Conspicuous Assurance

Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption to describe inessential and wasteful consumption by the upper social classes

In his most famous work, The Theory of the Leisure Class, Veblen writes critically of the leisure class for its role in fostering wasteful consumption, or conspicuous waste. In this first work Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption, which he defined as spending more money on goods than they are worth.

We might go on to say that there is also another social trait which we could refer to as conspicuous assurance. It is necessary for elite classes to exhibit a level of assurance about certain important public narratives where the level of assurance is greater than the narrative will rationally bear. In many cases, much greater.

As communication technologies have become cheaper and thereby more widely available, knowledge is no longer restricted to those with an elite education. Mass-produced books, magazines, newspapers and lending libraries made knowledge more democratic. The internet is taking that development much further.

Elite social classes still have a need to exhibit assurance and confidence, but have been nudged into areas of knowledge which are at best uncertain. These are areas where confidence about the mainstream narrative is unwarranted, where consensus may be a worthless social fabrication or worse.

Examples are climate change, sustainable energy, electric transport, gender politics, race politics, pandemics and immigration. All of these are sustained by irrational confidence in consensus narratives which vary from dubious to false to absurd. Yet they partly define certain social classes which do not appear to know how to extricate themselves. Or more likely, they do not care. 

As a consequence, elites have been nudged into impossible positions where the only exit may be totalitarian politics. 

A waste of time

Thorstein Veblen coined the phrases “conspicuous consumption” and "conspicuous leisure" to describe how personal status is reflected in levels of consumption and leisure. He also described how high social status is reinforced by wasting the time of those unfortunate enough to be lower down the pecking order. In his day it was having servants to pour the drinks or open the carriage door. Today, wasting time has become vastly more complex and pervasive, so much so that we couldn’t do without it.

And so we naturally turn to dishwashers. When I switch on the dishwasher I save time, but not much. I could easily wash the dishes myself. Because I could wash the dishes myself and because the effort involved is small, it could be said that my use of the dishwasher wastes the time of numerous other people from the dishwasher manufacturer to the retailer to the electricity supplier and so on. Admittedly the waste is indirect, but the dishwasher is merely an example. Many people have to carry out many tasks merely because I prefer not to wash dishes.

Many of the things we buy are like that. We can afford it, other people have one and that’s a key measure of their utility and desirability. There is nothing wrong with buying whatever it is either, because that’s how a vital area of our economy works and we don’t want to drive around in Trabants, queue at government-run stores with empty shelves, or spend hours waiting for hospital consultants... oh hang on. Here in the UK the social boot is on the other foot in that last example.

  

Yet the waste mounts up and the worst aspect of it isn’t found in environmental mantras but in the waste of time, the waste of human life making, designing and selling goods and services we don’t need. Or political policies we don't need for that matter.

The problem is, this kind of thinking tends to be submerged in environmental rhetoric and mantras which sometimes make worthwhile points but tend to miss the big one – the time we waste. Clearly if we waste our time we waste our lives and we can’t go out and buy another one. 

Unwelcome ideas - part III

The previous Unwelcome Ideas post introduced  Thorstein Veblen’s basic thesis of conspicuous consumption. The next question is – can we apply his ideas to modern times when elite tastes are perhaps a little more discreet? The glaringly obvious answer is yes.

One example is enough to set this all too familiar ball rolling. Recently while driving along a motorway at my usual sedate 60mph, I was passed by a driver in a Toyota Prius doing at least 85mph. You’d think a Prius driver would tootle along at a fuel and planet-conserving 55mph wouldn’t you? Yet I don’t ever recall coming up behind a Prius tootling along the motorway at 55mph, let alone the optimum speed which would presumably be even lower.

So faux environmental virtues must be added to big houses, expensive cars, refined tastes in music, literature, food, holidays, interior decor and personal adornment. From social mores to upmarket brands to cosmetic dentistry, the list is endless because as Veblen pointed out, social status is closely linked to pointless activity and that's a very wide field indeed.

Modern life would have been grist to Veblen’s mill because in essence, nothing has changed. It’s all so well known and perhaps that’s the only mystery. Veblen was merely pointing out in a systematic way things we already know. And this counts as a minor mystery doesn’t it? Because although we know all this stuff, it makes no real difference to our ideas of social status and the way we behave. Yet these things are in no way hidden from us. 

Unwelcome ideas - part II

From Wikipedia

Thorstein Veblen was a sociologist and economist who coined the phrase conspicuous consumption in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class published in 1899. His prose is dense and the book fairly heavy going, but well worth reading.

His basic thesis is that status must be conspicuous, emulation restricted and there are canons of socially approved behaviour designed to achieve these aims. Consumption is pointlessly expensive, common household goods more complex than necessary, clothing needlessly elaborate and expensive, modes of living wasteful and without practical value.

The reasoning behind Veblen’s thesis is simple. As we rise above basic survival, our existence is not contingent on all our modes of behaviour. We may be wasteful, we may do pointless things without risking our survival. High social status inevitably becomes linked with the least accessible and most extreme forms of wasteful and pointless behaviour.

The conspicuous employment of servants to perform inessential activities has a particularly high status in Veblen’s world, as has any activity where one may require others to perform wasteful or inessential functions. Even shaving is not exempt. In Veblen’s eyes, it is a pointless activity with higher social status than simply growing a beard.