THORSTEIN VEBLEN


From Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions(New York: Macmillan, 1902), pp. 68-101.


Conspicuous Consumption


In what has been said of the evolution of the vicarious leisure class and its differentiation fromthe general body of the working classes, reference has been made to a further division of labour, --that between different servant classes. One portion of the servant class, chiefly those personswhose occupation is vicarious leisure, come to undertake a new, subsidiary range of duties--thevicarious consumption of goods. The most obvious form in which this consumption occurs isseen in the wearing of liveries and the occupation of spacious servants' quarters. Another,scarcely less obtrusive or less effective form of vicarious consumption, and a much more widelyprevalent one, is the consumption of food, clothing, dwelling, and furniture by the lady and therest of the domestic establishment.

But already at a point in economic evolution far antedating the emergence of the lady, specialisedconsumption of goods as an evidence of pecuniary strength had begun to work out in a more orless elaborate system. The beginning of a differentiation in consumption even antedates theappearance of anything that can fairly be called pecuniary strength. It is traceable back to theinitial phase of predatory culture, and there is even a suggestion that an incipient differentiationin this respect lies back of the beginnings of the predatory life. . . .

In the earlier phases of the predatory culture the only economic differentiation is a broaddistinction between an honourable superior class made up of the able-bodied men on the oneside, and a base inferior class of labouring women on the other. According to the ideal schemeof life in force at that time it is the office of the men to consume what the women produce. Suchconsumption as falls to the women is merely incidental to their work; it is a means to theircontinued labour, and not a consumption directed to their own comfort and fullness of life.Unproductive consumption of goods is honourable, primarily as a mark of prowess and aperquisite of human dignity; secondarily it becomes substantially honourable in itself, especiallythe consumption of the more desirable things. The consumption of choice articles of food, andfrequently also of rare articles of adornment, becomes tabu to the women and children; and ifthere is a base (servile) class of men, the tabu holds also for them. With a further advance inculture this tabu may change into simple custom of a more or less rigorous character; butwhatever be the theoretical basis of the distinction which is maintained, whether it be a tabu or alarger conventionality, the features of the conventional scheme of consumption do not changeeasily. When the quasi-peaceable stage of industry is reached, with its fundamental institution ofchattel slavery, the general principle, more or less rigorously applied, is that the base, industriousclass should consume only what may be necessary to their subsistence. In the nature of things,luxuries and the comforts of life belong to the leisure class. Under the tabu, certain victuals, andmore particularly certain beverages, are strictly reserved for the use of the superior class.

The ceremonial differentiation of the dietary is best seen in the use of intoxicating beverages andnarcotics. If these articles of consumption are costly, they are felt to be noble and honorific.Therefore the base classes, primarily the women, practise an enforced continence with respect tothese stimulants, except in countries where they are obtainable at a very low cost. From archaictimes down through all the length of the patriarchical regime it has been the office of the womento prepare and administer these luxuries, and it has been the perquisite of the men of gentle birthand breeding to consume them. Drunkenness and the other pathological consequences of the freeuse of stimulants therefore tend in their turn to become honorific, as being a mark, at the secondremove, of the superior status of those who are able to afford the indulgence. Infirmities inducedby over-indulgence are among some peoples freely recognised as manly attributes. It has evenhappened that the name for certain diseased conditions of the body arising from such an originhas passed into everyday speech as a synonym for "noble" or "gentle." It is only at a relativelyearly stage of culture that the symptoms of expensive vice are conventionally accepted as marksof a superior status, and so tend to become virtues and command the deference of thecommunity; but the reputability that attaches to certain expensive vices long retains so much ofits force as to appreciably lessen the disapprobation visited upon the men of the wealthy or nobleclass for any excessive indulgence. The same invidious distinction adds force to the currentdisapproval of any indulgence of this kind on the part of women, minors, and inferiors. Thisinvidious traditional distinction has not lost its force even among the more advanced peoples ofto-day. Where the example set by the leisure class retains its imperative force in the regulation ofthe conventionalities, it is observable that the women still in great measure practise the sametraditional continence with regard to stimulants.


During the earlier stages of economic development, consumption of goods without stint,especially consumption of the better grades of goods,--ideally all consumption in excess of thesubsistence minimum, --pertains normally to the leisure class. This restriction tends to disappear,at least formally, after the later peaceable stage has been reached, with private ownership ofgoods and an industrial system based on wage labour or on the petty household economy. Butduring the earlier quasi-peaceable stage, when so many of the traditions through which theinstitution of a leisure class has affected the economic life of later times were taking form andconsistency, this principle has had the force of a conventional law. It has served as the norm towhich consumption has tended to conform, and any appreciable departure from it is to beregarded as an aberrant form, sure to be eliminated sooner or later in the further course ofdevelopment.

The quasi-peaceable gentleman of leisure, then, not only consumes of the staff of life beyond theminimum required for subsistence and physical efficiency, but his consumption also undergoes aspecialisation as regards the quality of the goods consumed. He consumes freely and of the best,in food, drink, narcotics, shelter, services, ornaments, apparel, weapons and accoutrements,amusements, amulets, and idols or divinities. In the process of gradual amelioration which takesplace in the articles of his consumption, the motive principle and the proximate aim ofinnovation is no doubt the higher efficiency of the improved and more elaborate products forpersonal comfort and well-being. But that does not remain the sole purpose of theirconsumption. The canon of reputability is at hand and seizes upon such innovations as are,according to its standard, fit to survive. Since the consumption of these more excellent goods isan evidence of wealth, it becomes honorific; and conversely, the failure to consume in duequantity and quality becomes a mark of inferiority and demerit.

This growth of punctilious discrimination as to qualitative excellence in eating, drinking, etc.,presently affects not only the manner of life, but also the training and intellectual activity of thegentleman of leisure. He is no longer simply the successful, aggressive male,--the man ofstrength, resource, and intrepidity. In order to avoid stultification he must also cultivate histastes, for it now becomes incumbent on him to discriminate with some nicety between the nobleand the ignoble in consumable goods. He becomes a connoisseur in creditable viands of variousdegrees of merit, in manly beverages and trinkets, in seemly apparel and architecture, inweapons, games, dancers, and the narcotics. This cultivation of the aesthetic faculty requirestime and application, and the demands made upon the gentleman in this direction therefore tendto change his life of leisure into a more or less arduous application to the business of learninghow to live a life of ostensible leisure in a becoming way. Closely related to the requirement thatthe gentleman must consume freely and of the right kind of goods, there is the requirement thathe must know how to consume them in a seemly manner. His life of leisure must be conductedin due form. Hence arise good manners in the way pointed out in an earlier chapter. High-bredmanners and ways of living are items of conformity to the norm of conspicuous leisure andconspicuous consumption.

Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentleman ofleisure. As wealth accumulates on his hands, his own unaided effort will not avail to sufficientlyput his opulence in evidence by this method. The aid of friends and competitors is thereforebrought in by resorting to the giving of valuable presents and expensive feasts andentertainments. Presents and feasts had probably another origin than that of naive ostentation,but they acquired their utility for this purpose very early, and they have retained that character tothe present; so that their utility in this respect has now long been the substantial ground on whichthese usages rest. Costly entertainments, such as the potlatch or the ball, are peculiarly adaptedto serve this end. The competitor with whom the entertainer wishes to institute a comparison is,by this method, made to sense as a means to the end. He consumes vicariously for his host at thesame time that he is a witness to the consumption of that excess of good things which his host isunable to dispose of single-handed, and he is also made to witness his host's facility in etiquette.


As wealth accumulates, the leisure class develops further in function and structure, and therearises a differentiation within the class. There is a more or less elaborate system of rank andgrades. This differentiation is furthered by the inheritance of wealth and the consequentinheritance of gentility. With the inheritance of gentility goes the inheritance of obligatoryleisure; and gentility of a sufficient potency to entail a life of leisure may be inherited without thecomplement of wealth required to maintain a dignified leisure. Gentle blood may be transmittedwithout goods enough to afford a reputably free consumption at one's ease. Hence results a classof impecunious gentlemen of leisure, incidentally referred to already. These half-caste gentlemenof leisure fall into a system of hierarchical gradations. Those who stand near the higher and thehighest grades of the wealthy leisure class, in point of birth, or in point of wealth, or both,outrank the remoter-born and the pecuniarily weaker. These lower grades, especially theimpecunious, or marginal, gentlemen of leisure, affiliate themselves by a system of dependenceor fealty to the great ones; by so doing they gain an increment of repute, or of the means withwhich to lead a life of leisure, from their patron. They become his courtiers or retainers,servants; and being fed and countenanced by their patron they are indices of his rank andvicarious consumers of his superfluous wealth. Many of these affiliated gentlemen of leisure areat the same time lesser men of substance in their own right; so that some of them are scarcely atall, others only partially, to be rated as vicarious consumers. So many of them, however, as makeup the retainers and hangers-on of the patron may be classed as vicarious consumers withoutqualification. Many of these again, and also many of the other aristocracy of less degree, have inturn attached to their persons a more or less comprehensive group of vicarious consumers in thepersons of their wives and children, their servants, retainers, etc.


With the disappearance of servitude, the number of vicarious consumers attached to any onegentleman tends, on the whole, to decrease. The like is of course true, and perhaps in a stillhigher degree, of the number of dependents who perform vicarious leisure for him. In a generalway, though not wholly nor consistently, these two groups coincide. The dependent who wasfirst delegated for these duties was the wife, or the chief wife; and, as would be expected, in thelater development of the institution, when the number of persons by whom these duties arecustomarily performed gradually narrows, the wife remains the last. In the higher grades ofsociety a large volume of both these kinds of service is required; and here the wife is of coursestill assisted in the work by a more or less numerous corps of menials. But as we descend thesocial scale, the point is presently reached where the duties of vicarious leisure and consumptiondevolve upon the wife alone. In the communities of the Western culture, this point is at presentfound among the lower middle class.

And here occurs a curious inversion. It is a fact of common observation that in this lower middleclass there is no pretence of leisure on the part of the head of the household. Through force ofcircumstances it has fallen into disuse. But the middle-class wife still carries on the business ofvicarious leisure, for the good name of the household and its master . In descending the socialscale in any modern industrial community, the primary fact--the conspicuous leisure of themaster of the household-- disappears at a relatively high point. The head of the middle-classhousehold has been reduced by economic circumstances to turn his hand to gaining a livelihoodby occupations which often partake largely of the character of industry, as in the case of theordinary business man of today. But the derivative fact--the vicarious leisure and consumptionrendered by the wife, and the auxiliary vicarious performance of leisure by menials--remains invogue as a conventionality which the demands of reputability will not suffer to be slighted. It isby no means an uncommon spectacle to find a man applying himself to work with the utmostassiduity, in order that his wife may in due form render for him that degree of vicarious leisurewhich the common sense of the time demands.

The leisure rendered by the wife in such cases is, of course, not a simple manifestation ofidleness or indolence. It almost invariably occurs disguised under some form of work orhousehold duties or social amenities, which prove on analysis to serve little or no ulterior endbeyond showing that she does not and need not occupy herself with anything that is gainful orthat is of substantial use. As has already been noticed under the head of manners, the greater partof the customary round of domestic cares to which the middle-class housewife gives her time andeffort is of this character. Not that the results of her attention to household matters, of adecorative and mundificatory character, are not pleasing to the sense of men trained inmiddle-class proprieties; but the taste to which these effects of household adornment and tidinessappeal is a taste which has been formed under the selective guidance of a canon of propriety thatdemands just these evidences of wasted effort. The effects are pleasing to us chiefly because wehave been taught to find them pleasing. There goes into these domestic duties much solicitudefor a proper combination of form and colour, and for other ends that are to be classed as aestheticin the proper sense of the term; and it is not denied that effects having some substantial aestheticvalue are sometimes attained. Pretty much all that is here insisted on is that, as regards theseamenities of life, the housewife's efforts are under the guidance of traditions that have beenshaped by the law of conspicuously wasteful expenditure of time and substance. If beauty orcomfort is achieved,--and it is a more or less fortuitous circumstance if they are,-- they must beachieved by means and methods that commend themselves to the great economic law of wastedeffort. The more reputable, "presentable" portion of middle-class household paraphernalia are,on the one hand, items of conspicuous consumption, and on the other hand, apparatus for puttingin evidence the vicarious leisure rendered by the housewife.

The requirement of vicarious consumption at the hands of the wife continues in force even at alower point in the pecuniary scale than the requirement of vicarious leisure. At a point belowwhich little if any pretence of wasted effort, in ceremonial cleanness and the like, is observable,and where there is assuredly no conscious attempt at ostensible leisure, decency still requires thewife to consume some goods conspicuously for the reputability of the household and its head. Sothat, as the latter-day outcome of this evolution of an archaic institution, the wife, who was at theoutset the drudge and chattel of the man, both in fact and in theory,--the producer of goods forhim to consume,--has become the ceremonial consumer of goods which he produces. But shestill quite unmistakably remains his chattel in theory; for the habitual rendering of vicariousleisure and consumption is the abiding mark of the unfree servant.

This vicarious consumption practised by the household of the middle and lower classes can notbe counted as a direct expression of the leisure-class scheme of life, since the household of thispecuniary grade does not belong within the leisure class. It is rather that the leisure-class schemeof life here comes to an expression at the second remove. The leisure class stands at the head ofthe social structure in point of reputability; and its manner of life and its standards of worththerefore afford the norm of reputability for the community. The observance of these standards,in some degree of approximation, becomes incumbent upon all classes lower in the scale. Inmodern civilized communities the lines of demarcation between social classes have grown vagueand transient, and wherever this happens the norm of reputability imposed by the upper classextends its coercive influence with but slight hindrance down through the social structure to thelowest strata. The result is that the members of each stratum accept as their ideal of decency thescheme 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 conformto the accepted code, at least in appearance.

The basis on which good repute in any highly organised industrial community ultimately rests ispecuniary strength; and the means of showing pecuniary strength, and so of gaining or retaining agood name, are leisure and a conspicuous consumption of goods. Accordingly, both of thesemethods are in vogue as far down the scale as it remains possible; and in the lower strata inwhich the two methods are employed, both offices are in great part delegated to the wife andchildren of the household. Lower still, where any degree of leisure, even ostensible, has becomeimpracticable for the wife, the conspicuous consumption of goods remains and is carried on bythe wife and children. The man of the household also can do something in this direction, and,indeed, he commonly does; but with a still lower descent into the levels of indigence--along themargin of the Slums--the man, and presently also the children, virtually cease to consumevaluable goods for appearances, and the woman remains virtually the sole exponent of thehousehold's pecuniary decency. No class of society not even the most abjectly poor, foregoes allcustomary conspicuous consumption. The last items of this category of consumption are notgiven up except under stress of the direst necessity. Very much of squalor and discomfort will beendured before the last trinket or the last pretence of pecuniary decency is put away. There is noclass and no country that has yielded so abjectly before the pressure of physical want as to denythemselves all gratification of this higher or spiritual need.

From the foregoing survey of the growth of conspicuous leisure and consumption, it appears thatthe utility of both alike for the purposes of reputability lies in the element of waste that iscommon to both. In the one case it is a waste of time and effort, in the other it is a waste ofgoods. Both are methods of demonstrating the possession of wealth, and the two areconventionally accepted as equivalents. The choice between them is a question of advertisingexpediency simply, except so far as it may be affected by other standards of propriety springingfrom a different source. On grounds of expediency the preference may be given to the one or theother at different stages of the economic development. The question is, which of the twomethods will most effectively reach the persons whose convictions it is desired to affect. Usagehas answered this question in different ways under different circumstances.

So long as the community or social group is small enough and compact enough to be effectuallyreached by common notoriety alone,-- that is to say, so long as the human environment to whichthe individual is required to adapt himself in respect of reputability is comprised within hissphere of personal acquaintance and neighbourhood gossip, --so long the one method is about aseffective as the other. Each will therefore serve about equally well during the earlier stages ofsocial growth. But when the differentiation has gone farther and it becomes necessary to reach awider human environment, consumption begins to hold over leisure as an ordinary means ofdecency. This is especially true during the later, peaceable economic stage. The means ofcommunication and the mobility of the population now expose the individual to the observationof many persons who have no other means of judging of his reputability than the display of goods(and perhaps of breeding) which he is able to make while he is under their direct observation.

The modern organisation of industry works in the same direction also by another line. Theexigencies of the modern industrial system frequently place individuals and households injuxtaposition between whom there is little contact in any other sense than that of juxtaposition.One's neighbours, mechanically speaking, often are socially not one's neighbours, or evenacquaintances; and still their transient good opinion has a high degree of utility. The onlypracticable means of impressing one's pecuniary ability on these unsympathetic observers ofone's everyday life is an unremitting demonstration of ability to pay. In the modern communitythere is also a more frequent attendance at large gatherings of people to whom one's everyday lifeis unknown; in such places as churches, theatres, ballrooms, hotels, parks, shops, and the like. Inorder to impress these transient observers, and to retain one's self-complacency under theirobservation, the signature of one's pecuniary strength should be written in characters which hewho runs may read. It is evident, therefore, that the present trend of the development is in thedirection of heightening the utility of conspicuous consumption as compared with leisure.

It is also noticeable that the serviceability of consumption as a means of repute, as well as theinsistence on it as an element of decency, is at its best in those portions of the community wherethe human contact of the individual is widest and the mobility of the population is greatest.Conspicuous consumption claims a relatively larger portion of the income of the urban than ofthe rural population, and the claim is also more imperative. The result is that, in order to keep upa decent appearance, the former habitually live hand-to-mouth to a greater extent than the latter.So it comes, for instance, that the American farmer and his wife and daughters are notoriouslyless modish in their dress, as well as less urbane in their manners, than the city artisan's familywith an equal income. It is not that the city population is by nature much more eager for thepeculiar complacency that comes of a conspicuous consumption, nor has the rural population lessregard for pecuniary decency. But the provocation to this line of evidence, as well as its transienteffectiveness, are more decided in the city. This method is therefore more readily resorted to,and in the struggle to outdo one another the city population push their normal standard ofconspicuous consumption to a higher point, with the result that a relatively greater expenditure inthis direction is required to indicate a given degree of pecuniary decency in the city. Therequirement of conformity to this higher conventional standard becomes mandatory. Thestandard of decency is higher, class for class, and this requirement of decent appearance must belived up to on pain of losing caste.

Consumption becomes a larger element in the standard of living in the city than in the country.Among the country population its place is to some extent taken by savings and home comfortsknown through the medium of neighbourhood gossip sufficiently to serve the like generalpurpose of pecuniary repute. These home comforts and the leisure indulged in--where theindulgence is found--are of course also in great part to be classed as stems of conspicuousconsumption; and much the same is to be said of the savings. The smaller amount of the savingslaid by by the artisan class is no doubt due, in some measure, to the fact that in the case of theartisan the savings are a less effective means of advertisement, relative to the environment inwhich he is placed, than are the savings of the people living on farms and in the small villages.Among the latter, everybody's affairs, especially everybody's pecuniary status, are known toeverybody else. Considered by itself simply--taken in the first degree--this added provocation towhich the artisan and the urban labouring classes are exposed may not very seriously decreasethe amount of savings; but in its cumulative action, through raising the standard of decentexpenditure, its deterrent effect on the tendency to save cannot but be very great.


But there are other standards of repute and other, more or less imperative, canons of conduct,besides wealth and its manifestation, and some of these come in to accentuate or to qualify thebroad, fundamental canon of conspicuous waste. Under the simple test of effectiveness foradvertising, we should expect to find leisure and the conspicuous consumption of goods dividingthe field of pecuniary emulation pretty evenly between them at the outset. Leisure might then beexpected gradually to yield ground and tend to obsolescence as the economic development goesforward, and the community increases in size; while the conspicuous consumption of goodsshould gradually gain in importance, both absolutely and relatively, until it had absorbed all theavailable product, leaving nothing over beyond a bare livelihood. But the actual course ofdevelopment has been somewhat different from this ideal scheme. Leisure held the first place atthe start, and came to hold a rank very much above wasteful consumption of goods, both as adirect exponent of wealth and as an element in the standard of decency, during thequasi-peaceable culture. From that point onward, consumption has gained ground, until, atpresent, it unquestionably holds the primacy, though it is still far from absorbing the entiremargin of production above the subsistence minimum.


Throughout the entire evolution of conspicuous expenditure, whether of goods or of services orhuman life, runs the obvious implication that in order to effectually mend the consumer's goodfame it must be an expenditure of superfluities. In order to be reputable it must be wasteful. Nomerit would accrue from the consumption of the bare necessaries of life, except by comparisonwith the abjectly poor who fall short even of the subsistence minimum; and no standard ofexpenditure could result from such a comparison, except the most prosaic and unattractive levelof decency. A standard of life would still be possible which should admit of invidiouscomparison in other respects than that of opulence; as, for instance, a comparison in variousdirections in the manifestation of moral, physical, intellectual, or aesthetic force. Comparison inall these directions is in vogue to-day; and the comparison made in these respects is commonly soinextricably bound up with the pecuniary comparison as to be scarcely distinguishable from thelatter. This is especially true as regards the current rating of expressions of intellectual andaesthetic force or proficiency; so that we frequently interpret as aesthetic or intellectual adifference which in substance is pecuniary only.

The use of the term "waste" is in one respect an unfortunate one. As used in the speech ofeveryday life the word carries an undertone of deprecation. It is here used for want of a betterterm that will adequately describe the same range of motives and of phenomena, and it is not tobe taken in an odious sense, as implying an illegitimate expenditure of human products or ofhuman life. In the view of economic theory the expenditure in question is no more and no lesslegitimate than any other expenditure. It is here called "caste" because this expenditure does notserve human life or human well-being on the whole, not because it is waste or misdirection ofeffort or expenditure as viewed from the standpoint of the individual consumer who chooses it. If he chooses it, that disposes of the question of its relative utility to him, as compared with otherforms of consumption that would not be deprecated on account of their wastefulness. Whateverform of expenditure the consumer chooses, or whatever end he seeks in making his choice, hasutility to him by virtue of his preference. As seen from the point of view of the individualconsumer, the question of wastefulness does not arise within the scope of economic theoryproper. The use of the word "waste" as a technical term, therefore, implies no deprecation of themotives or of the ends sought by the consumer under this canon of conspicuous waste.


It is obviously not necessary that a given object of expenditure should be exclusively wasteful inorder to come in under the category of conspicuous waste. An article may be useful and wastefulboth, and its utility to the consumer may be made up of use and waste in the most varyingproportions. Consumable goods, and even productive goods generally show the two elements incombination, as constituents of their utility; although, in a general way, the element of wastetends to predominate in articles of consumption, while the contrary is true of articles designed forproductive use. Even in articles which appear at first glance to serve for pure ostentation only, itis always possible to detect the presence of some, at least ostensible, useful purpose; and on theother hand, even in special machinery and tools contrived for some particular industrial process,as well as in the rudest appliances of human industry, the traces of conspicuous waste, or at leastof the habit of ostentation, usually become evident on a close scrutiny. It would be hazardous toassert that a useful purpose is ever absent from the utility of any article or of any service,however obviously its prime purpose and chief element is conspicuous waste; and it would beonly less hazardous to assert of any primarily useful product that the element of waste is in noway concerned in its value, immediately or remotely.

Back to the Index