Thorstein Veblen in The Theory of the Leisure Class makes some bold claims about what people do and why they do it. He theorizes about what he believes most people are seeking (a good name, fame, merit and repute) and what these people are apparently trying to avoid (disesteem and ostracism). Veblen ties external manifestation of these goals into acts conspicuous consumption. And when Veblen looks to motivating forces behind this phenomenon, he frequently refers to the concept of self-respect. But I think, or at least I hope, that Veblen’s got it wrong -- at least as concerns the self-respect part. Instead, one of the dominant motivators behind the social activity described in The Theory of the Leisure Class can be encapsulated in one word: insecurity. Interestingly, this is a word that I do not recall seeing in Veblen’s work, but it is a motivating force that represents the axis around which spins the majority of the consumptive activities he describes.

Insecurity arises from a variety of social contexts, and it knows no social or economic bounds. And consuming is a necessary part of life. But conspicuously consuming in an effort to be recognized as a “rising consumer” (the type of consumption that is employed to make a pointed statement to others about one’s relative worth) reflects personal insecurities vis-à-vis others’ perceived opinions that the consumer believes she should value. Veblen leads the reader to the notion that mimicking the consumptive habits of the next “better” class of people is a path to retaining and reinforcing self-respect. “[T]he members of each stratum accept as their ideal of decency the scheme of life in vogue in the next higher stratum, and bend their energies to live up to that ideal. On pain of forfeiting their good name and their self-respect in case of failure, they must conform to the accepted code, at least in appearance” (p. 59). Alternatively, Veblen comes closer to the mark when he says, “[t]he motive is emulation – the stimulus of an invidious comparison which prompts us to outdo those with whom we are in the habit of classing ourselves” (p. 71). Attempting to outdo one set of people by emulating others doesn’t sound like the type of character-building activity that engenders self-respect. And once formed, the antisocial motivations that drive “invidious comparisons” aren’t usually the personal qualities to which most would admit, unlike those personal qualities that reflect genuine self-respect. Consequently, it is hard to believe that the “stimulus” to which Veblen refers could be linked to the preservation of self-respect. Nonetheless, Veblen seems determined to draw a parallel between self-respect and catering to popular opinion when he states that, “soon as the possession of property becomes the basis of popular esteem, therefore, it becomes also a requisite to that complacency which we call self-respect” (p. 25). Here again, I think Veblen confuses matters, or perhaps he is claiming that we all confuse matters – complacency implies a self-satisfaction that does not necessarily intersect with self-respect.

Veblen also seems to believe that the consumers about whom he writes maintain their sense of self-respect by conspicuously consuming in front of those they are trying to impress – some of whom are the very same people they are trying to outdo. “[T]he effect on consumption is to concentrate it upon the lines which are most patent to the observers whose good opinion is sought; . . .” (p. 76). And, according to Veblen, self-respect comes from the acknowledgement by those one is trying to match or outdo that her consumption has in fact impressed or outdone them. “[T]he usual basis of self-respect is the respect accorded by one’s neighbours” (p. 25). However, if the observers are, as Veblen suggests, motivated by the same insecurities as the consumer, then confirmation of the acceptability of the consumer’s consumption will not in all likelihood be forthcoming, and if forthcoming, it likely will not be sincere. Instead, observers will be too distracted by their own discomfort at the thought that the consumer is either catching up to them or outdoing them. Hence the observers’ increased efforts toward heightened consumption. And the consumer will be frustrated by the lack of observer confirmation, perhaps believing that additional effort will produce the desired reaction. Hence the consumer’s increased efforts toward heightened consumption. And ‘round and ‘round they go, each player maneuvering, comparing and tallying. But it is a game that, having played it myself, I know that no one will win.

And perhaps Veblen knew that no one would win when he seemed to be testing his own theory. It appears as if life imitated art, at least where Veblen’s own consumption and women were concerned. Veblen’s specious internalization of his own historical reference to women as chattels springs forth from his biography repeatedly. Whether there is any insecurity behind his dalliances is debatable, but I doubt there is any self-respect. And I doubt he wanted, in hindsight, his own engagements in arguably wasteful consumption to become quite as conspicuous as they in fact became, albeit with the prodding of others, especially given the long-term professional consequences to himself.

How much Veblen wrote about himself, as well as others, when he wrote about persistent human foibles is not readily discernable. I know that when I have played this game, I would have said much the same things Veblen is saying. A book by the insecure written for the insecure. But perhaps behind the theoretically-packaged gushings stands a man who never took any of this seriously anyway. Most likely Veblen is gaming all of us – he knew what he was selling, and to whom he was selling it – a misleading but much appreciated guidebook for the insecure consumer with discretionary income who grapples with himself and others for personal aggrandizement. If so, I sense that over time he gained (and probably gamed) a large and growing audience, perhaps Eliot Spitzer included. And no matter how many readers have shared in the humor, I’m sure he’s still chuckling.

-- BarbPitman - 25 Mar 2008