a bit of insight on why these ideas were a bit of a sore point with him.  He may have wanted this chapter to be the last in hopes that it would stick in the minds of his readers.  Never mind, here we are.

As an academic economist, of course Veblen appreciates education.  He sees it as having economic value because it enhances the serviceability of an individual.  In this chapter he looks at this institution from the view of the leisure class, which he believes has influenced the development and conduct of higher education.

He says that in its early development, higher education was closely related to the devotional function of the community and we already know that religious leadership was the purview of the leisure class.  As usual, Veblen begins his discussion with much earlier times and in a broad manner encompassing universal ideas of worship, referring to shamanistic practices.

“In great part, the early learning consisted in an acquisition of knowledge and facility in the service of a supernatural agent. It was therefore closely analogous in character to the training required for the domestic service of a temporal master. To a great extent, the knowledge acquired under the priestly teachers of the primitive community was knowledge of ritual and ceremonial; that is to say, a knowledge of the most proper, most effective, or most acceptable manner of approaching and of serving the preternatural agents.”

Medicine men, shamans, wizards, whatever, had ‘knowledge of the unknowable', and this characteristic depth and secrecy of knowledge, he says, is barely differentiated from the attitudes to be found in higher education of his time.  

“The recondite element in learning is still, as it has been in all ages, a very attractive and effective element for the purpose of impressing, or even imposing upon, the unlearned; and the standing of the savant in the mind of the altogether unlettered is in great measure rated in terms of intimacy with the occult forces.”

He claims that even within that century (the 19^th) peasants associated higher learning with the black arts.  I wonder if this is why the long black gowns are still worn?  Actually, he comes to this later.

According to Veblen, a disproportionate number of the leisure classes believe in ‘occult sciences of all kinds and shades’ and in the barbaric mind not shaped by modern thought, ‘knowledge of the unknowable is still felt to the ultimate if not the only true knowledge.’

As the body of systematized knowledge increased there arose a distinction between esoteric and exoteric information.  The former, defined as 'intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialised knoweldge or interest', Veblen says was primarily of no economic or industrial effect.  The latter, defined as 'intended for or likely to be understood by the general public, relating to the outside world; external', he said comprised 'chiefly knowledge of industrial processes and of natural phenomena which were habitually turned to account for the material purposes of life.’  This line of demarcation has developed the reputation of being the normal line between the higher learning and the lower.  

I can’t claim a very great understanding of the development of universities but I have noticed that there is possibly less prestige in a degree from a former agricultural or polytechnic college / university than from other universities where one finds the schools of medicine and law.  I would certainly agree that those latter topics are closer to the occult than most other subjects, wouldn’t you?

Part LII – Decline of the Leisure Class

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Thirteen is titled "Survivals of the Non-Invidious Interests".

Last week we saw how economic developments shaped a more modern society which no longer held barbaric principles of status and leisure in quite so high esteem.  In particular, upper class women were no longer satisfied to live lives of vicarious leisure and futility.

Veblen sees this movement of thought as being a reversion to the thinking of a savage society, when communities were more cooperative than competitive, where there were less differentiated roles for men and women.  In that society, everyone is expected to contribute to the good of the community and there is no respect for futile leisure.  Activities that serve only individual gain, marauding, infliction of pain and all manner of invidious pursuits are also deprecated. 

“It may even be said that…in the modern industrial communities the average, dispassionate sense of men says that the ideal character is a character which makes for peace, good-will, and economic efficiency, rather than for a life of self-seeking, force, fraud, and mastery.”

Veblen felt that the ideals of modern society were a threat to the survival of the leisure class, or at least to the individuals of that class.  The luxury of being withdrawn from ‘the pecuniary struggle’ along with the ‘leisure-class canons of conspicuous waste of goods and effort, the institution of a leisure class’ he thought lessened the chance of survival of such individuals within the population.  If ones energy was taken up with the invidious stuggle there was none left for non-invidious expressions of life and one was left with a ‘self-regarding attitude.’  This, Veblen believed, did not augur well for any person living in a modern society.

I think his arguments for this concern are valid, but perhaps weak.  I think populist ideas were aided by the industrial revolution, re-imposition of income tax, creation of estate tax, suffrage given to the wider population instead of a privileged few, World War I, the stock market crash and many other things that occurred after Veblen’s book were more to the point.  But given that these things had not yet happened, I guess I have to give him break.  We are now finished with Chapter 13; only one more to go!

Part LI - Emancipation from Privilege and Futility

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Thirteen is titled "Survivals of the Non-Invidious Interests".

Veblen talks a lot about women in this chapter. The requirement of withdrawal from all useful employment applies most rigorously to upper-class women. Women in general are supposed to lead a life of vicarious leisure in the service of their master, but this is doubly the case for members of the leisure class.  Veblen has previously stated that women have more instinct than do men for workmanship, which he defines as abhorrence of waste or futility, the urge to be useful.  Of course many people today would see a life of vicarious leisure such as he describes as an entirely wasted and futile way to live. 

That very idea of futility is beginning to take root in the wider consciousness of society at the time of Veblen’s writing.  Indeed, in 1899 women have been pushing for the vote for nearly 50 years.  It is still thought a fairly outrageous concept. However, with the economic development of society women can see how they could make a more meaningful contribution than they are presently allowed, by either 'decent' custom or by law.  The issue of women’s suffrage was not just about the right to vote but would potentially impact on how women might be allowed to conduct themselves in leading their own lives. Veblen refers to this as “the woman question”. 

He points out that because a woman’s life is still vicarious, her actions reflect upon ‘the man whose woman she is’.  On the other hand, ‘relatively little discredit attaches to a woman through the evil deeds of the man with whom her life is associated.’  Does this still hold true?  I kind of think it does.  Anyhow, because of this way of thinking, Veblen explains that with respect to civil rights or suffrage, the woman should ‘in the body politic and before the law’ be represented not by herself but through the head of the household to which she belongs.  It is unfeminine to aspire to a self-directing, self-centred life.  'The social relations of the sexes are fixed by nature. Our entire civilization — that is whatever is good in it — is based on the home.' The 'home' is the household with a male head.   He says women of sense share this view, being highly sensitive to what is right and proper.  Sadly, some smug, conservative men today still maintain this concept to hold true…

However, Veblen says there is the growing sentiment that

“that this whole arrangement of tutelage and vicarious life and imputation of merit and demerit is somehow a mistake.  Or, at least, that even if it may be a natural growth and a good arrangement in its time and place, and in spite of its patent aesthetic value, still it does not adequately serve the more everyday ends of life in a modern industrial community.”

Modern women, who ‘by force of youth, education or temperament’ are less manageable and out of touch with the traditions of status of the barbarian culture, they have ‘a sense of grievance too vivid to leave them at rest.’  Even the well-bred upper and middle class, traditional, matronly (apparently that used to be a complimentary term?) woman, even the conservative woman finds ‘some slight discrepancy in detail between things as they are and things as they should be in this respect.’

                           

Looking at ‘the woman question’ from an economic standpoint he identifies the concepts of “Emancipation” and “Work.”  Surprisingly he notes that the demand for ‘emancipation from all relation of status, tutelage, of vicarious life’ comes especially from the upper class women, those living a vicarious life, those ‘excluded by the canons of good repute from all effectual work’, those women ‘closely reserved for a life of leisure and conspicuous consumption’. 

The privileged life of these women wanting emancipation is a sore point by some observers who scoff:

“She is petted by her husband, the most devoted and hard-working of husbands in the world. ... She is the superior of her husband in education, and in almost every respect. She is surrounded by the most numerous and delicate attentions. Yet she is not satisfied …. The Anglo-Saxon ‘new woman’ is the most ridiculous production of modern times, and destined to be the most ghastly failure of the century.”

Veblen  points out that although this woman is petted and permitted – even required – to consume largely and conspicuously, vicariously for her husband or guardian,

“These offices are the conventional marks of the un-free, at the same time that they are incompatible with the human impulse to purposeful activity.”

He explains why this is an upper- and middle-class phenomenon.  He says that

“So long as the woman’s place is consistently that of a drudge, she is, in the average of cases, fairly contented with her lot. She not only has something tangible and purposeful to do, but she has also no time or thought to spare for a rebellious assertion of such human propensity to self-direction as she has inherited.”

In times past the sense of status and of maintaining the hierarchy seemingly entertained women sufficiently that they were content with a vicarious life.   The economic changes in society that accompany the industrial revolution has caused the scheme of status, hierarchy and personal subservience to no longer seem the natural order of human relations among men – or women.

I did always wonder why it was the wealthier women who led the suffrage movement.  Yet again, Veblen offers a plausible explanation.

Part L - 'Assisting' the Lower Classes

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Thirteen is titled "Survivals of the Non-Invidious Interests".

Last week we learned that the leisure classes have had to shift their attention slightly from the making of war, running of government, etc., to the promotion of charitable causes.  This is particularly the activity of upper class women.  Veblen is sceptical about these supposedly charitable intentions.  To start with, he thinks the attention should focus entirely on the secular issues and leave religion alone; this would save money and trouble all around.  He also thinks that charities are trying to ‘convert’ the lower classes in a different direction:

“…many of the efforts now in reputable vogue for the amelioration of the indigent population of large cities are of the nature, in great part, of a mission of culture. It is by this means sought to accelerate the rate of speed at which given elements of the upper-class culture find acceptance in the everyday scheme of life of the lower classes.”

I think it could be said today that both government and private enterprise has an interest in dragging the poorest segment of the population up from poverty, if only to collect income tax from them instead of paying out benefits.  Also, the sooner someone has an income, the sooner you can convince them to buy your product, right?

“The propaganda of culture is in great part an inculcation of new tastes, or rather of a new schedule of proprieties, which have been adapted to the upper- class scheme of life under the guidance of the leisure class formulation of the principles of status and pecuniary decency.”

Veblen reminds us that the leisure class still holds a ‘disesteem’ of useful occupations, but ‘guiding the action of any organized body of people that lays claim to social good’ is acceptable.  There are limitations however. 

“There is a tradition which requires that one should not be vulgarly familiar with any of the processes or details that have to do with the material necessities of life. One may meritoriously show a quantitative interest in the well-being of the vulgar, through subscriptions or through work on managing committees and the like. One may, perhaps even more meritoriously, show solicitude in general and in detail for the cultural welfare of the vulgar, in the way of contrivances for elevating their tastes and affording them opportunities for spiritual amelioration. But one should not betray an intimate knowledge of the material circumstances of vulgar life, or of the habits of thought of the vulgar classes, such as would effectually direct the efforts of these organizations to a materially useful end. This reluctance to avow an unduly intimate knowledge of the lower-class conditions of life in detail of course prevails in very different degrees in different individuals; but there is commonly enough of it present collectively in any organization of the kind in question profoundly to influence its course of action.”

He goes on to explain that a lot of money is wasted in building grand buildings ostensibly for charitable purposes.  Also, there are rules for the recipients of beneficence, including that they should know their place and tow the line.

I wonder if I like Veblen because he shares my cynicism?

Part XLIX - A Kinder Society

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Thirteen is titled "Survivals of the Non-Invidious Interests".

The first time I saw that chapter title, my brain went ‘Whaaaat?’  Basically he means to say something about ‘nice people’; the ones who aren’t going to cheat you out of your money or step on your head as part of their social climb, people who aren't quite so competitive. Strangely, he sees the business of the industrial world eroding the former system of status, thereby creating an environment where non-barbaric people can get ahead.   According to Veblen, the decay of the original forms of devout observances and of the class system which demands personal subservience has allowed the development of ‘alien motives’ which he labels as charity, social good-fellowship, conviviality, the sense of human solidarity and sympathy.

While Veblen seems to feel these attributes are alien to the religious outlook, he recognises they are part of the modern practice of church-going.  It almost sounds as though he’s saying that society has improved because churches aren’t so religious but I doubt this can be quite right.  It may be that he’s saying the leisure class was losing its dominance of the religious structures and that religious organisations were increasingly ‘of the people’. 

Another idea that he espouses is of a ‘non-reverent sense of aesthetic congruity with the environment’ which indirectly shapes people’s thinking along away from the self-centredness of the earlier regime of status.  This ‘aesthetic congruity’ removes the  

"the antagonism of self and not-self which has previously insisted upon the divergence between the self-regarding interest and the interests of the generically human life process.  This non-invidious residue of the religious life — the sense of communion with the environment, or with the generic life process — as well as the impulse of charity or of sociability, act in a pervasive way to shape men’s habits of thought for the economic purpose."

Doesn’t Veblen have a marvellous way of using lots of long words?  Imagine having a conversation with the man…but I digress.  Coming at this from a distance, it seems the short version of Chapter 13 might be that the industrial revolution brought about a growing middle class, the creation of jobs, etc.  This meant the modern world was not quite as ‘dog-eat-dog’ as before and so people could afford to be kinder to one another.  However, this being Veblen, we can't do a short version.  Also, my interpretation may be over-simple and some of his observations are too funny to miss.

Veblen describes the development of modern society (as of 1899) from the standpoint of the leisure class and, for them, it's looking fairly disastrous.  The usual leisurely pursuits are vanishing:  the decline of war, the disappearance of large game to hunt, the ‘obsolescence of proprietary government, and the decay of the priestly office’.   However, 

"Human life must seek expression in one direction if it may not in another; and if the predatory outlet fails, relief is sought elsewhere."

You may or may not be aware that one of the main activities of very well-to-do people is to engage in ‘charitable events’.  If it's not being a patron of a charity or forming a foundation, it's throwing a ball or organising a fete.  For others its joining the Junior League, the Masons, the Rotary clubs, volunteering for this or that cause.  Veblen describes these activities as being ‘reversion to a non-invidious temperament’, something even more likely among leisure class women, being the most protected from any economic stress.  

In his day the charitable organisations were semi-religious and tended to be promoting temperance, prison reform, spreading education or support for pacifism.  He also names sewing-clubs, art clubs and even commercial clubs (no idea what that means), all endowed by wealthy individuals or through collections from persons of smaller means.  Now, he still maintains that much of this work is primarily to enhance the reputation or their promoters, particularly with the foundation of something like a library or hospital wing with one’s name plastered on the front.  That sort of thing is all over the US, but you don’t see it much at all here in Britain, I’ve noticed.  There is a big ceremony and PR splash when the Duke of this or that donates a piece of land or the like, but if there is any label, it is a smallish plaque or an etched foundation stone, not names that can be read half a mile away.  Be this as it may, Veblen still maintains there are ‘motives of a non-emulative kind’.  The fact that reputability is sought through charitable works shows that society has shifted a great deal.

Part XLVIII - The End of Religion

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Twelve is titled Devout Observances.

Veblen makes some more sweeping statements about what parts of society are more or less religious.  He says this is another trait that the upper and lower classes share, just as they are both conservative.  He views devoutness as definitely old-fashioned and notes that

“In the older communities of the European culture, the hereditary leisure class, together with the mass of the indigent population, are given to devout observances in an appreciably higher degree than the average of the industrious middle class, wherever a considerable class of the latter character exists.” 

He says there are some places where there is no discernable middle class and pretty much everyone is religious.  Italy was the first place that came to my mind, but I wonder if much of southern Europe wouldn’t have fit this bill in 1899.

He also says that 

“…it is becoming somewhat of a commonplace with observers of criminal life in European communities that the criminal and dissolute classes are, if anything, rather more devout, and more naively so, than the average of the population. It is among those who constitute the pecuniary middle class and the body of law-abiding citizens that a relative exemption from the devotional attitude is to be looked for.”

Does this fit the stereotype of old-time mafia?

Veblen is convinced that religion is on its way out of modern society.  In looking for economic reasons for this, he uses America as an example and he makes a statement that made my mouth fall open.  Rather than try to paraphrase this ugly thought, I’ll let you read his words:

“As a general rule the classes that are low in economic efficiency, or in intelligence, or both, are peculiarly devout — as, for instance, the Negro population of the South, much of the lower-class foreign population, much of the rural population, especially in those sections which are backward in education, in the stage of development of their industry, or in respect of their industrial contact with the rest of the community. So also such fragments as we possess of a specialized or hereditary indigent class, or of a segregated criminal or dissolute class; although among these latter the devout habit of mind is apt to take the form of a naive animistic belief in luck and in the efficacy of shamanistic practices perhaps more frequently than it takes the form of a formal adherence to any accredited creed.”

He then observes that the ‘artisan class’ is falling away from religion because of their exposure to the ‘modern organised industry’ which requires matter-of-fact, cause-and-effect thinking.  This class is also sufficiently wealthy that they are not too over-worked or under-fed to manage ‘the work of adaptation’. 

The lower middle classes, he says, are still attending church, but mainly the women and children.  The men still give ‘reputable assent to the outlines of the accredited creed under which they were born’ but they are also more in contact with the industrial way of common sense thinking.  Letting the women attend church is a form of vicarious leisure, as though she can attend to this duty on his behalf.  Women, according to Veblen, are more religious than men because their absence from the industrial life, as stay-at-home wives, shields them from having to move away from archaic ways of thinking.

“…the woman finds herself at home and content in a range of ideas which to the man are in great measure alien and imbecile. Still the men of this class are also not devoid of piety, although it is commonly not piety of an aggressive or exuberant kind.”

Oh, did you ever observe men talking down to women when you were growing up, as though they were 'alien and imbecile'?

Men in the upper middle class are more likely to attend church than men of the artisan class.   They are also to a large extent a sheltered class, according to Veblen, enjoying the ‘patriarchal relation of status’ in the their home life; the presence of servants may also help conserve the ‘archaic habit of mind’.  Veblen also says that the middle class American man with a status occupation similar to the ideas of status of the upper class will have predatory economic habits, be accustomed to ‘arbitrary command and submission’ and engage in ‘shrewd practice, remotely akin to predatory fraud.  This outlook is ‘on the plane of life of the predatory barbarian, to whom a devotional attitude is habitual.’

Finally, I was interested in reading Veblen’s observation of America's southern culture at the turn of the last century, just thirty odd years after the Civil War: 

“There is no hereditary leisure class of any consequence in the American community, except in the South. This Southern leisure class is somewhat given to devout observances; more so than any class of corresponding pecuniary standing in other parts of the country. It is also well known that the creeds of the South are of a more old-fashioned cast than their counterparts in the North. Corresponding to this more archaic devotional life of the South is the lower industrial development of that section. The industrial organization of the South is at present, and especially it has been until quite recently, of a more primitive character than that of the American community taken as a whole. It approaches nearer to handicraft, in the paucity and rudeness of its mechanical appliances, and there is more of the element of mastery and subservience. It may also be noted that, owing to the peculiar economic circumstances of this section, the greater devoutness of the Southern population, both white and black, is correlated with a scheme of life which in many ways recalls the barbarian stages of industrial development. Among this population offenses of an archaic character also are and have been relatively more prevalent and are less deprecated than they are elsewhere; as, for example, duels, brawls, feuds, drunkenness, horse-racing, cock-fighting, gambling, male sexual incontinence (evidenced by the considerable number of mulattoes). There is also a livelier sense of  — an expression of sportsmanship and a derivative of predatory life.

There is much that Veblen writes that would be unacceptable in this present day, but I do find that he accounts for some things I’ve observed in my life time, which is why I found his book so fascinating.  With the post we are – finally – finished with Chapter Twelve.

Part XLVII - Religion and the Military

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Twelve is titled Devout Observances.

It’s easy to get kind of lost in all the apparent side-topics Veblen discusses in this chapter but just remember that religion, sports, gambling, military, etc. are all occupations that Veblen has placed firmly in the camp of the leisure class. Indeed, the Queen of England holds many honorary military titles  and is also 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.'

In an earlier post we touched on the military style of some young peoples’ organisations promoting religion and sports.  Veblen was also concerned about the military leanings of these organisations.  If you read about the beginnings of the Boys’Brigade here in Britain, the military background is obvious. 

Veblen reminds us of his earlier explanations of priest, ie leaders of religious services, in the role of vicarious leisure and vicarious consumption.  He also says there is a war-like facet of some religious observances.    

“…in characterizing the divinity and his relations to the process of human life, speakers and writers are still able to make effective use of similes borrowed from the vocabulary of war and of the predatory manner of life, as well as of locutions which involve an invidious comparison.”

I must admit, this hymn sounds pretty military to me:

“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord: He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword; His truth is marching on.” 

Have you ever noticed this link between religious and military thinking? 

Part XLVI - A Different Twist on Holidays

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Twelve is titled Devout Observances.

In economic theory, according to Veblen, sacred holidays are a period of vicarious leisure performed in the name of a divinity or saint.  The prohibition from all useful human effort on these days is to increase the good reputation of said divinity or saint.  In the case of fast-days, compulsory abstinence includes consumption that would contribute to the comfort or ‘fullness of life’ of the consumer.  He says

“Un saint qu’on ne chôme pas [a saint that is not idle - or perhaps just one that doesn't have their own holiday?] is indeed a saint fallen on evil days.”

Veblen points out that even secular holidays ‘shade off’ from those of a religious nature.  They tend to be marked by the birthdays of ‘kings and great men who have been in some measure canonized’ or to add to the good repute of some notable event or act, or to aid some striking fact whose good fame is in need of repair, eg Labor Day.  

I’d never given much thought to Labor Day until a friend from Slovakia remarked about how touchy people were about May Day.  It was a revelation to me that this ancient spring festival is also International Workers’ Day.  

Part XLV - Gambling, Sports and Religion

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Twelve is titled Devout Observances.

I think I'm likely to repeat myself in explaining this chapter because Veblen repeats himself a lot.  I think we could both benefit from the red pen of a tough editor, but that's not going to happen.  

In the last post, I think we covered these ideas:  

X - Gambling is related to sports

X - Gambling is related to devout observances

X - Sports is related to devout observances

In addition to the YMCA, Veblen has concerns about other boys’ organisations of his day, which relate sports and religion.  He sees participation in sports by new, young members as a means of induction into the ‘life of spiritual status which is the privilege of the full communicant along’ and ‘acting to develop the emulative proclivity and the sense of status in the youthful members of the congregation’.  He calls them pseudo-military organizations and says they tend to 

‘accentuate the proclivity to emulation and invidious comparison, and so strengthen the native facility for discerning and approving the relation of personal mastery and subservience.’ 

There is something inherently accurate about his statement that ‘…a believer is eminently a person who knows how to obey and accept chastisement with good grace….’  This all does go hand in hand with the idea of knowing one’s place in a hierarchy. I can see how sport or religion relates to ‘a sense of personal dignity and relative standing of individuals’.  

Veblen says that the 

‘The spiritual attitude and the aptitudes imputed to the preternatural agent are still such as belong under the regime of status, but they now assume the patriarchal cast characteristic of the quasi-peaceable stage of culture.’  

I agree that most modern religions are patriarchal.  It would seem that with the ordination of women as vicars that this might change, but things don’t always work out in obvious ways, do they?

Another example of how gambling and religion are related for Veblen is in the ‘gambling practices of which the church bazaar or raffle may be taken as the type.’  He says that raffles seem to appeal more to members of religious organisations than to persons of a less devout habit of mind, being trivial opportunities for gambling.  I find this hilarious, as I’ve been asked to staff a table at the upcoming WI fair which will be a tombola (a form of raffle popular here in Britain), the prizes for which will be jam jars filled with candy.   This will all take place in the parish hall.  I do love Veblen, in spite of his writing style.  (Did I mention we have to wear 1950's outfits, the theme of the fair being 'a 1950's tea'?).

Part XLIV - Relating to Religion

This is a series about a book, Theory of the Leisure Class, written by American economist Thorstein Veblen and published in 1899.   Chapter Twelve is titled Devout Observances.

This is a much tougher chapter than the last one, in part because I expect some people of faith would be rather insulted by Veblen’s views.  He says he has no intention to ‘commend or to deprecate the practices to be spoken of under the head of devout observances’ but rather to talk about the ‘tangible, external features’ of such observances as they relate to his field of economics.  Neither does he wish to pass any moral judgement on the value of a life of faith or to comment on the truth or beauty of any creed.  

Also, he makes some sweeping generalisations that I’m not sure about.  Not that I mind his generalisations; in many cases they are an interpretation of his dense verbage that I can understand.  It is often through one of these gross generalisations that I can see his concepts exemplified in present time and they make his book seem almost current.  I’m not so sure about some of the examples in this chapter, but we’ll see how that works out.  This is also a chapter in which he seems to tie together many of this theories, not so much in a linear chain as in a mesh, with many ideas connecting to each other:  economics, psychology, sports, religion, class, gambling; all are interwoven.

Veblen seems to lump all religions together.  He makes no differentiation between druids, medicine men, followers of Thor, Catholic priests, Methodist ministers, they all serve under the umbrella of ‘devout observances’ and ‘anthropomorphic cults’.   I think this is how he tries to show that his theories apply across the board.  Veblen says religion is linked with the institution of the leisure class.

He reminds us of his premise in an earlier chapter about how the material standards of the leisure class influence the value we place on things, what we perceive as beautiful or desirable.  We are conditioned to believe that only things rare and expensive are worthwhile.  Another idea previously presented is that psychologically, '…the gambling spirit which pervades the sporting element shades off by insensible gradations into that frame of mind which finds gratification in devout observances.'

The animistic outlook leads to 

“a perceptible inclination to make terms with the preternatural agency by some approved method of approach and conciliation. This element of propitiation and cajoling has much in common with the crasser forms of worship —if not in historical derivation, at least in actual psychological content. It obviously shades off in unbroken continuity into what is recognized as superstitious practice and belief, and so asserts its claim to kinship with the grosser anthropomorphic cults.”

We need to remember that ‘the sporting temperament’ is also  associated with the leisure class, as is leading in devout observances.  

Generalisation:  A betting man is frequently both a naïve believer in luck and also a staunch adherent of some form of accepted creed.  His belief in one makes him more open to the other and so he is ‘possessed of two, or sometimes more than two, distinguishable phases of animism.’  Veblen says this ‘series of successive phases of animistic belief is to be found unbroken in the spiritual furniture of any sporting community.’  

I mentioned last week that many sports celebrities have their talismans and rituals.  A ritual warm up before a race makes a certain amount of sense, mind, just as any set routine requires less thought or effort and can form the basis of a good habit.   Veblen, however, says that the belief in preternatural agency goes along with the ‘instinctive shaping of conduct to conform with the surmised requirements of the lucky chance’.

Now, apparently this sporting temperament is a feature of the ‘delinquent classes’ as well as the leisure class.  We’ve already seen other traits they supposedly share, such as conservatism and fighting.

Another generalisation:  ‘It is also noticeable that unbelieving members of these classes show more of a proclivity to become proselytes to some accredited faith than the average of unbelievers.’  Furthermore, ‘it is somewhat insistently claimed as a meritorious feature of sporting life that the habitual participants in athletic games are in some degree peculiarly given to devout practices.’  This sounds ridiculous, except that I remember growing up going to the YMCA to learn to swim and later hitting the gym at  lunch time at the downtown Y.

I’m going to stop here.  With all the interwoven ideas, it’s hard to find a logical break, but this is where it will happen.  I must admit I had Veblen’s ideas about gambling at the back of my mind when I went to the horse races at Hexham last weekend, my first experience of British racing.  It was a beautiful, if windy, day.  Our friend Terry, from the running club, is a great one for betting on the horses and is part of a syndicate that owns a horse.  His love of horse racing is one of the lynch pins of his retirement and he travels around the country to see his horse run; other weekends he’s running himself.  Terry was well impressed that in spite of not understanding the odds, knowing nothing about horses or their jockies, I won on 4 of the 7 races I bet (£2 a go).  I took home £10 after paying the entry fee, which was a nice surprise.  As little as I believe in ‘luck’, it was hard not to formulate some sort of theory about how to win…  Better to just enjoy the beauty of the horses and of the countryside, the courage of the jockies and the devotion of the stable lads and leave it as a good day out.