![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This 1899 book is glorious! An academic examination of the well-born worthless wastrel and parasite on society.
It is where the term "conspicuous consumption" originates. It's sociological satire with a point, somewhat similar to the later 'Bodily Ritual Among the Nacirema'. Because of its density, it's very difficult to locate a quote that's both representative and capable of standing alone. Basically, the thesis is that humans are broken because we regard leisure as symbolic of prestige, and tend to judge people by the extent to which they can prove they lead useless lives that contribute nothing of practical value to the community.
In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence. And not only does the evidence of wealth serve to impress one's importance on others and to keep their sense of his importance alive and alert, but it is of scarcely less use in building up and preserving one's self-complacency. In all but the lowest stages of culture the normally constituted man is comforted and upheld in his self-respect by "decent surroundings" and by exemption from "menial offices". Enforced departure from his habitual standard of decency, either in the paraphernalia of life or in the kind and amount of his everyday activity, is felt to be a slight upon his human dignity, even apart from all conscious consideration of the approval or disapproval of his fellows.
The archaic theoretical distinction between the base and the honourable in the manner of a man's life retains very much of its ancient force even today. So much so that there are few of the better class who are not possessed of an instinctive repugnance for the vulgar forms of labour. We have a realising sense of ceremonial uncleanness attaching in an especial degree to the occupations which are associated in our habits of thought with menial service. It is felt by all persons of refined taste that a spiritual contamination is inseparable from certain offices that are conventionally required of servants. Vulgar surroundings, mean (that is to say, inexpensive) habitations, and vulgarly productive occupations are unhesitatingly condemned and avoided. They are incompatible with life on a satisfactory spiritual plane - with "high thinking". From the days of the Greek philosophers to the present, a degree of leisure and of exemption from contact with such industrial processes as serve the immediate everyday purposes of human life has ever been recognised by thoughtful men as a prerequisite to a worthy or beautiful, or even a blameless, human life. In itself and in its consequences the life of leisure is beautiful and ennobling in all civilised men's eyes.
Some criticism of this book is also interesting, such as this quote from HL Mencken:
Do I enjoy a decent bath because I know that John Smith cannot afford one—or because I delight in being clean? Do I admire Beethoven's Fifth Symphony because it is incomprehensible to Congressmen and Methodists—or because I genuinely love music? Do I prefer terrapin à la Maryland to fried liver, because plowhands must put up with the liver—or because the terrapin is intrinsically a more charming dose? - Mencken, Professor Veblen, Prejudices, First Series, 1919. (Quoted in Wikipedia.)
(The way that terrapin isn't especially popular today might suggest something about this reply.)
This book's especially enjoyable in that it holds a mirror up to the reader and invites them to look: what do you like because it is expensive or socially conventional (or socially unconventional), rather than because it's fit for purpose or suits a personal aesthetic? Surely the way we are now isn't any more normal than any other form of human society; therefore isn't it best to analyse rather than accept? The satire bites with some excellent points. So excellent that it's probably sufficient to set off its own trend of conventional unconventionality.
Recommended to try this read! Still relevant today.
( Also, it mentioned Ruskin )
It is where the term "conspicuous consumption" originates. It's sociological satire with a point, somewhat similar to the later 'Bodily Ritual Among the Nacirema'. Because of its density, it's very difficult to locate a quote that's both representative and capable of standing alone. Basically, the thesis is that humans are broken because we regard leisure as symbolic of prestige, and tend to judge people by the extent to which they can prove they lead useless lives that contribute nothing of practical value to the community.
In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence. And not only does the evidence of wealth serve to impress one's importance on others and to keep their sense of his importance alive and alert, but it is of scarcely less use in building up and preserving one's self-complacency. In all but the lowest stages of culture the normally constituted man is comforted and upheld in his self-respect by "decent surroundings" and by exemption from "menial offices". Enforced departure from his habitual standard of decency, either in the paraphernalia of life or in the kind and amount of his everyday activity, is felt to be a slight upon his human dignity, even apart from all conscious consideration of the approval or disapproval of his fellows.
The archaic theoretical distinction between the base and the honourable in the manner of a man's life retains very much of its ancient force even today. So much so that there are few of the better class who are not possessed of an instinctive repugnance for the vulgar forms of labour. We have a realising sense of ceremonial uncleanness attaching in an especial degree to the occupations which are associated in our habits of thought with menial service. It is felt by all persons of refined taste that a spiritual contamination is inseparable from certain offices that are conventionally required of servants. Vulgar surroundings, mean (that is to say, inexpensive) habitations, and vulgarly productive occupations are unhesitatingly condemned and avoided. They are incompatible with life on a satisfactory spiritual plane - with "high thinking". From the days of the Greek philosophers to the present, a degree of leisure and of exemption from contact with such industrial processes as serve the immediate everyday purposes of human life has ever been recognised by thoughtful men as a prerequisite to a worthy or beautiful, or even a blameless, human life. In itself and in its consequences the life of leisure is beautiful and ennobling in all civilised men's eyes.
Some criticism of this book is also interesting, such as this quote from HL Mencken:
Do I enjoy a decent bath because I know that John Smith cannot afford one—or because I delight in being clean? Do I admire Beethoven's Fifth Symphony because it is incomprehensible to Congressmen and Methodists—or because I genuinely love music? Do I prefer terrapin à la Maryland to fried liver, because plowhands must put up with the liver—or because the terrapin is intrinsically a more charming dose? - Mencken, Professor Veblen, Prejudices, First Series, 1919. (Quoted in Wikipedia.)
(The way that terrapin isn't especially popular today might suggest something about this reply.)
This book's especially enjoyable in that it holds a mirror up to the reader and invites them to look: what do you like because it is expensive or socially conventional (or socially unconventional), rather than because it's fit for purpose or suits a personal aesthetic? Surely the way we are now isn't any more normal than any other form of human society; therefore isn't it best to analyse rather than accept? The satire bites with some excellent points. So excellent that it's probably sufficient to set off its own trend of conventional unconventionality.
Recommended to try this read! Still relevant today.
( Also, it mentioned Ruskin )
