From Palladium Magazine, October 24:
In 1899, Thorstein Veblen published The Theory of the Leisure Class, which soon became one of the most influential works of economics and anthropology ever written. Today it is best remembered for its role in stigmatizing “conspicuous consumption,” a concept Veblen coins in the book. Veblen’s full theory is much broader. He describes the leisure class, a group of people whose vocation is performing aristocratic leisure in order to show that they are higher and more honorable than the common throng. It has been over a century since Veblen’s time, and the specific forms of reputable leisure which the privileged class engage in have changed completely. The basic structure of the leisure class, however, is much the same.
The most reputable displays of leisure were aristocratic in Veblen’s time. Veblen uses examples like hunting for sport, speaking Latin and Greek, and learning refined manners to demonstrate “good breeding.” By now, all of this is hopelessly old-fashioned. But the leisure class is far older than these aristocratic values and aesthetics, and did not cease to exist just because that ideology collapsed. Today the leisure class has adopted the new ideology, which we can roughly call “social activism,” and performs its conspicuous leisure in accordance with these newer values and aesthetics.
The Leisure Class of Today
When we talk about “the leisure class” today, we do not mean people who spend all day watching TikTok or playing video games or listening to true crime podcasts. We are talking about people who engage in conspicuous leisure. By conspicuous, we mean that they show off their exemption from unworthy labor through accomplishments which those without leisure cannot match, for want of time or money or energy. They spend their time and effort in “honorific” pursuits which place them above the base necessity of directly producing wealth.
A meatpacker illegally working twelve-hour shifts can watch Breaking Bad when he comes home, so watching Breaking Bad is just ordinary leisure, and having opinions about Breaking Bad does not demonstrate conspicuous leisure. But only a man of means and distinction can take three-week vacations to go scuba diving in exotic locations—and upload the selfies to social media—so this becomes a mark of honor. In the language of today’s economists, what Veblen calls “conspicuous” might be phrased as “suitable for costly signaling.” Conspicuous leisure often includes mastery of subtle and exacting speech codes, and adherence to precise forms of manners, carriage, and behavior, all of which requires careful study and training within the social milieu of the reputable elites.
This is why class expression is not the same thing as wealth. Many anthropologists of the modern United States, including Paul Fussell in his masterful Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, have observed that there is a large class of wealthy businessmen who own and operate valuable companies, yet do not code as part of the upper class. This is because they make their money through base production. They own and operate farms, or car dealerships, or construction businesses, or the like. They spend their energy in the work of creating wealth—not “creating wealth” in the sense of amassing dollars and stock options and intangible claims on other people’s labor, but “creating wealth” in the sense of manipulating physical objects, the food and cars and houses that people want to acquire with their dollars at the end of all the negotiating and fundraising and politicking about how the dollars will be distributed. In popular perception, perhaps even instinctively, this work of creating tangible wealth is considered inherently base. The entire point of conspicuous leisure is to prove that one is above such concerns, so no matter how much money a physical business operator may make this way, he cannot fully become one of the rarefied gentlemen.
Of course, a gentleman of means has far more wealth than he can spend on his own leisure, so he also needs other ways to make his station visible. One of these is conspicuous consumption, the most famous concept from Veblen’s book. This is when people buy expensive objects, not mainly because they think the physical Louis Vuitton handbag is so much better than another handbag or because the Lamborghini is so much better than another car, but to display their ownership of the object to others.
Conspicuous consumption has become less important in recent generations, although it is far from dead. As industrial mass production has made physical objects cheaper and widely available, they have become a poor way to distinguish the gentleman from the throng. When fine clothes were out of reach for most people, they were an extremely important way for the wealthy to distinguish themselves, and you could tell rich from poor at a glance. In 2025, it’s possible to buy a decent ballgown on a minimum wage salary, so there is little point in wearing ballgowns. Multimillionaires might as well wear a t-shirt and sneakers. We have seen less dramatic versions of the same trend with objects like fine tableware, furniture, televisions, and even diamonds.
Where conspicuous consumption of manufactured goods remains an effective social tactic, now it is often a matter of purchasing expensive brand names at deliberately inflated prices, rather than purchasing objects which necessarily require a great deal of labor to make, like a 19th century ballgown. A billionaire can buy a brand-name handbag, and a grocery store clerk can buy a “counterfeit” handbag which most people find indistinguishable.
The sharpest point in the decline of conspicuous consumption was the rise of the “counterculture” in the 1960s and especially 1970s. This ideology eschewed material status symbols, often using Veblen’s words to denounce them as crass and spiritually polluted. Instead, they turned back to conspicuous leisure—following rock bands on tour across the United States, backpacking the “hippie trail” across southwest Asia, cultivating mystic awareness, devoting themselves to radical activism, and a dozen other means of demonstrating their remove from labor and physical production. By the 21st century, when the counterculture had been fully recuperated into the mainstream culture, marketers spoke of the value of “experiences” over “things” in order to sell conspicuous leisure to the middle class.
There is another way for a gentleman to display his wealth beyond what he can expend on his own leisure, even more important than conspicuous consumption. This is vicarious leisure, that is, maintaining others to engage in nonproductive activities which redound to the honor of the master. Historically, the most basic form of vicarious leisure was maintaining a wife to engage in reputable leisure rather than household production, but it could reach much greater scale than that. In the Dark Ages, men like Hrothgar would throw massive feasts for his followers every night in his mead-hall and give gold bracelets to his favorites. In the Middle Ages, a lord would maintain a court full of retainers and knights and astrologers and jesters. As Adam Smith tells the story in The Wealth of Nations, it was only with the late medieval rise of craft production and long-distance trade that conspicuous consumption of luxury goods could absorb the money that had once gone to the vicarious leisure of maintaining a court.
By the time Veblen published in 1899, the middle class had come to the fore, so the leisure class had grown to include many people of moderate wealth. At that point he claims the main form of conspicuous leisure was employing household servants to maintain standards of exacting cleanliness far beyond the point required by hygiene and good health, “not so much for the individual behoof of the head of the household as for the reputability of the household taken as a corporate unit.”....
....MUCH MORE
The author and/or publisher missed a trick.
Though the opening graphic illustrating entitled leisurecrats is the famous 1969 picture of John Lennon and Yoko Ono doing their "bed-in" protest against the Vietnam war:
there is another picture, this one of John and Yoko waiting for the maid—who can't afford such performative lie-abed behavior—waiting for the maid to change their bed linens:
