The Fall EE&S Conference (Fall, 2016)

In 1899 Thorstein Veblen published a book called The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Economic Institutions. He was unhappy with the formalism economists went about doing their work, and decided he should do something different. Thus, he mobilised knowledge available in sociology and anthropology, not to mention history and wrote a brilliant book. Like many social scientists of his day, Veblen was influenced by evolutionary views of society, through the work of Herbert Spencer. The leisure class is a social institution fully developed 'at the higher stages of the barbarian culture; as, for instance, in feudal Europe or feudal Japan.' (p. 2). Thus members of this upper class enjoyed the power and prestige accorded to those who can demonstrate distance from necessity. This is to say that in pre-industrial societies members of the leisure class engaged in conspicuous nonproductive pursuits. However, they devoted themselves to activities that emulated work, such as hunting, sports, or learning everything there is to know about horses or wine. Or both. But as society evolved around industrial capitalism, the leisure class still avoided productive activities, but acquired a special taste for money.

In an industrial society, Veblen contended, conspicuous consumption became the standard way of demonstrating wealth.  But modernity brought about another type of social divide, namely that between business and industry. Between those who owned wealth and invested money to make more money, and those who formed the industrial class: 'It has already been noticed that modern economic institutions fall into two roughly distinct categories—the pecuniary and the industrial' (p. 105) Thus, Veblen purported a two-class social stratification system which was dominated by the specific goals of the pecuniary class. The leisure class, the one devoted to pecuniary interests, retained jobs centred around 'ownership or acquisitions', while members of the industrial class kept jobs having to do with 'workmanship and production.' Hence, the main concern of the leisure lass was profit, and that led Veblen to depict its members as parasitical and exploitative. Veblen even thought that their pecuniary interests ended up obstructing the industrial system.

The leisure class was destructive, Veblen asserted. Not only to the industrial system, but to society as a whole, their jobs were nonetheless high reputed, and despite their 'predatory temperament and habits of thought' they were at the top positions of the hierarchy of social status. What if we were to update Veblen's views? Is there still a leisure class, one also engaged in conspicuous consumption and waste, and equally prestigious as their late nineteenth-century counterparts? we find ourselves discussing the case of CEOs and bankers, alongside other financial players. Their fault seems to be their self-interest, and their pecuniary orientation as well. Since 2008 that we have been listening to debates discussing the morality of CEOs' humongous bonuses; we have been feeling the toughness of financial and economic crisis; we have been told that we have been living above our means, and then banks started to crumble around us and unsurprisingly, we taxpayers, the same who had been living above our means, have been called on to save them. More recently, we've discovered that bankers have been embezzling money and that role-model citizens have been escaping taxes by cashing them in off-shore tax-free institutions world wide. Thus Veblen's expression 'pecuniary class' is still useful to depict this particular group of people and organisations whose actions are also destructive. And this pecuniary class still gathers glamorous, prestigious, and equally 'predatory' tempered sort of individuals as those described by Veblen. They are now equally dangerous and ruthless self-interested as before. But are they?

Using bankers as the epitome of this pecuniary class, we might ask whether they are really the selfish, greedy and heartless people we hear about. Are bankers completely incapable of feeling? This October the second EE & S conference is likely to shed some light on this. Maria Jose Melo Antunes listened to a banker talking about money, of course, but also about love and virtue. That's right. It's an odd mix, but how odd is it really? Veblen thought that the wealthy engaged in charity just for the sake of showing off their money and wealth. That goal was inscribed even in the architecture of buildings. Is it still the case? Are bankers still instrumentalising moral values for the sake of improving their public image and ultimately their wealth? Do they believe in love? Are they even able to discuss virtue? Do they know what virtue is at all? In the next few months, we'll follow Maria Jose's lead, and search her book for clues. Of course we'll be very happy to share them with you. And we welcome you to our conference, this October. Keep in touch.



Know about Maria José Melo Antunes and her book.





Published by Isabel Guimarães