Veblen in perspective: his life and thought 1563241161, 156324117X, 9781563241178, 9781563241161

Citation preview

Veblen in Perspective

S E STUDIES IN

INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS

GARDINER C. MEANS INSTITUTIONALIST AND POST KEYNESIAN Warren J. Samuels and Steven G. Medema THE HETERODOX ECONOMICS OF GARDINER C. MEANS A COLLECTION Frederic S. Lee and Warren J. Samuels, editors UNDERGROUND ECONOMICS A DECADE OF INSTITUTIONALIST DISSENT William M. Dugger

THE STRATIFIED STATE RADICAL INSTITUTIONALIST THEORIES OF PARTICIPATION AND DUALITY William M. Dugger and William T. Waller, Jr., editors A VEBLEN TREASURY FROM LEISURE CLASS TO WAR, PRICE, AND CAPITALISM Rick Tilman, editor

ACTIVIST UNIONISM THE INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS OF SOLOMON BARKIN Donald R. Stabile

BEYOND DISSENT ESSAYS IN INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS Philip A. Klein

THE UNITED NATIONS AT THE CROSSROADS OF REFORM Wendell Gordon A MONETARY THEORY OF EMPLOYMENT Gardiner C. Means Warren J. Samuels and Frederic S. Lee, editors VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE HIS LIFE AND THOUGHT Stephen Edgell

Veblen in Perspective His Life and Thought StephenEdgell

Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2001 by M.E. Sharpe Published 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2001, Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notices No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use of operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. The authoris pleasedto acknowledgepennissionto usematerialsfrom the following sources:Material in chapters2 and 3 were takenfrom "RescuingVeblen from Valhalla: Deconstructionand Reconstructionof a SociologicalLegend"by StephenEdgell, British Journal ofSociology47: 627-42; the Web site for which is http://www.tand(co.ukljournals. Reprintedby kind pennissionof Taylor & FrancisLtd., P.O. Box 25, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OXI4 3UE, England.From the papersin the ThorsteinVeblen Collections,CarletonCollege Archives (CCA), Northfield, Minnesota.From the papersin the JosephDorfman Papers,Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary, ColumbiaUniversity, New York (referredto as CUL), and from the papersin the David Starr JordanPapers,StanfordUniversity Archives, Stanford University, Stanford,California (referredto as SUL).

Library of CongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Edgell, Stephen Veblen in perspective: his life and thoughtI StephenEdgell. p. cm. - (Studiesin institutional economics) Includesbibliographical referencesand index. ISBN 1-56324-116-1(alk. paper)- ISBN 1-56324-117-X(pbk : alk. paper) 1. Veblen, Thorstein, 1857-1929. 2. Economists-UnitedStates-Biography. 3. Institutional economics. I. Title. II. Series. HB 119.V4 E34 2001 330'.092-dc21 [B]

ISBN 13: 9781563241178 (pbk) ISBN 13: 9781563241161 (hbk)

00-068767

For the inestimablecontributionsof Jaffa (1985-99)and Megan(1996-) to my well-being whilst I was writing this book.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Preface Acknowledgments

ix xiii

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

3 30 57 76 101 117 137 160

The Times, Life, andWorks of ThorsteinVeblen (1857-1929) The Mistaken Marginalityof the "Man from Mars" Beyondthe Myth of Marginality: Ethnicity and Evolutionism EvolutionaryChange:Back to the Future? The ConspicuousConservationof LeisureClassCulture The Problem: PredatoryInstitutions The Solution: WorkmanshipInstitutions Conclusions

References Index About the Author

169 185 209

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

I first cameacrossthework of ThorsteinVeblen(1857-1929)in PeterBerger's Invitation to Sociology(1963)nearlyfour decadesago.In this briefbut brilliant advertisementfor sociology,Bergerrefersto just two of Veblen'seight booklength studiesand describeshim as "one of the early importantsociologists in America" (1963,44).Bergersumsup Veblen'sdistinctivecontributionby noting that: "[h]is approachto sociology is characterizedby its merciless debunkingorientation,its concentrationon economicfactorsin socialdevelopmentanda strongaffinity with radicalcritiquesof capitalistsociety"(1963, 180-81).At a time when functionalismwas dominant,I was hooked,and I resolvedto readthe two bookscited by Bergerand all Veblen'sworks when the opportunityarose. The opportunityto satisfymy curiosity aboutthis imperspicuoussociologist presenteditself when I decidedto take a breakfrom empirical research and spentthe 1973 summervacationensconcedin ManchesterCentralPublic Library with the writings ofThorsteinVeblen.Readingthebulk of Veblen's intellectualoutputat one sitting, asit were, revealedthat his social scientific contributionwas characterizedby a theoreticalcoherencethat the vast majority of scholarshadeitherunderratedor failed to recognize.This prompted me to write an article which soughtto make good this gap in the literature (Edgell 1975). Specifically, I arguedthat Veblen's often-malignedgeneral theory of evolutionarychangewas the integratingdimensionof his sociological project, one that focusedon a macroeconomicand sociologicalaccount of Americancapitalism. After returningto andcompletingmy empiricalsocialresearchon middleclass couples(Edgell 1980), I startedto teach a Masters-levelcourse on Veblen. At this stagein my careerI was distractedinitially by seriousill healthandthenby Thatcherism(Edgell andDuke 1991).In betweencollecting andreportingon a longitudinalsurveyresearchinto the social andpolitiix

x

PREFACE

cal effectsof Thatcherism,I took somemore time out from the rigors of field work to write a bibliographicalessayon Veblen (Edgell 1987). This overview of Veblen'ssociologicalcontributionwas intendedas a guideto both the original andthe secondarylitemtureon Veblen.ThatI found this exerciseinstructive is reflectedin the materialfor this book, althoughspecificpoints of interpretation and the generalcompassof the contentare markedlydifferent. Sincethe end of Thatcherand the completionof my work on Thatcherism,asidefrom writing a shorttextbookon classwith specialreferenceto Britain andAmerica (Edgell 1993) and coediting a couple of monographsof relevanceto certain Veblenianconcerns,namelythe declineof thepublic sphere(Edgell et al. 1995), andthe sociologyandanthropologyof consumption(Edgell et al. 1996),I have concentratedon the writings of Veblen and interpretationsof them. This has involved writing, presenting,andpublishing,assoleandjoint author,a range of paperson variousaspectsof Veblen'swork. In the processI becameaware that often I was the only Veblen buff from Britain who was engagedin a regular waywith the latest Veblen scholarshipand that my perspectiveon Veblen was different from the perspectivesof my Americancolleagues.For instance,I filtered Veblen throughthe lensesof my greaterfamiliarity with British and European, comparedwith American,history, thinkersand ideas, whereasthe oppositewas the casegenerallyfor AmericanVeblenians. Being involved in the conferenceswhereVeblen was on the agendacourtesy of the Associationfor Institutional Thought (AFIT) and the International ThorsteinVeblenAssociation(ITVA), I had the additional advantage of meeting and befriending Rick Tilman, plus many other American Veblenians,including RussellBartley, Clare Eby, JonathanLarson,Michael Sheehan,Larry Van Sickle, Don Stabile,and Sylvia Yoneda.I haveenjoyed and valuedtheir companyand their criticisms, and havebeenable to reciprocate on both counts. Participatingin such an active and stimulating network also afforded the opportunity for me to travel extensively to most regions of America, including the areawhere Veblen spentthe bulk of his youth, some of the universitiesat which he worked, and his Washington Island retreat. Special thanks are thereforedue to Eric Hilleman, College Archivist, CarletonCollege;Eldred Ellefsonof WashingtonIsland; andBarbam Ellefson, Archivist, WashingtonIsland Archives. Visiting the Veblen farmsteadin Nerstrand,Minnesota(restoredto its former glory and designateda NationalHistoric Landmarkthanksto the sterlingefforts of Jonathan Larsonand Bill Melton); CarletonCollegeat Northfield; Chicago;Stanford; and the New School for Social Researchincreasedmy appreciationof the achievementsof Veblen and his family of origin. In the main, these excursionsto "Veblenland" and the congeniality of Veblenianshelpedme, a relative newcomer,to immersemyselfin the world

PREFACE xi

of Veblenscholarship.However,the papersandarticlesthat emanatedfrom this involvementwere concernedprimarily with relatively discreteaspects of Veblen's work and hencerisked reinforcing the compartmentalization of his social thought.That is to say, the focus was essentiallyon certainof Veblen'sideasand their origins, ratherthan his life and work as a whole, andhis contemporaryrelevance.Consequently,the key aim of this studyis to adjustthe balancein following respects;to provide a more roundedaccount of his life and work, both with referenceto an Anglo-Europeanperspectiveon Veblen (the first from a British academicsinceHobson'sshort book was publishedin 1936). It is hoped that this hybrid approachwill stimulatea greaterinterestin and recognitionof Veblen'sremarkablelife and intellectual legacy.

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments Knowledge,as Veblen nevertired of noting, "is of the natureof a common stock,heldandcarriedforward collectivelyby the community"(1964a[1914], 103). Needlessto say, this work is no exceptionand I wish thereforeto pay tribute to nwnerousintellectualobligations,in addition to the writings of all those cited in this study. First, I wish to acknowledgemy thanks for the financial supportof the University of Salford, the British Academy,and the United StatesInformation Service (USIS). Second,less formally and in noninvidiousalphabeticalorder,I am pleasedto expressmy appreciationfor the contributionsof the following colleaguesand friends, some of whom appearin the references:Elaine Baldwin, Lorraine Baric, Russell Bartley, Chris Bryant, Karl Dayson,Clare Eby, Philip Hodgkiss,JonathanLarson, Rick Tilman, Michael Sheehan,Larry Van Sickle,DennisSmith, GregSmith, Don Stabile, Peter Swain, Jules Townshend,Arthur Vidich, and Sylvia Yoneda.Finally, I am grateful to SueHaslamand Danny Moloney for their computingexpertise,Jones,my wife, for help with the proofreading,my son Ben for help with the references,andmy sonMatt for keepingmy feet on the ground! Notwithstandingthe collective characterof intellectualjourneys,in the final stageswriting a bookis essentiallyan individualexercise;any faults, real or imagined,are mine alone.

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

Veblenin Perspective

This page intentionally left blank

1 The Times, Life, and Works of Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929)

Social thoughtsare indubitably related in complex ways to the context in which they arise.Broadly,writers during the formative developmentof sociology from the late nineteenthcentury can be said to have beenimpressed with and influencedby political and economicrevolutions,notably democratization and industrialization,plus intellectual innovations,including socialism and the growth of science(Ritzer 1992). In addition, the personal experienceof thesefactors in any national setting are relevantto an appreciation of the origins of any one social scientific contribution(Genov 1989). It has beencommonplacefor sometime amongAmerican (e.g., Nisbet 1970; Kivisto 1998; Skocpol 1984) and British (e.g., Abrams 1972; Davis and Scase1985; Giddens1971; Lee and Newby1983) sociologiststo contend that social scientific thoughtwas in large part a responseto the historically unique combinationof economicand political transformationsin NorthwesternEuropeand NorthAmerica. However,in orderto considerany onesocialthinker in their historical context,it is necessaryto go beyondthis generalizationand focus on the distinctivenessof the societyin which they lived and worked. Thorstein Veblen was born in 1857 on the family farm in the town of Cato,ManitowocCounty,Wisconsin,on the eveof the mostturbulentperiod of civil disorderin the growth of the United States.He died, with impeccable ironic timing, in the momentousyearof 1929,a coupleof monthsbeforethe mega-stockmarket crash. It is entirely appropriatethat Veblen's eventful life should encompasswhat are arguably the two most significant sociopoliticalcrisesin the history of America,thus far, the Civil War andthe 3

4

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

GreatDepression.Moreover,at the beginningof Veblen'slife, Americawas a predominantlyagricultural society,acutelydivided by race and space.By the end of his life, an expandedand politically unified America had displacedBritain as the world's leading industrialnation, and had inaugurated the era of massproduction and consumption.This metamorphosisof the United States,from agrarianfrontier society to the forefront of capitalist industrialization,arguably informed Veblen's sociological contribution in much the sameway that the emergenceof industrial capitalism in Britain and later in Germanyprovidedthe empirical referencepoints for Karl Marx and Max Weber, respectively.Veblen was well acquaintedwith the rapid developmentof American capitalismby virtue of his farming family of origin andhis first wife's capitalistfamily of origin. Accordingto AndrewVeblen, the Veblen farmstead"was an outstandingcaseof' selfsufficiency,'" and he describedhis parentsas "rather more skilled than their neighbours."!The contrastbetweenland as a sourceof speculativeprofit (predation)and land as a meansof livelihood (workmanship)could not have been greaterthan during this remarkableperiod of economicchange.The pecuniarypriorities of the urban businessclassesand the role of farmers in this schemefound expressionin Veblen'sfamed accountsof the American country town (see Vidich and Bensman1968 [1958], quotedin part by Dorfman 1934,7), and moregenerallyin his omniprescientdistinctionbetweenpredationandworkmanship.In other words, the organizationof productionfor profit and production orientedto the satisfactionof enduringhumanneeds(seeespecially Veblen 1975 [1904]). The skilled farmersworked the soil, while theYankee businessmenfocusedon "getting somethingfor nothing at the expenseof the foreign immigrantswho wereunfamiliar with the commonlaw" (Veblen 1966 [1915], 355; seealso Veblen 1964c [1923],142-65). Veblen'spersonalexperienceof rampantindividualism was furtheredby his first marriageto Ellen Rolfe, the nieceof the CarletonCollegepresident, the undergraduate schoolwherethey hadmet as students.It was not a popular union as far as her Christian capitalistfamily was concerned,although Veblen'sfather-in-law did try to use his family connectionsto get Veblen a job as an economistfor the SantaFe Railroadat the time whenthe company was being "taken over by a committeeof bankers"(Dorfman 1934,67;see also Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999). The new Mrs. Veblen's father "had extensiveinterestsin grain elevatorsand was a memberof the KansasCity Board of Trade" (Dorfman 1934, 33). She also had an uncle in the railroad businesswho "securedfavourablestate legislation and aid and engagedin successfulwarfarewith competingcompanieswhich reacheda climax in the Grand CanyonWar, a two year battle carried on with violence and bloodshed, law suits and injunctions, innumerablewrits and counter-writs"

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN 5

(Dorfman 1934,33).Throughtheseexpandingfamily ties, Veblen had personalknowledgeof the rapaciouscaptainsof industrywho were to figure so prominentlyin all his book lengthstudiesof Americancapitalism.Typically, he portrayedthem not as cultural heroes,but as predators,adeptat "capitalistic sabotage"(Veblen 1963 [1921], 40). Veblen was highly critical of the variousbusinessstrategies,suchas freezing out and buying up competitors, routinely undertakenby capitalists,especiallythose"to do with railways," in the name of profit and at the cost of "industrial serviceability" (Veblen 1975 [1904], 34; 37). Thus,Veblen'schildhoodand early adulthoodexperiindustialization encesof the free marketsystemduring aneraof unprecedented were extensiveand largely negative,and his critical accountof this system was entirely congruentwith thesefirsthand encounters. Indeed,it has beenarguedthat the agrarianradicalismof the American Midwest, which peakedin the early 1890s,is a neglecteddimensionof the debateregardingthe possibleinfluenceson the young Veblen (Schimmer 1994). Populismwas a social movementfueled by the declining economic circumstancesof farmers and working peoplewho soughtto resist the increasinginfluence of monopolistic industrial capitalism (Saloutos 1974). Specifically, it hasbeennotedthat Veblen "seemsto have derivedmany of his famous insights, as well as a major part of his terminology, from the discourseof the Populists"(Schimmer1994,4).Certainly, as part ofa Midwestpioneerfarming family, "he took an interestin the farmers'movements" accordingto Andrew Veblen.2 Consequently,Thorstein Veblen was fully awareof the economicplight of Americanfarmersduring his lifetime (1964c [1923], 129-41) and their political predicament(1969b [1919], 165-175). Hence,it is unsurprisingto find that popUlist themes,such as the increasingly pervasivesomething-for-nothingculture of American capitalism as exemplified by the free income of absenteeowners,as well as someof the rhetoricof popUlist leadersandsatiricalstyle of the populistpress(Goodwyn 1976),werekey partsof the languageand thrustof Veblen'ssocial criticism. To this extent,the thesisthat thereis an affinity betweenAmericanpopulism andVeblen, the personand his ideas,is not without foundation. However, this thesis raisestwo related issues;the political characterof Americanpopulismduring the late nineteenthcenturyand of Veblen'sradicalism. There are conservative(e.g., Hofstadter1955), liberal (e.g., Hicks 1931), and radical (e.g.,Goodwyn1976) understandingsof Americanpopulism, which takentogetherare symptomaticof what hasbeenreferredto as its "contradictions"(Diggins 1973,42).Schimmer(1994) seemsto favor the more recent radical scholarshipand hencehighlights the affinity between the anti-big-businessdimensionof populism and Veblen's critique of advancedcapitalism,both of which were articulatedvia the industry and busi-

6

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

nessdichotomy.Yet, Americanpopulism,unlike Veblen,was not antagonistic to private propertyper se (Diggins 1992; Lasch 1973). Even in its most radical moments,along with the industrial army movement,what was demandedwas a changein governmentpolicy, not a "Marxian revolution" (McMurry 1970 [1929], 284). After all, notwithstandingits variegatedgeopolitical manifestationsand radical rhetoric, essentiallypopulism was a produceristmovementfighting for the survival of small-scalecapitalism against the onslaughtof an increasinglypowerful corporatecapitalism (McMath 1993). This point was not lost on Veblen, who notedthat pioneerfarmers"have beenculitivators of the main chanceas well as of the fertile soil" and therefore qualify as "quasi-" or "pseudo-"absenteeowners(1964c [1923], 131, 135). Like all ownersof real estate,pioneerfarmers were animatedprimarily by a "passionfor acquisition"ratherthan"workmanship"(Veblen 1964c [1923], 139). Consequently,"their demandshaveconsistentlyrun on a rehabilitation of propertyon somenew basisof distribution, and have beenuniformly put forth with the avowedpurposeof betteringthe claimantsin point of ownership"(Veblen 1969a[1919], 320). The populist commitmentto an individualistic conceptionof economicactivity is thereforein markedcontrast to Veblen'scollective conceptionof "workmanship";it was too bourgeoisto appealto a socialist(Larson1992).This divergencebeliesSchimmer's claim that the "instinct of workmanship"is "the quintessentialPopulistcategory in Veblen'swork" (1994, 30). Veblen elaboratedhis appreciationof this key distinction when he noted that for socialiststhe "natural rights of the individual are not acceptedas the standardexceptby certainlargebodiesof neophytes,especiallyrural American, who are carrying undersocialistmottoesthe burdenof animositiesand preconceptionsthat once madepopulism" (1975 [1904],339).Thus, while Veblen was undoubtedlycognizantof the populistprotestmovementof his day and the mannerof its expression,his rejection of industrial capitalism wasarguablymoretotal in that he regardedthe eighteenth-century principles of natural rights, which underpinnedthe modern businesssystemand its culture, as nothing less than obsolete.The oft-notedsymmetryof their concernsandrhetoricalflourishes,of which Schimmer(1994) is merelythe most recent and detailed example,cannot camouflageVeblen's more complete rejectionof moderncapitalism. Economic Sufflation

During Veblen'slifetime, America was transformedin every regard.This is readily apparentby referenceto certainimpressivefacts obtainablefrom any

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN 7

standardtext on the history of the United States(e.g., Ratneret al. 1979; Robertsonand Walton 1979; Scheiberet al. 1976; Temin 1973; Tindall and Shi 1992). Following the end of the traumatic Civil War in 1865, which resultedin the preservationof the Union, the renewednation-stateentereda periodof geopoliticalexpansionandeconomicgrowthunparalleledin Americanhistory. Despiteoccasionaleconomichiccupsrelatedto thebusinesscycle, plus intermittentsocial unrest,the long-termtrend throughoutVeblen'slife was one of increasedeconomicprosperityandideologicalsatisfaction.Continental andeconomicexpansionwere especiallymarkedthroughoutthe last three decadesof the nineteenthcentury.Over this period, a land massequal in size to the whole of westem Europepassedfrom public to private ownership. The "frontier" disappearedand a national railroad network was established as the West was settled and developedby pioneers,and resulted in agriculturaloutputmorethandoubling. Despitethis notableexpansion,agriculture declinedrelative to industry,which increasedan estimatedsevenfold over the sameperiod.This remarkableeconomictransformationwasaccompaniedby a rise in the real annualearningsof an expandingindustrial labor force that was working shorterhours.The phenomenalgrowth of theAmericaneconomycanbejudgedby the fact that "throughoutthe yearsfrom 1865 to 1914,grosscapital formationwas at the astonishinglyhigh level of 22 to 25 percentof GNP during eachdecade"(Scheiberet al. 1976, 195-96).It hasbeenclaimedthat comparedto the economicgrowth of otherindustrializing countriesduring the sameera, the expansionof the American gross nationalproduct(GNP), "was exceptionally rapid"(Gallman 1973,24). These developmentsservedto reinforce the idea that America was an unusuallywonderful society-foundedon economicabundanceand democratic institutions, and characterizedby limitless opportunity in which everybodywas free and equal-nothinglessthana land of uniquepromiseand destiny. Termssuchas "the AmericanDream" (Warner 1960 [1949], v) and "theAmerican way"(Lipset 1979,106),arefamiliar expressionsof this vainglorious national ideology. Central to this ideal is a belief in the possibility of materialsuccessfor all, regardlessof social origins. Notwithstandingthat this "dream" was flawed from the outsetby virtue of the ethnic cleansingof the continent'snative peoplesin less than four centuriesand the institution of slavery,and can be shownto be empirically suspect(Dowd 1974; Edgell 1993; Rossides1990), this dominantideological messageis a potentone in that it combinesthe prospectof individual economicachievementwith the expectationof social and political equality (Strauss1971). With the singular exceptionof Veblen, key contemporaryfigures in the developmentof sociologyin Americatendedto celebrateratherthancritique the progressof Americancapitalism.For example,William GrahamSumner

8

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

(1840-1910),who taught the first coursein sociology in America (Ritzer 1992),was a founding memberof the AmericanSociologicalSocietyand its secondpresident(Oberschall 1972),and one of Veblen'steachersat Yale. Sumnercamefrom a rural backgroundand was a zealousPuritan who approved not only of the market systemand its concomitantextremesof inequality, but also of patriotism (Bierstedt 1981). Similarly, CharlesHorton Cooley (1864-1929),a Christianimbuedwith "moral optimism" (Bierstedt 1981, 122), was also a founding memberand subsequentlypresidentof the AmericanSociologicalSociety(Coser1977 [1971]). Although he is referred to as a "Progressivesociologist" (Coser 1977 [1971], 323), he was more gratulatory than dissentingabout the advancementof American society (Bierstedt 1981). A more critical, though essentiallyreformist contribution was made by LesterF. Ward (1841-19l3),who becamea sociologyprofessorat the ageof sixty-five after four decadesin governmentservice,and was the first presidentof the AmericanSociologicalSociety(Bierstedt1981).Ward placedhis confidencein the enlighteningrole of education,the increasedintervention of the state, and ultimately in the establishmentof a "sociocracy" (Coser 1978). One of Ward's disciples,EdwardA. Ross (1866-1951),was also a founding memberand sometimepresidentof the American Sociological Society (Bierstedt 1981). He was a prolific writer of books and pamphlets and a prominentsupporterof reformist causes,who popularizedthe term socialcontrol and favoredan enlargedpolicy-orientedandnecessarilyelitist role for sociologists within an interventioniststate (Ross 1991). Finally, GeorgeHerbertMead (1863-1931),a colleagueof Veblen'sat Chicago,was a Christian and a patriot who expressedgreat pride in the economicand social developmentof America (Ross 1991; Tilman 1992). Taken together,thesefounders of American sociology expressedviews aboutthe natureand future of Americathat rangedfrom outright admiration to qualified approval. Thus, in marked contrastto Veblen, they eschewed radical changeand supportedAmericancapitalismto a greateror lesserextent; they merely disagreedabout how best to progressit in order that its promisemight be fulfilled. While Veblen, in one of his earliestarticles, fully acknowledgedthat in America "the systemof industrial competition,basedon private property, hasbroughtabout,or hasat leastco-existedwith, the most rapid advancein averagewealth and industrial efficiency the world has seen," he was not persuadedthat modemcapitalismwas the bestsystemfor the future (1969a [1919],391).He arguedthat it was inherentlywastefulandhis ideal wasthe exactoppositeof the currentsocietyin which "the ulterior end soughtis an increaseof ownership,not industrial serviceability" (Veblen 1975 [1904],

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN 9

37). Veblen'srejection of modemcapitalisminvolved quoting extensively andeffectivelyfrom theAmericanReportoftheIndustrial Commission,much as Marx haddonefrom official reportson the factory systemin Britain. This led him to concludethat the "full dominationof the businessenterpriseis necessarilya transitory dominion" since it is "incompatible"with the optimum developmentof the industrial arts upon which the survival of the community ultimately depends(Veblen 1975 [1904], 400). Thus, to Veblen's of the inversionof economic considerablechagrin, as a direct consequence priorities, characteristicof modemcapitalism,the communitysuffersin terms of industrial serviceability.This is a point that Veblen did not lose sight of throughouthis life, althoughhis views on the likelihood of radical change varied over time. Veblen'snegativeappraisalof American capitalismin an era of unprecedentedprosperity and therefore optimism endearedhim to "radicals" (Dorfman 1934, 196), but those of a more conservativedisposition were appalledby the idea that capitalists were parasitesand detectedparallels with "Marxian philosophy"in his analysis(Cummings1899,451).The tendencyto polarizeopinionbecamea patternthat enduredthroughoutVeblen's lifetime and beyond,and indeedsurvivesto this day (Tilman 1992).Arguably, it derivesfrom the persistenceof Veblen'spenchantnot to view industrial capitalismbeneficently,unlike virtually all his academicand political contemporaries.He saw it as wasteful since "at no time is it free from derangements"instigated"as a matterof course"by the businessclass(Veblen 1975 [1904], 34). Veblen regrettedthat this "normal" situation did not "attractparticularnotice" (35), until, that is, his devastatingcriticismsappeared. At the close of his long career,notablefor its considerable geographical mobility and inconsiderableupward social mobility, Veblen reiteratedhis still unfashionableperspectiveon the privatization of America's abundant natural resourcesby "legalized seizure" (1964c [1923], 122). For Veblen, "What standsin the way of this climax of material good fortune, immediately anddirectly, is theabsenteeownershipofthesenaturalresources"(124). Having "takenover into private ownership"the naturalresources,the absentee ownerscollude "to decide for themselveswhat the traffic will bear for their benefit" at the cost of ownerproducersand consumers(122,129).In a revealing use of terminology, Veblen describedthe increasinglypervasive patternof absenteeownershipas a "peculiarinstitution" (4). From the midnineteenthcenturyonwardthis term was part of the political languageused to refer to slavery in the American South. Veblen also used it in this way, albeit within quotationmarks(169). This suggeststhat for Veblenthe private ownershipof natural resourcesis comparableto the ownershipof people, and thereforeis similarly reprehensible.He concluded,with a hint of irony,

10

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

that absenteeownershiphad become"the masterinstitution in American civilization" and that, in this respect"at least,America may be said to stand at the apex of cultural growth" (119). Veblen'swritings on patriotismand imperialism,relatedfacetsof the dream of American greatness,were no less radical. He regardedthe former as the collectiveexpressionof what he calledthat "archaichuman"propensity,predation (Veblen 1970 [1899], 165), the latter as "dynastic politics under a new name,carriedon for the benefitof absenteeownersinsteadof absenteeprinces" (Veblen 1964c[1923], 35), andarguedthat patriotismwasusedby the interests of capitalismto legitimize imperialism.Veblenregardedimperialismas the internationaldimensionof capitalismand condemnedit on the groundsthat it retardedeconomicgrowth and as such was wasteful (Edgell and Townshend 1992).Publicationof thesesomewhatunconventionalviews during World War I led to attemptsto censorsomeof his books(Dorfinan 1934,382). Thus, what was distinctive about Veblen was that he was totally out of stepwith the pandemicappreciationof the extraordinaryeconomicadvancement of America. He was highly critical of what virtually everyoneelse regardedas praiseworthy,and he entertainedan alternativedream in which peaceandcooperationprevailedover conflict andcompetition.In the understatedwords of the American historian Commager:"Where others saw progress,Veblen saw merely change"(1950, 239).

Piety and PersonalProgress In late-nineteenth-century America, widespreadfaith in capitalist progress was matchedby a similar faith in God. Moreover, the latter in the form of "organizedProtestantismsupportedthe dominanteconomicbeliefs and institutions" (May 1949, 6). Many of the influential foundersof sociology in America were not just Christians,but Protestantministers,notably, for example,Sumner(Bramson1974). The Societyfor ChristianSociologistswas founded in 1899, and following the establishmentof the AmericanJournal ofSociologyin 1895, the early volumes"gave spaceto 'biblical' sociology and other topics of interestto the clergy" (Oberschall1972, 202). The close individual, institutional, and ideological links betweenthe well-organized dominantreligion and American universitiesin general,and betweenProtestantismand sociologyin particular,during post-Civil War America,meantthat "[ e]ven in 1880 piety and orthodoxy probably still countedfor more than erudition in landing a job at mostcolleges"(Jencksand Riesman1968,323). Although Veblencamefrom a rural Christianbackground,typical of nearly all prominentAmericansociologistsprior to 1920 (Hinkle and Hinkle 1954), he was doubly remissin the sensethat not only did he rejectmodemcapital-

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

11

ism but alsohe heldunconventionalviews on religion. He wasscathingabout institutional Christianity yet sympathetic towardsome of the tenets of noninstitutionalizedChristianity. The former he regardedas akin to the animistic and anthropomorphictendenciescharacteristicof the premodernbarbariancultureandwasconcernedthat its contemporaryeconomicsignificance was wholly negative,or as Veblen put it, "a lowering of the vitality of the community" (1970 [1899],201).Veblen ridiculed the unscientific resort to supernaturalexplanationsand was especiallyharsh on the wastefulnessof the priestly classof institutionalizedChristianity.However,in the caseof the ancientChristianethic of "brotherly love or mutual service,"Veblenconsidered it "to be nothing lessthan a somewhatspecializedmanifestationof the instinct of workmanship"(Ardzrooni 1964[1934], 216).As such,it predates Christianity, and althoughit is continually reaffirmedin everydayeconomic interaction,thereis "an effectualdiscrepancy"betweenthe Christianmorality of mutuality and the capitalistmorality of individualism (218). Consequently,despite Veblen's prize-winning undergraduatecareerat Carletonbetween1877 and 1880; his teachingexperienceat a Lutheraninstitution, MononaAcademy, Madison, Wisconsin,during 1880-81; his attainment of a Yale PhD in 1884; his letters of recommendationfrom the presidentsof CarletonandYale, andfrom eminenttutors,including Sumner; plus his article in the leadingphilosophyjournal of that time, he was unable to securean academicposition at the beginningof his postdoctoralcareer (Dorfman 1934; 1973).According to Andrew Veblen, this was initially due to ill health (malaria): "When my brother returnedfrom Yale, in 1884, his health was not robust enoughto allow him to pursueacademicwork either asa studentor teacher."3However,it is entirely likely thatVeblenwasviewed with suspicionas being agnostic at best, in a labor market that recruited college teachers"primarily from the ranks of divinity students"(Dorfman 1934, 54-55). For example,in 1890, notwithstandingthe intervention of relatives, one of whom was a trusteeof the college, he failed to obtain a positionat the Norwegian-Americancollege,SaintOlafCollege,in his home town of Northfield, Minnesota(Bartley and Bartley 1999).4 Interestingly, when this college was foundedin 1874 it was not affiliated to the Lutheran Church,althoughit gainedreligious affiliation in 1890,the year Veblen applied to be an "instructorin the naturalsciences"at this now "official instrumentofa vigorouschurchorganization"(Bjork 1949, 124). Lettersfrom the then college presidentconcerningVeblen's application show that he was rejected"becausehe is not a Christianin faith," which suggeststhat Veblen was not preparedto compromisehis integrity for the sakeof a teachingpost that requiredhim to inculcatedevoutnessalthoughhe was married and unemployedat the time (Bjork 1949, 129).

12

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

The costto Veblenfor his untimely ill healthandhis dissentingviews was six yearsof unemployment(1884-90).Veblen spentthis time usefully satisfying his curiosity by readingextremelywidely, writing, and publishing,as well as translatingThe LaxdaelaSaga (not publisheduntil 1925) from the Icelandic.The latter activity may well havestimulatedVeblen'slifelong interestin anthropologyand Nordic culture. An importantdimensionof Veblen'scontemptfor institutional Christianity was, ironically, his Lutheran-inspiredconcernabout wastefulness.The issueof wastewas a central and enduringfeature of Veblen'spersonallife andacademicwork. It was at the coreof his first sociologicalarticle in 1892; underpinnedhis most famous theory, conspicuousconsumption;informed his distinction betweenbusinessand industry; and featuredto a greateror lesserdegreein all his other works. Veblen providesample evidenceof his abhorenceof wastein all its forms, in both theoryandpractice.For example, his fundamentalobjectionto leisure-classculture was its wastefulness,and his solution to the labor shortageduring World War I was that the government shouldstop abusingfarm workersand usethem "for the productionof a sorely neededsupply of grain and meat" (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934], 328). More generally,Veblen'sdeprecationof waste is a measureof his concern for the environmentwell beforeit becamea global issue(Kapp 1978). On a personallevel, Veblen was not averseto hard work of an academicor domestickind. In addition to his considerableoutputas a writer, Veblen,in the mannerof his self-reliantand highly skilled artisanalparents,built his own utilitarian dwellings, including a "two room cottagewith a sleepingporch" and "a small study cabin" and took pride in making his own basicfurniture (Bartley andYoneda 1994, 7). The functional characterof his furnishings and personalattire attestedto his disdain for superfluitiessuch as "rugs and cushions"(Dorfinan 1934,497-98).Thus,notwithstandinghis rejectionof certain religious beliefs and practices,Veblen seemsto have consumed nonconspicuouslyand lived ascetically,accordingto the Protestantwork ethic. Veblen'sadherenceto a secularizedversion of Protestantismis therefore evidentin his lifestyle as well as the body of his work. Moreover,thereis no mistakingthe similarity betweenthe mutuality of Christianityand the peaceable morality of primitive societies,so beloved by Veblen (Tilman 1973). The term which expresses Veblen'sfundamentalpersonalandpolitical value was "workmanship,"which he contrastedwith "predation."The former was epitomizedby the engineerwho worked cooperativelyfor the good of the whole community,and the latter by absenteeownerswho operatedcompetitively in their own self-interestand henceagainstthe interestsof the community. These two key elementsformed the axis around which Veblen developedhis theory of evolutionary change(Edgell 1975). Thus, Veblen

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

13

recognizedthat Chistianity containedat its core a morality which he valued highly and which he "incorporatedinto his basic social theory" (Leathers 1986, iii), and, one might add, into the routinesof his daily life. The Frontier of Feminism In 1848, the year after the Veblen family had arrived in the New World, the "first organizedmovementfor freedomfor womenwas founded"andfor the next fifty yearsAmericawasthe feminist capitalof the world (Schneir1972, xiii). During this time, malehostility to the rights of womenwas not universal, indeed a man chaired the first conventionat SenecaFalls, New York (Evans1989).Veblenalso took a positiveinterestin this issueand suggested that "the woman'stemperamentincludes a larger shareof this instinct of workmanshipthatapprovespeaceanddisapprovesfutility," whereasheregarded patriarchyasa predatoryinstitution (1970 [1899],229).In his commentson the "New Woman"movement,he quotedwhat he calledthe "chasteandexpressive languageof ElizabethCady Stanton,"and supportedthe feminist demandfor "emancipationfrom all relationof status,tutelage,or vicariouslife" (230, 231). Post-Civil War Americawas unquestionablya patriarchalsociety-equal suffragefor womenwas not achieveduntil 192O---inwhich educationalopportunities,a central plank of the woman movement,were especiallylimited. In the 1890s,frontier women in the Midwest were expectedto exhibit all rounddomesticcompetenceand live up to the pervasiveVictorian (male) ideal of docile and deferentfemininity (Lynd and Lynd 1929). Although Veblen'sparentsseemedto conformto the segregateddivision oflabor characteristicof pioneerfarming families-maleoutdoorworker, female indoor worker--accordingto Andrew Veblen it was a caseof different but equal roles within a large and productivehomestead:"Each took good care of his or her part of the family enterprise.Neither domineeredthe other; and both were really proud of the way the other dischargedhis or her share."5However,Veblen'sfathertook the leadin decisionsregardingthe educationof his and his wife's children, an issueupon which the family placedgreatvalue. Both thesepoints were demonstratedclearly in the hiring of a private tutor by Veblen seniorin the winter of 1858-59.6 In fact, Andrew Veblenjudged that his father"was the leaderin his communityin the matterof encouraging and aiding his children to becomeeducated,"regardlessof sex.7 It was from this progressivefamily that the young Veblen emergedand attendedcollege, as did all his siblings. This was consideredsufficiently "unusual, especially in the case of daughters,"that Veblen's father"was sharply criticised for it" (F. Veblen 1931, 190). Veblen'sentry to Carleton College with his sisterEmily conveyedtwo messagesto all, not leastto the

14

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

young Thorstein:Thesemessageswere approvalof genderequality and the value of education.Arguably, these expressionsof support in theory and practicefor egalitarianismwere also an integralpart of the cultural baggage, or in Veblen'swords"spiritual capital"(Ardzrooni 1964[1934], 204), which the Veblen family carriedwith them from Norway in the form of a familiarity with Norsemythology and the prominenceit gives to the notion of gender equality (Crossley-Holland1980), and with Norwegian religious and political culture in generalthat similarly emphasizesdemocraticvaluesin a societythat had not known feudalism(Blegen 1969 [1931]). This was indicatedby AndrewVeblenwhenhe wrote, with referenceto his parents,"Their cultural standingand their training under essentiallydemocraticcivic and ecclesiasticalinstitutions in their native land, had equippedthem well for citizenshipof the new country to which they had come."sIn respectof his younger brotherThorstein,Andrew notedthat as a child he readextensively, including "fiction, history, and mythology."9 AndrewVeblenalsorecalled,in anotherletterto Dorfman,thatThorstein's immersionin contemporaryNorwegianliterary andlinguistic culturewasso thoroughin his family of origin that "[he] composedverse,in Norwegian, and in dialect, and in English, both before he cameto Carleton[1877-80] and while there."10 More specifically,Andrew Veblen notedthat "Thorstein knew such of the works as were out and available in the book market, of Bjornson [1832-1910] and Ibsen [1828-1906],when he cameto Carleton, and beforethat."II Of thesetwo renownedNorwegianpoetsand dramatists, Veblenwas apparentlyparticularlyenthusiasticaboutIbsen(Dorfman 1934) and therewere two works by Ibsenin Veblen'sWashingtonIsland library.12 Interestingly,Ibsen'sfeminist play, A Dol/'s House,which causeda sensation when it was publishedin 1879, was first performedin English in Milwaukee in 1882 (Worrall 1994), the port of entry for many Norwegian immigrantsincluding Veblen'sparents.13 The ironic style and radicalismof this play, notably the shamingof the husbandby the wife, the complicity of womenin their subjugation,and the heroine'sdesireto becomean independent person,are all echoedin Veblen's indictment of the predicamentof womenin late nineteenth-century America (1970 [1899]). In their clearsupport for the liberation of women,IbsenandVeblen were well aheadof their time. Although the Ibsenitequality of Veblen'scontributionhasbeennoted in passingby manyscholarsoverthe years(e.g.,Daniels1905;Diggins 1978; Dorfman 1934), this possible sourceof Veblen's intellectual and political developmenthasbeenlargely overlooked(Edgell 1996). When Veblen was first married and unemployedin the late 1880s,his chosenreadingmatter included booksthat advocatedequality betweenthe sexes,notablyBellamy'sutopiannovelLookingBackward,publishedin 1888

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

15

and consideredto be "the first detailed picture of what a socialist society would look like" (Kumar 1991a, 133). This book becamea best-sellerand Veblen'sfirst wife expressedthe belief"that this book was the turning point of our lives" (Dorfman 1934, 68). In addition to the frequently noted parallels betweenBellamy'sandVeblen'sideasand language(Edgell and Tilman 1989; Tilman 1985),there is a chapter,plus severalotherpassagesin Looking Backward(n.d. [1888]) on the humiliating dependenceof women on men in the past and on their eventual emancipation.This chapterbearsa remarkableresemblanceto Veblen'ssympathetic,albeit somewhatsatirical, accountof the subjugationof womenin The TheoryoftheLeisureClass.In this, Veblen'sfirst and most (in)famousbook, he deridedthe "schemeto which we arehabituated"which "assignsto the womana 'sphere'ancillary to the activity of the man," and observedthat "in spite of this pervadingsenseof what is the good and natural place for the woman, there is also perceptiblean incipient developmentof sentimentto the effect that this whole arrangementof tutelage and vicarious life and imputation of merit and demerit is somehowa mistake" (1970 [1899],230--31).Veblen'sanalysisof the "womanquestion"also showedthat he was unusually sensitiveto the prevailing "senseof grievance,"especiallyacuteamong"the womenof the well to do classes"(231). Thus Veblen was strikingly radical in his concernfor the total emancipation of women,not merely the achievementof suffrage.In this respecthis feminist viewswerecloseto thoseof IbsenandBellamybut somewhatexceptionalamong his social scientific peers(Edgell 1987; KandaI1988).The (male) foundersof Americansociologyduring its formativeyearsfrom 1883 to 1922"were sexists to a man" (Schwendingerand Schwendinger1971,783). For example,Ward's writings on womenhave beendescribedas "paternalistic,"whereashis disciple Rossis accusedof "rank sexism"(Schwendingerand Schwendinger1971, 783). Somewhatpredictably, the prominent conservativesocial Darwinist, Sumner,consideredthat men and women were naturally different and that sexualequality was thereforeimpossible(Bierstedt 1981). Unsurprisingly,in view of Veblen'sprogressiveupbringing and inclination, both his first wife (Ellen Rolfe) and his secondwife (Ann Bradley Bevans)were socialistswho sharedhis radical ideasand feminist sentiments (Jorgensenand Jorgensen 1999). Significantly, feminism was not just a matter of theory to Veblen.A closepersonalfriend who observedVeblenat home recalledthat one of the things that "impressed"him about Veblen'sfamily life with his secondwife andstepdaughters wasthat"the girls andMrs Veblen took The Theory of the Leisure Class seriously. Their clothes were functional; there was no adornment"(Lubin 1968, I 33).Veblenwas also known to and admiredby CharlottePerkinsGilman (1860--1935),a feminist activist whoseanalysisof the drudgeryof domesticityis akin to Veblen's.14

16

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

The sourcesof Veblen'sfeminist analysisand convictionsappearto have beenmany, often reinforcedby personalexperiencein later life, yet these aspectsof his life and work seemsto have been little noticed during his lifetime, Gilman apart,to judge by the lack of referenceto them in the "Selected Obituaries"reprintedby Dorfman (1973) and the obituary published in SociologicalReview(Hobson 1929). It was not until the post-1960srevival of American feminism that Veblen'scontribution to and support for women'sliberation beganto be noted with increasingfrequencyand detail (e.g.,Adorno 1967 [1941]; Eby 1992; Edgell 1987; E.S. Miller 1972; Ryan 1982; Waddoupsand Tilman 1992). Veblen was clearly an early male supporter of the "New Woman" movement,as it was called in the late nineteenthcenturyto emphasizethe unity of the femalepredicament,beforethe term "feminism" cameinto use in America at the beginningof the twentieth century(Cott 1987). Personal Troubles and the Public Issue of Higher Education

The distinction betweenthe "personaltroubles of milieu" and the "public issuesof social structure" was made famous by one of Veblen's greatest admirers,C. Wright Mills (1967 [1959],8). Mills arguedthat all the classic social analysts,including Veblen, possessed a sociologicalimaginationthat enabledthem to "grasphistory and biographyand the relationsbetweenthe two in society" (6). Veblen'spersonaltroublesduring his careerin higher educationare reflected in the difficulty he had obtaining and retaining an academicposition,let alonepromotion,during a period when the university systemin Americawas expandingat an unprecedented rate.The public issue concernsthe initial religious andthe laterbusinesscharacterof this phenomenal growth of higher education.The former dimensionhasbeendiscussed already;this suggestedthat Veblen'searly careerwas blightedby his heretical views on Christianity, yet as the "predominanceof clergymenwaned," the less than good news for Veblen was that "[b ]oardsof trusteescameincreasinglyto be dominatedby businessmen"(Hinkle 1980,37),as he was only too aware(Veblen 1965 [1918]). The scale on which businessfinanced new universitiesresulted in the universities'being led by "formidable presidententrepreneurs"and organizedinto a "highly competitivesystem"(OberschallI972,192).At the forefront of this revolution was the University of Chicago.In its founding year of 1892,Veblenwas appointedto his first properacademicpostat the ageof thirty-five. The University of Chicagoepitomizedthe era of capitalistphilanthropy; backed by $30 million from Baptist oil magnateJohn D. Rockefeller, the university'S first president,another Baptist, William R.

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

17

Harper, embarkedon an ambitiousplan to "createa truly greatuniversity" (Oberschall1972, 194). Harper createda myriad of rankings; "deans,head professors,professors,associateprofessors,assistantprofessors,instructors, docents,tutors,readers,fellows, aswell aslecturersandassistants"andstarted publication of over a dozen journals, including the Journal of Political Economyand the AmericanJournal of Sociology(Dorfman 1934, 91). He also reducedthe teachingload and offered new staff salariesapproximately doublethosepaid by competitoruniversities(OberschallI972).1. Laurence Laughlin, the headof economicsat Cornell University, was appointedhead professorof economicsat Chicago. He in tum "arrangedfor Veblen to receive a fellowship at Chicago,paying $520 a year," an improvementon the $400 fellowship he had beenon at Cornell in 1890--91 (Dorfman 1934, 87). Veblen'sfellow statusmeantthat he "was not a memberof the original facUlty," in contrastto two of his peerswho hadbeenat JohnsHopkins University and receivedappointmentsat the sametime as Veblen, but at the higher ranks of associateand assistantprofessor(Dorfman 1934, 95). Veblen taught a courseon socialismand disdainedthe routine academic conventionsregardingthe "statisticsof graduateregistration"and the minutiae of the gradingand credit systemon the groundsthat suchprocesseshad more to do with the competitiverivalry of institutionsthan with scholarship (Veblen 1965 [1918], 130), yet Veblen seemsto have beenan "impressive teacher,"inspiring many studentsto undertakegraduatework. IS He became editor of the Journal of Political Economyand wrote articles and book reviews in this journal andothersduring the 1890s,notablytheAmericanJournal of Sociology. In these various publications Veblen developedhis root-and-branchcritiqueof conventionaleconomicsandestablishedthe foundationsof his socialistvision via a subversiveanalysiscontemporaryAmerican capitalism. By 1895 he hadbeenpromotedto instructor,the sixth stepon the ten-rung ladder.This was somewhatto his surprisesincehe thoughtthat he might "be droppedfrom the budgetin the mannerof Bemis," a higher-rankingliberal colleaguewho was sackedfor making an anticapitalistpublic speechon the occasionof a violent strike by railway workers in the city (Dorfman 1934, 132; seealso Schwendingerand Schwendinger1974). This was not a good time to be teachinga courseon socialism,let alone planning a book on the subject(Dorfman 1934; Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999). After three yearsas an instructorVeblen requested"the customaryraise of a few hundred dollars in salary" and was informed by Harper "that he appreciatedhis servicesbut would have no objection ifhe went elsewhere" since he "did not advertisethe university" (Dorfman 1934, 174). Veblen's responsewas "that he did not intend doing so and wrote out a letter of resig-

18

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

nation"; however,following the interventionof his headof departmentand friend, J. LaurenceLaughlin, a raise was securedand he stayed(Dorfman 1934, 174). Unsurprisingly,Veblen's youngestbrother has confirmed that althoughhis appointmentat Chicagowas a major boostto his academiccareer, "he neverwas satisfiedthere.The institution was too new and smelled too much of money. He always talked againstmoney and business,held anything and everything connectedwith businessin utter contempt."16In the meantime,Harpercontinuedto recruit new professorialstaff, who were often youngerand lessrenownedthan Veblen, and continuedto overseethe rapid expansionof the university, thankslargely to the enduringgenerosity of successfulentrepreneurssuchas John D. Rockefeller,the founder of the StandardOil Company.Harper thankedRockefeller and other significant donorspublicly and consideredtheir generosityto have beenpromptedby their "love of Christ" (Dorfman 1934, 134). In 1899 Veblenpublishedhis first and most renownedbook, The Theory of the Leisure Class. It receiveda wholly unfavorablereview by a former economicscolleague(Cummings1899) and a highly flattering review by a sociologist (Ward 1900). Veblen respondedin print for the first and only time in his careerto the former's "misdirectedcriticism" (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934), 16) and expressedhis "appreciation"to the latter (Dorfman 1934, 195). Yet the review that arguablyhad the most significant impactappeared in the magazineLiterature; it praisedVeblen'sstyle as well as the contentof his book (Howells 1899).Accordingto Dorfman,this review"helpedto make the book a sensation,"and, as a result,Veblenachieveda certainnotorietyas a radical social satirist among the chatteringclasses(1934, 196). In 1900 Veblenwas promotedto assistantprofessor,the fifth-highest academicrank at the University of Chicago(Dorfman 1934). At a time of considerablesocial unrestand scandalconcerning"high financeand corrupt politics" (Dorfman 1934, 209), Veblen persistedin penning articles that were disparagingaboutthe "culture of enterprise"(1969a [1919],497).He alsocontinuedto review a diverserangeof English-language, French,and Germansocial sciencebooksin which he was particularly critical of the defendersof the statusquo and showedhimself to be well informed aboutEuropeansocialistthought. In 1904 Veblen publishedhis secondbook, The Theory of the Business Enterprise.This highly critical analysisof modemcapitalistprinciples and practices,businessand government,patriotism and war, confirmed Veblen as a socialisthero or a menace,dependingupon one'spoint of view. Potential investorswho had readhis book on Americancapitalism"beganwriting to him for advice in making money by the methodsof businessenterprise portrayed" (Dorfman 1934, 238). It is unlikely that the wondrousirony of

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

19

theserequestswas not lost on the penuriousVeblen, who had apparently once"complainedto a studentthat, althoughthe university was continually erectingnew buildings,the library facilities were inadequateand he wasnot getting a living wage" (Dorfman 1934, 205). When Veblen was not discharging,in the direction of his students,"the characteristiceconomicblasphemiesfor which he was famous,"as one colleaguehasput it, he was traveling in Europeand developinga reputationfor befriending women (Dorfman 1934, 250). Although there is more rumor thanevidenceconcerningVeblen'sproclivity for the oppositesex (Jorgensen and Jorgensen1999), the public perceptionof his behaviordispleasedhis first wife, Ellen Rolfe, whom he married in 1888, and his employerto the extentthat he partedcompanywith both in due course;he left the University of Chicagoin 1906anddivorcedhis wife in 1911.However,in eachcasethe writing had beenon the wall, as it were, for some time, since Veblen had beenseparatedfrom both Chicagoand his wife during this period of his life. Accordingto the recentresearchby the Jorgensens(1999),Veblen'scomplicatedpersonallife cameto the attentionof the autocratHarpervia Mrs. Veblen. Following Veblen'sreturn from a sojournin Europein the companyof colleagueOscarLovell Triggs, an Englishprofessorat Chicagoandhis wife Laura in 1904,he "was askedto sign a paperdeclaringthat he would haveno further relationswith the womaninvolved (Mrs. Triggs), but he repliedthat he wasnot in the habit of promising not to do what he was not accustomedto doing" (Dorfinan 1934,254;seealso Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999). Veblen eventuallyleft Chicagoin 1906 after severalattempts,thanks in part to the supportofa Chicagocolleague,JacquesLoeb (1859-1924),when he acceptedan associateprofessorshipwith an enhancedsalary at Stanford (Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999). StanfordUniversity was a private university founded in 1891 with financial supportfrom the rail magnateLeyland Stanford (Oberschall1972). Veblen had first written to the Stanfordpresident,David StarrJordan,abouta vacancyasearly as March 1899andhad,at his request,been supportedin this move by a referencefrom his head of departmentLaughlin; a clearindicationof his wish to leavethe University of Chicago.17 Veblen did not go west until the summerof 1906 and only acceptedan appointmentafter protractednegotiationsregardinghis conditions of employment.18 Dorfman has suggestedthat: "PresidentJordanknew of Veblen'smatrimonial difficulties, but expectedthat Veblen would observe the customswhen given the bestopportunities"(1934, 269). It is clearthat Veblen had not beenentirely happyat Chicagolong before his marital problemshad becomeapparent(Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999). The attractionof salaciousratherthan scholarlyaccountsseemsto have led to a false credibility and exaggerated status attachingto the former in expla-

20

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

nationsof his migration from Chicagoto California (seealso Tilman 1992; 1996). Veblen'sfinal yearsat Chicagowere a particularly difficult phasein his life; in additionto his marital problemsandhis concernto obtainrewards commensurate with his experienceandqualifications,his parentsdied within six monthsof eachother in 1906. As indicatedabove,that he had to leave Chicagoon accountof his perceivedphilanderingis only part of the story.19 In fact an equally applicable,if not more plausible,explanationfor the demise of Veblen'scareerat Chicago,was that Harper had becomeawareof Veblen'sseverelycritical draftmanuscripton highereducation,which Harper correctly judged to be basedon his presidencyof University of Chicago (Rasmussenand Tilman 1992). That political self-interestratherthan mere morality wasat the coreof Veblen'sdeterioratingrelationswith his employer is alsosupportedby a letter the sociologistWard wrote to a friend in 1905: "I haveheardthat Veblen was likely to leavethe University. They will all have to go ultimately who are abovethe wretchedchauvinismthat is requiredand expected"(Dorfman 1934,255).Given Veblen'seristic reputation,it is more than likely that during his time at Chicagohe managedto offend all those moral entrepreneurs who cherishedthe centraltenetsof theAmericanDream, as envisionedby the legendaryhistorianTurnerin the 1890s;"a uniquenew nation in which the ideals of equality,justice, individualism, freedom, and mobility were taking root in the nurturing environmentof a rich, underdeveloped,unspoiledvirgin country" (Mattson and Tilman 1986, 222).

Thor's Revenge The conventionalemphasison Veblenthe incorrigible amoristoverlooksthe probability that he was as offendedas he was perceivedto be offensive.No clearerindicationof this existsthanVeblen'sstudyentitledTheHigherLearning in America:A Memorandumon the ConductofUniversitiesby Business Men, which he startedwriting while he was at the University of Chicago.It was originally subtitled"A Study in Total Depravity" (Dorfman 1934,353), and this phrasesurvivesin a characteristicallyironic passagetoward the end of the book (Veblen 1965 [1918], 261). Although the book was "ready in 1904," to protect the innocent as it were, it was not publisheduntil 1918 (Dorfman 1973, 141). That this most vilipendiousof his works drawsupon his time at Chicagois indicatedin the preface,alongwith the reasonsfor the delay in publication. It is arguably oneof the greatunreadbooks of modemsocial sciencein that not only is it most revealingaboutthe authorbut also it showsVeblen to be the consummatesociologistwho elucidatedin his canny prosestyle the Millsian themethat links personaltroublesand public issues;"much of what

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

21

appearedto be personalto the Great Pioneerwas in reality intrinsic to the historical movement;so that the innovationspresentlylost their personal color, and so went impersonallyto augmentthe grandtotal of humanachievement at large" (Veblen 1965 [1918], vi). The phrase"Great Pioneer"refersto Harper, the ambitiousfirst presidentof the newly founded and amply funded University of Chicago.Harperdied in October1906,just afterVeblendeparted for Stanford,collectinghis wife en route (Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999). Veblen'saccountof the formative early years of the University of Chicago is one of the first studiesto be basedon participantobservation,a sociological techniquethat becamesynonymouswith the "Chicago School" and which developedas a dominantforce in sociology during the interwar yearsunderthe leadershipof RobertPark (Bulmer 1984; Faris 1967; Kurtz 1984; Matthews 1977; Smith 1988). The thrust of Veblen's critical study was that businessmen,their priorities, and their culture were increasingly dominating and contaminatingAmerican institutions of higher learning, to the detrimentof the disinterestedgrowth of knowledge.Eventsat the Universityof Chicago,accordingto Veblen,werea manifestationof wider trends. When due allowanceis made for the indignantproseborn of a senseof personaland political outrage,the main reasonthat Veblen was unsympathetic to businessprinciples in a scholarly context was that they "weaken and retardthe pursuit of learning" and thereforetend "to defeatthe endsfor which a university is maintained" (1965 [1918], 224). A relatively junior academicbusily working hard to build his career,Veblen was less than enthusiasticaboutwasting "time and meansin suchpolite observances,spectaclesand quasi learnedexhibitionsas are presumedto enhancethe prestige of the university" (166). He was similarly dismissiveof what he called centralized bureaucraticcontrol, scholasticaccountancy,standardization,and a mechanicalsystemof creditsand penalties,all of which he consideredto be overly coerciveand as suchmore in keepingwith a "penal settlement"than a university (221). He also bemoaned,no doubt reflecting on his own experiences,the "decay of scholarly purposein the matter of fellowships" that occurredwith the adventof businesscontrol, which favored an increasein their numberand a reductionin their value in the interestsof academiccompetition (132). In a similar vein, he noted that someacademicswere sufficiently focused on the pursuit of knowledgeor incompletely imbued with businessprinciples "to permit their conforming wholly to the competitive the autocratic academic exigenciesof the case"(171). In suchcircumstances, executivecan easily correct the situation by the "exerciseof virtually plenary powerof appointment,prefermentand removal,backedas this poweris by a nearly indefeasibleblack list" (252). Thus, for Veblen, the "captain of erudition" of the "corporationoflearning" who fails to rate "the triumphsof

22

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

scienceabovethoseof the marketplace" is the one who is depraved,not the disinterestedseekerof knowledge(176, 228, 248). There is undoubtedlya large elementof autobiographyin Veblen'scritical sociologicalaccountof the expansionof universitiesin America during the late nineteenthand early twentieth centuries.His acutedissectionof the emergentcompetitivesystemof corporatelearningwas expressedin a thunderoustone thoroughly in keepingwith the disrelish he felt aboutuniversities that thwartedhis ideal of "idle curiosity" (Veblen 1965 [1918], 221). In that resonatewith personalsignificance,Veblen listed one of manypassages a number of adverseexternal factors that may affect the prospectsof an academic;"unearnednewspapernotoriety that may be turned to accountin ridicule; unconventionalreligious, or irreligious convictions... an undesirablepolitical affiliation; an impecuniousmarriage,or suchdomesticinfelicities as might be the subject of remark" (163-64). In Veblen's view, these considerationsare irrelevantto one'sscholarlyperformance,yet "where action hasto be takenby the directorateon provocationof suchcircumstances it is commonlydonewith the (unofficial) admissionthat suchactionis taken not on the substantialmerits of the casebut on compulsionof appearances and the exigencesof advertising(164). Needlessto say, Veblen considered this tendencyto be normal in a university run by businessmen. In a later passage,Veblenelaborateson the problemfacedby the leaderof a "competitiveuniversity" with a renownedsocialscientist whois "not given to conciliatorycompromisesand an exhibition of complaisantstatistics,"but who becomes"unduly insistent in his advocacyof scholarship,so as seriously to traversethe statisticalaspirationsof the executive,or in any way to endangerthe immediatepopular prestigeof the university" (178). At this point, it may consideredappropriateto discardsuchan awkward academic, but this is difficult becauseostensibly a university is fundamentallyconcernedwith the pursuitof knowledge,thereforeto dismisssomeoneon "businesslikegrounds"would give the gameaway,asit were(178). Consequently, alternativereasonsmustbe advancedto divert attentionfrom the main issue. In extremecases,"it may becomenecessary,howeverdistasteful,delicately to defamehis domesticlife, or his racial, religious or political status. . . . Sucha step,however,is not to be takenunless... there isdangerin estranging the affectionsof potential donors,or if it involves anything like disloyalty to the executivehead" (179). From the standpointof his employer, Veblen'sdisregardof the "moral obligation" to engagein "a routine of polite dissipation,ceremonialdisplay, exhibitions of quasi-scholarlyproficiency and propagandistintrigue," and thereby"advertise"the university in ways that would impress"opulent patronsof learning, as well as the parentsand guardiansof possibleopulent students,"meantthat he failed to measureup

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

23

to the prevailing "ideal of a university man" (154, 156, 164, 170). In other words, Veblenwas remissin the sensethat he did not go "to seedin routine work and extra-scholasticduties," or succumbin any way to this "perversion" of the higher learning(78, 166). Judgedby the continuedrelevanceof this analysisto Americanuniversities (Nisbet 1971; Sowell 1969; Vidich 1994), and the Americanizationof higher educationin Britain (Hartley 1995), Veblen has beenvindicatedby history. At the time, Veblen'sstudy"quickly droppedinto obscurity,because the war and post war problemswere the paramountinterestsof the day" (Dorfman 1934, 410). Another reasonfor the neglect, then and now, as Dorfman himselfsuggests,is that it is too subversiveto be regardedsympathetically by peers and college executivesalike (1934, 1973; see also Rosenberg1956). This point may also be relevant to an understandingof Veblen'sfate in a university systemin which his valueswere diametrically opposedto thosebeing adoptedby virtually everyoneelse,particularlythose in charge at the University of Chicago. The strengthof Veblen's feelings about his treatmentat Chicagocan be judged from the style as well as the content of his accountof the formative years of this institution, notwithstandingthat, on the adviceof a friend and colleague,he expungedthe word "assasination"from the final draft (Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999, 151).

Radical Movements In his fiftieth year, in the time honoredmythology of the aspiring pioneer, Veblen setoff westward,headingfor StanfordUniversity in California. This was his embarkationupon a life as an itinerant worker: a model of geographicaland careerinstability. In all his subsequentacademicand nonacademic positions,Veblen was neveragainto spendso muchtime in oneplace and institution as his fourteenyearsat ChicagoUniversity. Dorfman (1934) has documented Veblen'svariousmovementsover the next twenty years.In betweensummeringat his cabin on WashingtonIsland in Wisconsin and traveling to Europe(in the summerof 1914),from 1906to 1926Veblenheld five regular appointments(at Stanford University; the University of Missouri; the FoodAdministration,Washington,D.C.; the Dial, New York, and the New School for Social Research,New York), one temporarypart-time post (at Amherst College in Amherst, MA), and wasunemployedagain for nearly one year after his secondfall from grace.This diversecareerpattern suggeststhat conventionalacademicsuccesswas not a priority for Veblen, which is not to say that he was totally enamoredof being "scantily paid" in the lower gradesthat were his lot in the academic"sweat shops"that employed him (Veblen 1965 [1918], 165, 171).

24

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

During his three years at Stanford (1906-09), Veblen publishedseveral book reviews and important articles that drew upon his previouswork and foreshadowedlater works (e.g., the distinction betweenbusinessand industry), but no books,althoughthe title of one of his articlesfrom this time was usedsubsequently,first as the title of a collection of his articles,and in due courseas the subtitle (1969a[1919]). Much of Veblen'stime at Stanfordwas spentin the companyof two womenwith whomhe hadclosepersonalrelationships, SarahHardy and Ann Bradley Bevans,the former a close ex-student from Veblen'sChicagoyears,the latter a soon-to-be-divorced motherof two children who followed Veblen to California and becamehis secondwife. This was in additionto the presenceof his first wife, who ceasedto live with Veblen soon after they moved to California and from whom Veblen was seeking a divorce; a less-than-acceptable arrangementin polite society at that time (Dorfman 1934; Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999). It may well be that while Veblen was at Stanford,he contributedmore to his reputationfor unconventionalsocialbehaviorthanto his reputationfor unconventionalsocial theories.Perhapsthe turbulenceof Veblen'spersonallife during his Stanford stint was intruding upon his academicwork.20 Veblen'sestrangedfirst wife playeda crucial proactiverole in his departure from Stanford,as a letter from the headof Stanford Universityto the headof ChicagoUniversity makesclear (Tilman 1992). This and other correspondencebetweenEllen Veblen and David Starr Jordan,the presidentof StanfordUniversity, suggeststhat on this occasionthe key issuewasVeblen's alleged questionablerespectability,"vague rumors" about which had traveledwestwith Veblen.21 OnceJordanhadacquiredthe "essentialfacts" from the first Mrs Veblen, he was keen"to do whatis just and right in this matter towardthe University" (JorgensenandJorgensen1999,123).Veblenresigned in October1909 and the nearesthe seemsto havegot to acknowledgingthe moral dimensionof his predicamentwas to describeit as "my domestic infelicitude" in a letterto a closefriend (Jorgensenand Jorgensen 1999, 125). This episodein Veblen's careerwas clearly instigatedby his rejectedfirst wife; the most appositeproverbthat comesto mind is the one that is derived from the play The Morning Bride (1697) by the English dramatistWilliam Congreve(1670-1729),namely: Heavenhas no rage, like love to hatredturned, Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorned. (Knowles 1999,232) It also suggeststhat Veblen's irregular personalrelationshipswere perceived as a risk to the good nameof a university competingfor credibility,

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN 25

funds, and students,by those chargedwith maintaining the narrownessof the prevailing moral code. Veblen was not alone in his dissatisfactionwith the managementof StanfordUniversity; the headof the EconomicsDepartment was of the view that Veblen had been"the victim of a grossinjustice" and only held back from resigninghimselfon financial grounds(Jorgensen and Jorgensen1999, 132). Fortunatelyfor Veblen,thesesentimentswereconveyedto the headof the Departmentof Economicsat the University of Missouri, who happenedto be a former studentand friend of Veblen.After a yearof ill healthandunemployment, Veblen joined the University of Missouri in 1911 on an annual contract and at a reducedsalary, and stayeduntil 1918. He was divorced from his first wife, Ellen, in 1912andmarriedanotherradicalwoman,divorcee Ann Bradley Bevans,in 1914.At Missouri, Veblen was also surroundedby admiring friends and colleagues,two of whom, graduatestudentsWilliam R. Campand Leon Ardzrooni, had followed him from Stanford(Jorgensen and Jorgensen1999). This was a productiveperiod for Veblen, perhapsone of his most satisfying, in that in 1914 he publishedwhat he regardedas his "only importantbook"-TheInstinct oj Workmanshipand the Stateoj the Industrial Arts-which uniquely included a dedicationto his secondwife andhis stepdaughters (Dorfman 1934,324).Veblenpublishedtwo otherbooks during his sevenyears at the University of Missouri-Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution in 1915 plus An Inquiry into the Nature oj Peaceand the Terms oj Its Perpetuationin 1917-butonly one journal article, and no book reviews. Generally, thesethree monographswere well received,especiallythe first, which discussedin detail his evolutionarytheory of change;he had outlinedthis theory somewhatbriefly in The Theoryoj the Leisure Class (Edgell 1975). However,whateversanguineness Veblen felt at this time was short lived. Aside from the niggardlinessof his new employers,the problemof "university routine and discipline" seemedto be a particularly irksome feature of Veblen'swork at Missouri.22 On a personalas well as a professionallevel, by 1916,"Veblenbeganto feel ratherisolatedat the University of Missouri"; one of his closefriends, RobertHoxie, committedsuicide;Velden'ssponsor and friend HerbertJ. Davenportleft for Cornell; and otherfriends, including Ardzrooni, also moved on (Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999, 154). Living in the archetypalcountry town of Columbia, Missouri, addedsalienceto this feeling of isolation, given Veblen'sview that the American country town is essentiallya "businesscommunity" and as suchis primarily concernedwith speculationin land valuesandthe perpetuationof conservativevalues(Veblen 1966 [1915], 333; seealso Veblen 1964c [1923]). It was entirely likely that this was not an environmentthat Veblen would feel comfortable in once

26

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

mostof his closefriends andcolleagueshaddeparted;in fact, the "last straw," accordingto the Jorgensens,was the departureof his "only remainingassistant," IsadorLubin, in January1918 (1999, 154). Although all three books by Veblen during his time at the University of Missouri concernedthe by-now-enduringthemeof the historical tusslebetweenthe "instincts" of workmanshipand predation,the backdropof World War I ensuredthat the two on internationalrelations causeda certain stir. Veblen was attackedfor being both anti-Germanand anti-American.A public commotionensuedconcerningVeblen'sloyalty to the state and consequently his suitability as a teacher,which underminedhis attemptto join his erstwhile headof department,Davenport,at Cornell in 1918 (S. Bartley 1996). It seems that Veblen'ssuspectpolitical reputationhadbeenreinforcedby his latestpublications to the detrimentaleffect of his alreadyblighted academiccareer. Throughthe good offices of his ex-studentand friend, Lubin, Veblen followed him to Washington,D.C., in 1918, but remainedin the employ of the FoodAdministration as a specialinvestigatorfor a few monthsonly (Lubin 1968). Veblen'scauseat this juncture was not helpedby his book on Germany being declared"non-mailable,"in other words censored,by the Post Office Department(Dorfman 1934,382).In addition to the questionmark regardingVeblen's patriotism, his socialist sympathiesalso were creating alarm. In his first assignmentas a stateemployeeVeblenproposedthat in the interestsof ensuringa supply of farm labor, the repressionof agricultural workerswho weremembersof the radical InternationalWorkersof theWorld (IWW or "Wobblies") should cease,and that they shouldbe usedinsteadto harvestgrain. In his report, Veblen detailedthe maltreatmentofIWW members by the state,the press,and commercialclubs composedof substantial citizens suchas bankersand other businessmen.He also supportedpublicly the samemilitant union on the occasionof a trial in Chicagoof over 100 of its leaderson chargesthat included"hindering the government'swar effort" (Dorfman 1934, 386). Veblen and Lubin were not told of the fate of their proposaland when no more requestswere forthcoming they "concludedthat they wereno longerwanted"(Lubin 1968, 142).This is not to saythatVeblen had not beennoticed by the "Guardiansof the VestedInterests,"as he was apt to call the capitalist state (Veblen 1963 [1921], 94). On the contrary, subsequently,at the height of the "most repressiveright wing period in America,culturally, politically, andgovernmentally,"including the McCarthy eraof the early 1950s(Laslett and Lipset 1974,49-50),Veblen was included on an official list of "dangerousradicals" (Dorfman 1934,433). A more recentand thoroughgoingattemptto discoverjust how dangerous Veblen was viewed from above showsthat governmentinvestigationsgeneratedno lessthan five setsof documentson Veblen, four during his lifetime

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

27

and one posthumously(S. Bartley 1996). They confirm that therewas some official concernabouthis allegedpro-Germanstanceand his radical sympathies, as reflectedin his unpatriotic views and his supportfor farm labor in America and workers in Russia. Veblen'snext careermove also involved journalism. He becameone of the editors of the radical literary and political magazinethe Dial. With the assistanceof yet anotherformer studentand friend, Leon Ardzrooni, Veblen movedagain,this time to New York (Dorfman 1934). TheDial was founded by Ralph Waldo Emersonand, notwithstandingthe involvementof such intellectualluminariesas JohnDewey and Lewis Mumford, it becameknown as the "Veblenian Dial" (Dorfman 1934,411).As a full-time journalist, albeit for only one year, Veblen wrote a numberof editorials and articles on contemporarypolitical issuesfrom his distinctively iconoclasticperspective, someof which are reprintedin Essaysin Our Changing Order(Ardzrooni 1964 [1934]). Two seriesof more substantialarticleswere publishedsubsequently in book form, The VestedInterestsand the CommonMan in 1919 and The Engineersand the Price Systemin 1921. In the underratedThe VestedInterestsand the CommonMan, a short volume, Veblen reiteratedhis familiar thesisthat the businesscontrol of industry servesonly to "retardthe rateand volume of production,"but in the more stridenttone characteristicof journalism(1969b [1919], 156). In The Engineersand the Price System,alsoa shortvolume,Veblen deridedthe "Guardians of the Vested Interests"for their "red scare"mentality since they had nothing to worry about, "just yet" (1963 [1921], 151). The book on engineershasbeenseenasthe "sequel"to the oneon the vestedinterest(Dorfman 1973, 154),which is somewhatironic sincethe latterbook is thoughtto have strengthenedthe view that Veblen was a "radical" (Dorfman 1934, 422), whereasthe former book is consideredto be the main sourceof the allegation that Veblen was an elitist (Tilman 1996). Political panic aboutpatriotism was replacedby fear of revolution in the periodVeblenworkedat the Dial (1918-19).Veblen'sreputationas a radical was enhancedby his editorials and articles, so much so that government reportsat that time claimedthat he wasa "revolutionary,"a sort of American Lenin (S. Bartley 1996, 25). It seemsVeblenwas consideredas an enemyof the capitaliststate,and the Dial fared no better,it became"one of the casualties of 1919," as the authorities and their allies sought to restore order (Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999, 160). At the age of sixty-two Veblen had a political profile with the vestedintereststhat had neverbeenhigher, and he sufferedthe samefate as the journal with which he was identified closely. Veblentook up his final postwhenhe returnedto academiain 1919as one of the foundersat the New School for Social Research,in New York. This

28

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

promisedto be the most congenialintellectualenvironmentthat Veblen had experienced.He wasnow working with like-mindedcolleaguesand friends, includingArdzrooni, andthe cultureof the new institution wasvery muchin line with his convictionsaboutthe purposeand organizationof higher education.While at the New School,in addition to seeingthe publicationof his translationfrom the Icelandicof The LaxdaelaSaga(1925), Veblen continued his journalisticwork by writing a seriesof topical articlesfor the radical journal The Freeman,a couple of which were reprinted in Essaysin Our ChangingOrder (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934]). In 1923,othersbecamechapters in his tenth and last book, AbsenteeOwnershipand BusinessEnterprisein RecentTimes(1964c [1923]). In many respects,this book complementshis first analysisof Americancapitalism(1975 [1904]), in that it reiteratesand updatesthe by-now-familiar thesis regardingthe predatory and therefore wasteful natureof modemcapitalismand its "imbecile" institutions (1964c [1923],38).It is written in a less guardedstyle and althoughit is somewhat pessimisticregardingthe imminent demiseof the price system,it is a fitting climax to a life's work. Yet again,during this periodVeblen'spersonalcircumstances becamethe causeof concern.His secondwife entereda mental institution in 1919 and died the following year. With his health failing and his income declining, Veblen retiredto California, accompaniedby a caring stepdaughter,in 1926 (Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999). He continuedto live asceticallyand died threeyearslater at the ageof seventy-two.The yearof Veblen'sdeath,1929, wasa yearof somenote for capitalismandthe endof an eraof greatprosperity-for some. Concluding Remarks One of the more memorablesummationsof Veblen's life and work is the statement:"There is no failure in Americanacademichistory quite so great as Veblen's"(Mills 1970, ix). This oxymoronassumesthat Veblen'sfailure to achievean academicappointmentcommensuratewith his scholarly repute was important to him. I am not so sure that Veblen would have been comfortablewith being promotedto a statusthat requiredhim to take seriously and sincerelythe competitiveaspirationsof employers,which would have involved a major act of bad faith on Veblen'spart. He was famous for his contemptfor all forms of salesmanship,especiallyin universities.He consideredthe cultureof businessto be "incompatiblewith the spirit of higher learning" (Veblen 1965 [1918],75).This surelycontributedto his reluctance to act in a self-seekingand competitive manner, even when the occasion warrantedit, such as at the time of his dismissalfrom Stanford.Moreover,

THE TIMES, LIFE, AND WORKS OF VEBLEN

29

Veblen'sextensiveuseof irony seemsto haveconfusedhis friends as well as his foes. Such a strategywas both appropriateand successfulfor someone like Veblen, who rejectedwhat the vast majority celebrated,the basic assumptionsuponwhich Americansocietyoperated.That a dissentingradical, with a lifestyle to match his ideology, managedto contribute so much in a hostile professionaland political environmentis a testimonyto his integrity as well as his intellect. Notes I. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman, January14, 1931 (CUL). Seealso Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman, December7,1931 (CUL). 2. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,April 12, 1930 (CUL). 3. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman, March 19, 1925 (CUL). Seealso Andrew Veblen, lettersto JosephDorfman,April 3, 1925;November29, 1929(CUL). 4. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,November9, 1929 (CUL). 5. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,February25/26, 1930 (CUL). 6. Ibid. 7. Andrew Veblen,letter to JosephDorfman,February4,1930(CUL). 8. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman, March 19, 1925 (CUL). 9. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman, March 13, 1930(CUL). 10. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,April 21, 1931 (CUL). II. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman, May 14, 1931 (CUL). 12. WashingtonIslandLibrary of ThorsteinVeblen (CCA). 13. Andrew Veblen,letter to JosephDorfman,March 18,1930(CUL). 14. CharlotteP. Gilman, letter to JosephDorfman,August 30, 1933 (CUL). 15. Montgomery Wright, letter to JosephDorfman, April 21, 1933; Howard Woolston, letter to JosephDorfman, September11, 1932 (CUL). Seealso Dorfman 1934,248-50. 16. John EdwardVeblen, letter to JosephDorfman, undated(CUL). 17. ThorsteinVeblen, lettersto David StarrJordan,March 13, 1899 andApril 29, 1899; J. LaurenceLaughlin, letter to David StarrJordan,April 29, 1899 (SUL). 18. ThorsteinVeblen, lettersto David StarrJordan,Apri19 and 16, 1906;May 1,8, 13,16,and 19, 1906(SUL). The vastmajority of Veblen'slettersto Jordanweredated the English way, which, given that Veblen was an anglophileandof Europeanorigin, is probablynot without significance. 19. Unfortunately,thoughperhapsnot unexpectedly,Andrew Veblen was reticent regardingThorstein'syearsat ChicagoUniversity. This is despitenoting in a letter to JosephDorfman,"He [Thorstein] and I talked a good deal aboutthe men in the University of Chicagoand knew most of the men fairly well, and you know we would talk," July 12, 1930 (CUL). 20. A letter Veblen wrote to an academicfriend in 1910is suggestiveof this point: "Domesticcircumstances,interestingenoughin their own way, but unprofitable,are all thereis time for" (Jorgensenand Jorgensen1999, 135). 21. David StarrJordan,lettersto Ellen Veblen, May 11, October11, and November 8, 1909 (SUL). 22. MontgomeryWright, letter to JosephDorfman,April 21 , 1933 (CUL).

2 The Mistaken Marginality of the IIMan from Marsll

Fortunately,for betweeQ t~ose interestedin Veblen'slife and work, and the possible links betweeQthem, generationsof scholarshavenot confonnedto his singular desiderationthat no "biography" shouldbe "published."!In the many short and the few lengthy accountsof Veblen'slife, one major theme has emergedfor which the mostapt epithetis the "man from Mars." The intertext for this is almostcertainly The War ofthe Worlds by the imaginativeEnglish socialist authorH.G. Wells, which was first publishedin 1898.2 As far as I have been able to discover, this depiction of Veblen was first hinted at in 1916 when Alvin Johnson,the director of the New School for Social Researchduring Veblen'syearsat this seatof learning, wrote in the New Republic on the occasionof the deathof one of Veblen'sfonner studentsand closefriends, RichardHoxie, that Veblenseemsto be "somethingnew in the cosmos'to anyone' who knows him only through his writings" (Dorfman 1934,354). The sameallusion reappearedin the first overview of Veblen's life and careerby Paul Homan (1927), which was publishedin a book edited by HowardW. OdumentitledAmericanMastersofSociaI Science:AnApproach to the Studyofthe Social Sciencesthrough a NeglectedField ofBiography.3 Homan, a fonner studentof Herbert Davenportwho had been taught by Veblen, claimed that the economistVeblen possessedan "aloof Olympian humor" and was a "cosmic philosopher,shrewdobserver,and bitter critic," andconcludedthathe was"remoteandaloofin his Olympianprivacy" (1927, 239, 261, 270). The developmentof the cosmologicalidea into the "man from Mars" epithetcan betracedto WesleyC. Mitchell, anotherof Veblen's fonner studentswho also becamea friend (Tilman 1992). In two obituaries publishedin 1929,Mitchell memorializesVeblen: "Now and then he would 30

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

31

drop a quizzical comment,which camefrom outer spacelike a meteor,"and he "broughtto economicsthe detachmentof a visitor from Mars" (Dorfman 1973, 603, 607). One year later Mitchell noted "the disturbing genius of ThorsteinVeblen-thatvisitor from anotherworld" (1930, 5). Mitchell used thesecosmologicalimagesto emphasizethe originality of Veblen's ideas, which helpedto reshapeeconomicsand,it shouldbe added,to found a more critical sociologicaltradition. The "stranger" theme was picked up, expandedupon, and transformed into a perniciousalienated"outsider"thesisby oneof Johnson'sandMitchell's graduatestudents,JosephDorfman (1904-91)in the first and most influential biography of Veblen during the twentieth century (Dorfman 1934). Dorfmantook abouta decadeto researchVeblen'slife and work for his doctoral dissertation,which (somewhatunusually)was awardeda yearafter the book basedon the samematerial was published.In the prefaceto his book, Dorfman statesthat it was written: "In the hopethat an inquiry into Veblen's life history might throw somelight on the meaningof his work" (1934,Preface). Dorfman doesnot cite Homan, thoughhe quotesMitchell's 1930 description of Veblen (1934, 505). In this tome, and in his later but shorter writings (e.g., Dorfman 1949, 1958a,1958b,1968),he retainedthe originality of his ideaselementadvancedby Mitchell but combinedit with an almost wholly negativeportrayalof Veblen the man. Dorfman'saccountof Veblenas an "outsider"(1949,455) wasbasedon a mixture of public (secondary)sourcesand private (primary) archival data (cf. Denzin 1970). The former consistedof historical recordsand accounts of the plight of pioneeringScandinavianimmigrantsto the Midwest during the nineteenthcentury.Theprivatesourcesincludedletterswritten to Dorfman in responseto a requestfor informationaboutVeblen'slife, and duly acknowledged,by him, againin the prefaceto his book: "I am indebtedfor information schoolmates,teachers, to a host of Veblen'srelations,friends, acquaintances, colleagues"( 1934,Preface).The mostfrequentlycitedmaterialis from Veblen's ex-colleaguesandstudents.However,the mostimportantdatawas suppliedby membersof Veblen'sfamily of origin, notablyAndrewVeblen,Thorstein'soldestbrother,whoseconcernregardingthe authenticityof the final productseemed 4 to overcomehis reluctanceto cooperate. As far asI havebeenable to discover,theprecisephrase"man from Mars" was coinedby EdgarJohnsonas part of the title of a short article that highlighted Veblen'ssatirical style (1941).A few yearslater the samephrasewas usedby Dorfman to convey the difficulty of understandingsomeonewho stood"halfway out of society" and who was thereforenot totally integrated into society:"He was the manfrom Mars andat the sametime a manat home in the factory" (1949, 438). The fullest version of this themeoccurswhere

32

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Dorfman contrastedthe intellectualadvantagesof a "man from Mars" over a "man in the mainstream"for the intellectualhistorian: The thinking of suchindividualsis lesslikely to be fetteredby preconceptions which usually are inculcatedin the membersof the Establishment. And while this "Man from Mars" vantagepoint is helpful in understanding even a relatively static society, it is especially valuableaid to insight in times of unusually rapid and far-reachingsocial and economicchange, suchas the period in which Veblen reachedmaturity. Indeed,it is reasonableto querywhetherthe particularkind of original, fundamentalspeculations offered us by Veblen would havebeenpossiblehad he sprungfrom the mainstreamof our society.For example,would it haveoccurredto the hypotheticalMan in the Mainstreamto doubtthe hedonisticpsychologyof the economicman of classicaleconomics?... But Veblen, free to follow his reasoningwhereverit led, was able to seedemandas a complex,often illogical result of irrational, subconsciousimpulsesand institutionally induced,emulativedesires.(Dorfman 1968, 127-28) Thus, initially implicitly and eventuallyexplicitly, Dorfmantheorizedhis descriptionof the relationshipbetweenVeblen's life and work, and in the processconstructedan accountof Veblen as the "alienated" man. As will becomeapparent,Dorfman'sbiographyof Veblenbecamethe key reference point for all thoseinterestedin him, not just intellectual historiansand kindred social scientistsbut novelists.Notable is John Dos Passos'sfinal volume, The Big Money(1961 [1936]), of his trilogy U.S.A.,which containsan unmistakablyDorfmanesquevignette of Veblen. Such is the hegemonyof Dorfman'saccountof Veblen'slife and work that a critical assessment of it, especiallyhis selectionand interpretationof data,is imperativefor all those who, like Veblen, value scepticism.

Dorfman's Pathography of Veblen The pathologicalchargeof Dorfman's accountof Veblen is apparentfrom the focus on the (alleged)negativeaspectsof the economicandsociocultural conditionsthat bedeviledhis life and from his depiction of Veblen as someone who had a "mutilated personality"and "did not fit in well" (1934, 29, 316). The sceneis set by a descriptionof the Veblen family as "practically pennilessand physically weakened"after a difficult and unhealthyjourney from Norway to America (5). The problem of social deprivationwas added to the story of dire poverty and ill healthwith an emphasison the simplicity, scarcity,and relative seclusionof Veblen'sagrarianfrontier upbringingon a "self-sufficient farmstead"located in one of the increasinglynationalistic

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

33

"little Norways" that are scatteredaroundthe Midwest (6, 10). Suchsettlements were surroundedby "contemptuous"Yankees,the dominant group, economically,politically and socially (5). It is in this contextthat Dorfman claims that the homesof Scandinavian"immigrantswereusuallylog cabins, shanties,or dugouts," overcrowdedwith people and animals (6). Specifically, "As late as the seventiesthe Veblen houseremainedprimitive" (10). Dorfman also statesthat simplicity characterizedall aspectsof pioneerlife (homemadefurniture, food, and clothing) andthat as a child Thorstein"was not accustomedto an undershirt,"all in "striking contrast"to the local Yankee (i.e., "American") culture (6). Moreover, "Secondgenerationchildren like ThorsteinVeblen did not learn much of the alien tongue while in the settlementand were not touchedby the alien culture," which put them at a disadvantagein their businessand legal dealingswith the local urbanYankees(11). In theseand otherways, Dorfman surmisedthat "the cultural isolation of the Norwegianswas intensifiedto an extentneversurpassedin any large immigrant group" (7). When,at seventeen,Veblenleft "the self-enclosedlife of the traditionally agrarianmindedsettlement,"to enrol at the New England-styledand strictly CongregationalYankeeCarletonCollege,it is contendedthat "he was entering the life of the alien culture" (Dorfman 1934, 13). Warming to his emergent "marginal man" thesis, Dorfman notes that the Veblen family was "burdenedwith indebtedness"and that, to minimize expense,Veblen'sfather "bought somelumber and a lot adjoining the college campus,and with the assistanceof anothercarpenter,built a housewithin a week" (16). Food was providedby the family farm, and moneywas availablefor all the basic necessitiesof college life, but did not stretchto "college social functions" (17). In this more cosmopolitanmilieu, Dorfman contendsthat to schoolmates"their mannersseemedrural," their Norwegianculture and language "was still apparent,"and the young Thorstein"even preferredto seemunable to answerquestionsin classratherthan betraythe fact that he did not have sufficient commandof the adoptedlanguageto expresshimself well" (17). Unsurprisingly, Dorfman statesthat "Thorstein Veblen did not fit in well at CarletonCollege,eitherintellectuallyor socially" (29). This problem wasexacerbated by his romanticattachmentto a studentcontemporary,Ellen Rolfe, "who wasno betteradjustedthanVeblen to life at CarletonCollege," albeit for different reasons(34). During their studiesat this Yankeeacademy, "Thesetwo misfits spentmuch of their time together,"to the exclusionof mixing with other students(35). As if to reinforce his theme of estrangement, Dorfman reportsthat Ellen Rolfe had said that "Veblen knew no English when he cameto Carleton" (35). Upon returning home to the family farmsteadin the Norwegian immi-

34

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

grant community, accordingto Dorfman, Veblen "was no better adjusted" (1934, 29). In Dorfman'saccount,the whole Veblen family were somewhat alienatedfrom their ethnic neighbours,having forsakenthe local Lutheran school for an American Congregationalistestablishment.For Thorstein Veblen,the odium attachingto his family, "was aggravatedby his 'conceit'" (30). Dorfman characterizesthe relationshipbetweenthe Veblen family and their Norwegianneighborsin general,and ThorsteinVeblen'sin particular, asessentiallyantagonistic.For example,Thorstein'sfatherwas "berated"by his Lutheranneighborswhenhis offspring enteredCarleton,andThorstein's "unpopularity" was not helped when he "defendedthe Indians againstthe general opinion" (13, 30). Dorfman takes the opportunity to state that Thorsteinwasa "lonely youth" andthat for the mostpart"he withdrewwithin himselfand occupiedhimselfwith his own ideas" (30). Thorsteinaccompaniedhis brotherAndrew to JohnsHopkins,wherethey both undertookgraduatestudies.He was "lonely and homesick,"according to Dorfman, as well as "in seriousneedof financial assistance"(1934, 39). At Baltimore he boardedwith a family "which still clung to its aristocratic traditions" and henceexperienced"the culture of the South,with its highly developedleisureclass,"an environment,suggestsDorfman,in which "Northernerswere still consideredoutsidethe pale" (38). Disappointedwith the coursesat JohnsHopkins, Veblen moved to Yale within a term. There his impecuniousness "made it necessaryto overlook many nicetiesin dress,and his Norwegiancountry airs were no assetin this centreof Yankeeculture" (Dorfman 1934,42).By this stageVeblen's"aloofness"apparentlyhad reached"Olympian" proportions,which "exasperated many of his associates,"althoughDorfmanproffers the view of one college friend who "describedVeblen more sympatheticallyas a spectatorviewing life from a detachedposition" (42). At Yale, Veblen yet again "felt lonely and longed for his home," and he was regardedby his fellow studentsas a "foreigner" (42, 43). Upon graduation,Veblen sufferedill health (malaria) and despitethe excellenceof his academiccredentials,he was "not acceptableat any institution"; the explanationadvancedby Dorfman was that "No faculty wanteda 'Norskie,' particularly one suspectedof agnosticleanings"(1934, 54, 55). Veblenreturnedto the rural immigrant communityof his origins, "a defeated man" and a "failure" (55, 56). This depiction of Veblen as the alienated,socially unacceptableoutsider is amplified by Dorfmanin many ways. For example,in the caseof his relationship with Ellen Rolfe, he commented,"Nothing could be strangerthan a daughterof one of the reigning families of the Middle West shouldbe interestedin the sonof a Norwegianimmigrant" (1934,33-34).Whentheyplanned

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

35

to get married,Dorfmanreports,Ellen'sfather remarked,"I fear for any man who is not a Christian" (66). The samepicture is paintedby Dorfman of Veblen'sbrief sojournat Cornell when he quotesan unnamedinformant to the effect that Veblen "dressedplainly and at first glance,there was a suggestionof rusticity abouthim" (79). Dorfman'saccountof Veblen'syearsat Chicago University augmentedhis continuing theme: Veblen "kept aloof from the faculty"; "his reservepreventedstrongpersonalattachments";his "schemeof life was still very simple"; and he "seemedextremelyelusive, rather detached,and disposedto walk by himself" (95, 119,239,247).In sum, he suggests,"Veblen was more at easetravelling in Europe,visiting Icelandic colonies, enjoying the society of artists, scientists,brilliant and beautiful women, than he was in the companyof economists.In theselay gatheringshis native simplicity and his 'drollery mixed with wisdom' were seenat their best" (252). When Veblen and his wife movedto StanfordUniversity, Dorfman'sdepiction of him in termsof "tragic maladjustment"is reasserted;the Veblens were both "untamedand unconforming"(1934, 271). Yet again, we are informed that ThorsteinVeblen"did not mix easilywith his associates, usually remainingsilent in their company" (275). Veblen is portrayedas someone who was as diffident aboutsocial relationshipsas he was aboutthings, able to dispenseeasily with both: "For booksas possessions he caredlittle; as he moved from place to place he usually left most of them behind. Their use exhausted,they becameuselessbaggage.In many respectshe felt the same towardspeople" (276). In his next post,at the University of Missouri, "Veblen wasa puzzleto the faculty here aselsewhere,and to a numberof themhe seemedto be wearing a mask" (Dorfman 1934,310). Dorfmanquotesat lengthfrom yet anotherof Veblen'sex-students,whoserecollectionsarecouchedin somewhatdramatic language:"His detached,free rangingintellect attracted,and yet it seemeda mutilated personality" (316). With referenceto one of Veblen's courses, Dorfman suggests,"There may havebeensomethingof Veblen'sfeeling of his own alienationin his discussionof the Swedesin Russia"(319). Similarly, Dorfman speculatesthat, in Veblen'sdiscussionof Marx, "there is anof his own isolation" (323). Dorfman'sconstruction otherpossible suggestion of Veblen as the alienatedintellectual outsiderculminatesin his claim that Veblen was describinghimselfin his article on the intellectualpreeminence of the "renegadeJew" in the "alien gentile world" (424, 425). Dorfman never wavered in his alienated-man-from-Marsaccount of Veblen. For example,he persistedin his contentionthat, although Veblen was born in the United States,"for all practical,or rathercultural, purposes he was an immigrant and might as well havecometo this country at the age

36

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

of, say, sixteen" (1949, 434; see also 1958a, 1958b, 1968). Accordingly, Dorfman persistedin his view that throughouthis life Veblen had to face "innumerableadversities"that "condemnedhim to loneliness"(435, 455). Last but not least,in the oft-reprintedThorsteinVeblenandHis America,and in his final publicationon the subject,ThornsteinVeblen: Essays,Reviews, and Reports,Dorfman insisted that Veblen's grasp of English was "quite limited" when he entered Carleton (1973, 23). Amplification of Dorfman's Thesis

For approximatelyfifty years after the publication of the first edition of Dorfman'scurmudgeonlyman-from-Marsportrayal of Veblen, with its cumulative emphasison his outsiderstatus,citing it was de rigueur for generations of Veblen scholars.An indication of the influence of Dorfman can be gaugedby the adjectivesusedin acknowledgingit in ten of the mostprominentAmericanbooksaboutVeblen; four referredto it as "definitive" (Dowd 1958,ix; Dowd 1964, 193; Heilbronner1955,197;Seckler1975,22),oneas "monumental" (Lerner 1972 [1948], 630); two as both "definitive" and "monumental"(Coser 1977 [1971],275; Diggins 1978,215);while three othersdescribedit as "conscientious"(Riesman1960 [1953],3), "exhaustive" (Rosenberg1956, 1), and"meticulous"(Qualey 1968,2).Suchwas the apparentconsensusregardingDorfman's "biography" of Veblen that after his deathin 1991,Dorfmanwaseulogizedas "the unsurpassed scholarof the life and works of ThorsteinVeblen" (Shute1994, 175). Unfortunately,in the processof disseminatingthe pathologicalthrustof Dorfman'sVeblenthesis, scholarshave not only perpetuatedit but amplified it, with the result that Veblen has emergedas the archetypal"marginal man" (Rosenberg1956, 6; seealso, for example,Coser1977 [1971], 1978; Diggins 1978; Feuer1953; Lerner 1972 [1948]; Riesman1960 [1953]; Seckler1975). Versions of this ubiquitousexegesisof Veblen rangefrom the strong to the weak, the detailed to the skimpy. In addition to Dorfman, whose pathographyof Veblen providesthe foundationupon which the marginality thesisof Veblen was built, strongratherthan weak manifestationspredominate.Among the mostextremeareCoser(1977[1971], 1978),Riesman(1960 [1953]), and Rosenberg(1956), three of the major sociological"wholesalers" of Veblen'sideas(Mills 1956[1951],132).In theseaccountsof Veblen, the intellectualdebt to Dorfman'sbiographicalresearchis clearly acknowledged,the marginal-man-par-excellence thesisreachedits apishsummit.For example,Riesmanwrote, "Some men who are not attachedto people are attachedto things; Veblen seemsto have been attachedto neither" (1960 [1953],26).He speculatedthat "If Veblenwerearoundnow, his friends would

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

37

almost certainly, with the best will in the world, urge him to consulta psychoanalyst"(186), andconcludedthat, in contrastto the industrial capitalist, Henry Ford: ... one can hardly emphasiseenoughVeblen'smarginality as a secondgenerationNorwegian,put off and alienatedfrom his parents'parochial culture but without the ability fully to assimilateand acceptthe available forms of Americanism.... This marginality drove Veblen into the Bohemian fringes of society.(Riesman1960 [1953], 206) In a similar vein, Rosenberg,drawing upon, amongothers,Simmel and his essayon the stranger,plus Park and his work on the conceptof the marginal man,wrote of Veblen, "Truly, he was the Marginal man, the Alien, the Intellectual,the Stranger"(1956, 1). Rosenbergclaimedthat Veblen "felt at home neither in the rural nor in the urban areasof his existence,and this discomfortis basicto his personality";further, he "found it difficult to establish common ground with academicians,"which "embitteredthe man and filled his pen with the sulphurthat it was to give off' (6). EchoingDorfman, he too hypothesizedthat Veblen'smarginality explainshis critical views on American capitalism: "Cast out by his countrymen,he turned a cold eye toward their institutions and impaled them on the sharpedgeof satire" (5). Rosenberg'ssummaryof Veblen the man is notable for the severity of the language;"a misfit whoseeccentricitieswere overwhelming"(8). In his discussionof the life and works of Veblen, Coseralso quotesfrom Simmel, wherehe contendsthat the "strangeras a social analystregardsas secularwhat othersconsidersacred,"but not from Park,which is surprising given the prominenceof the concept"marginality" in his accountof Veblen andthe inclusionof a laterchapteron Parkin the sametextbook(1977[1971], 298). Coserorganizesthe whole of his review of Veblen, the "man," under the headings"A Marginal Norwegian,""A Marginal Student,""A Marginal Academic,"and "A Marginal FreeLance" and also usesthe phrase"a marginal man" in the subsequentsection on the "social context" of Veblen's work (275, 276, 278, 285, 296). These sections,especiallythe last mentioned, are littered with baneful characterizationsof Veblen, which highlightedhis multifacetedmarginality:"maladjustedin theNorwegiancommunity andas alien to its life stylesas he was later to be in theAmericanmilieu"; "For seventeenyears,ThorsteinVeblen had lived in a cultural enclave,speaking little or no English"; "an outcastin the university's inner circles"; "maladaptedto his immediate environment"; "Veblen's marginality was twice compounded.He lived in two worlds, while belongingto neither"; "He was marginal in relation to most of his colleaguesas he was to the 'captainsof

38

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

erudition"'; "It has often beenoverlookedthat he wasmarginal in a generational sensealso" (276, 277, 282,296, 297). It is not only the languageand the narrativethat revealCoser'sindebtedness to Dorfman. Coser'sindebtednessis also confirmedby his argumentthat: Veblen was as much a strangerin his America as a man born in another country.... It is preciselythis position as a strangerthat allowed him to perceivecharacteristicsof American life stylesand customsto which the settledcitizenwould not be aseasilysensitized.Marginality sharpenedhis powersof observation.(Coser1977 [1971],298) The powerful influenceof Dorfman'spathographyof Veblen extendsbeyond sociologists;economistsandintellectualhistorianshavebeensimilarly smitten. For example,Heilbroner ratedVeblen highly as an economist,but in his Dorfmanesquedepictionof Veblenthe man,the scaleof his amplification is a match for anyone,in that he consideredVeblen to be "a stranger" who was "sick," "neurotic" in fact, since"he had the quality of isolation to the nth degree"(1955, 176). In a later editionof the samevolume, the title changedbut the tone remainedthe same,with the word "alienation"replacing that of isolation: "the keynoteto Veblen'slife: his alienationfrom society" (1986,219). Diggins alsofavors the conceptalienationin his intellectual history of Veblen and usesit many times in an attemptto sum up this "inscrutablemisfit" (1978, 34, 40, 41, 169,232).Although Diggins affects to distancehis analysisfrom Riesman's"provocative"accountof Veblen while aligning himself with Dorfman, he electsto describeVeblen as "one of the strangestcreaturesever to walk in the grovesof academe";indeed,Veblen "was a strangernot merely to the easternestablishmentbut to the country as a whole (33, 34). Diggins concludes,in the contextof yet anotherciting of Simmel'sstranger,"The pain of Veblen'sown alienationmadehim acutely aware that objectivity could not be won without paying a terrible price in ostracismand disquietude"(41). Examplesof the less commonplaceand weakerversion of Veblen as the personificationof alienatedmarginalitytendto bebriefandincludethe economist Buchholz,who cautionsabouttaking Dorfman'smarginal outsideraccountof Veblen"too far" (1989,171).A parallelcasein sociologyis provided by Kivisto, who, despitelisting Dorfman and Riesmanamonghis sources, suggeststhat, on the one hand, "Veblen lived on the marginsof American academiclife," and emphasizes,on the other, the work ethic and asceticism of Veblen'sLutheranupbringing, and the radicalismof agrarianpopulism, as importantcultural influenceson his life and work (1998, 33). Thereis, however,one extendeddiscussionof Veblen'slife and work that

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

39

illustrates the continuing influence of Dorfman's pathographyand arrives at a modified Dorfmanposition.The prolific VeblenscholarTilman arguesinitially that, in the light of his own and others' recent archival research(e.g., Mattson and Tilman 1986; Tilman 1992; Bartley and Yoneda 1994), "Dorfman's account of Veblen's early life is seriously flawed" and "he greatly exaggerates Veblen'sidiosyncratictraits, 'mutilated personality'and ... detachmentfrom and lack of concernfor others" (1996, 4). Tilman also rejects"those frenetically in searchof social typologies to explain his temperamentand behavior" and is critical of "Riesman'sreductionist treatmentof Veblen's social and intellectual marginality" (6). Nonetheless,Tilman judgesthat Dorfman'saccountof Veblen was "[b lasedon massiveresearch,well-written and organizedin an orderly fashion," and he claims, "neither Dorfman's biography of Veblen nor the 'marginal man' thesis can be dismisseddespitethe distortions of his life and work to which they have led" (3, 4). Somewhatconfusingly,in pursuanceof his volte-face,Tilman maintains that Veblen was a "marginal man and perennialoutsider."His style is reminiscentof Coser's;the themeof marginality dominatesthe titles, subheadings, and narrativeof his first chapterand pervadeshis last one (1996, 30). He also seemsequally keen on the term "outsider," and cites the relevant sourceswith respectto both concepts,namely,Simmel,Park,and Stonequist. In fact, Tilman sometimesusesthe terms"marginality" and "outsider"in the samesentence,with the hint that they are somehowconnected;for instance, he posesthe question:"Can his originality of mind be tracedto the marginality of his early life and its reinforcementin his academiccareerthat made him a perennialoutsider?"(5). More specifically, Tilman acceptsit that Veblen was marginal in several ways. First, "In a religious sense,he wasprofessionallymarginalbecauseas he madeit clear in his applicationto St. Olaf, he intendedto treat the scriptures as he would treat other historical documents"(Tilman 1996,20). Second, Tilman suggeststhat Veblen'srelationswith womenare "simply more evidenceof his marginalityexpressedthis time in his inability to conformto the moresselectively andarbitrarily imposedby morally conservativeuniversity administrators"(24). Third, Tilman claims that sinceVeblen was not influencedin a positive way by his economicpeers,"this is evidenceof his own professionalmarginality" (28). Although Tilman entersthe caveatthat in the late 1890sat Chicago,"he cameclosestto overcominghis marginality," in the next paragraphhe revertsto his Dorfmanesqueagendawhen he surmisesthat by 1905 "his marginality had solidified and was apparently irreversible"(26, 27).Tilman concludedthat "the key to the riddle of Veblen's marginality" was the businessculture, which "in Veblen'seyeswas clearly

40

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

different from the culture in which he was reared" (38). Yet Tilman also consideredVeblen to be an "outsider" in the sensethat "he was certainly disaffectedwith respectto a variety of institutions, among them his academic employers"(229). Although Tilman subscribesto the view that Veblenwas indeedmarginal andan outsider,he seemslesssureabouthow they relateto his critical social thought.At the beginningof his book he reiterateshis earlierview (1992,5) that: "Veblen's ideas had sourcesin addition to the social marginality induced by living in an ethnic Norwegian environment"(1996, 3). He proceedsto suggestthat "[t]he two traits, intellectual iconoclasmand social marginality,are in Veblen'scase mutuallyreinforcing, for thereis no way to effectively demonstratethat one has causalprimacy over the other," and illustratesthe point with referenceto "Veblen'simpacton the New Deal" (7, 225). However,by the end of his book he appearsto lose confidencein his initial interpretationwhen he concludesthat "the claim that his social and intellectual marginality were mutually reinforcing is difficult to substantiate" (226). He is similarly uncertain about the causalsignificance of his outsidemessin that he claims that: "While being an outsiderundoubtedly mademaking a living more difficult, it may not have beenthe controlling factor in his thinking" (229). Thus,althoughTilman tempershis admirationof Dorfmanby expressing strong reservationsabout his accountof Veblen and its offspring, the marginal-man thesis, he also remains faithful to the essenceof Dorfman's pathographyin the sensethat he regardsVeblen as both a "marginal man" and an "outsider" (1996, 229). However, in the final analysis,Tilman attemptsto resolvethis tensionby concludingthat Veblen'sradical perspective "is rooted in his uniquenessand eclectic originality" (227). In other words, Tilman seemsto reject Dorfman'soverly deterministicexplanation of Veblen's critical social thoughtin favor of its obverseto the extentthat he considersVeblen a uniqueindividual seeminglyoblivious to thosestructural conditionsand forces that impinge on all thosewho are not from Mars. This review of the fate of Veblen,the manandhis work, showsthat thanks in largemeasureto an uncritical overrelianceon Dorfinan'sbiography,Veblen the socially rejectedand personallydejected,alienatedoutsider, has been transposedinto Veblen the archetypal"marginal man," a characterization that in turn hasbeenadvancedas an explanationof his subversivesocial thought. In other words, to a greateror lesserextent,from Dorfman onward, his "Man from Mars" life history of Veblen, with its focus on his strangerqualities, has, quite understandablyone might argue given the preeminenceof Dorfman's historiography,been convertedinto a fullblown marginal-manthesis.

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

41

Dorfman's Social Misconstruction of Veblen In the processof transfonninga massof what otherwisemay appearto be randommaterial into a coherentstudy, all social scientistsinvariably select and interpret the data availablein ways that seemto them to be appositeat the time andplaceof their research.In this respect,the biographicalmethod it is merely (Denzin 1989)differs little from any othersociological approach; a morehumanisticonewhich emphasizes subjectivityandcreativity (Plummer 1983).Consideredin this light, Dorfman'saccountof Veblen'slife andwork, like all social scientific acts,including this one, involves theorizationand is thereforea problematicsocial process: Biographiesand autobiographiestypically purport to give us "the whole life" or at leastall of the saliencesof that life, but thereare alwaysomissionsandsilencesaswell asthe selectivitiesnecessarilyinvolved in reducing a vast amountof "data" that is a life to the finitude of a "book," or "a programme"andso on. However,rejectingconventionalreferentialclaims doesnot require us to go to the other extremeand deny that there is any significantrelationshipbetween"the life" as it was lived and"the life" as is hasbeenwritten. Ratherit directsus to acceptthe manifold complexitiesof the relationshipas crucial analyticalmaterial.(StanleyandMorgan 1993,3) Upon closeexamination,Dorfman'sinterpretationof the evidencehe assembledin support of his characterizationof Veblen reveals a number of inconsistencies(Edgell 1994).First, Dorfman'sinsistencethat the "brilliant" Veblen was handicappedby a lack of fluency in English prior to attending CarletonCollegeis difficult to reconcilewith his statementthatpublic school teacherswould betweeQ ~'insist that English be spokenin school," or his report that "Andrew andThorsteineachwon theAtkins prize of $80 for the bestcollege entranceexamination" (1934, 11, 12, 17). Second,Dorfman's contention that when Veblen went to Carleton"he was enteringthe life of an alien culture" is unconvincingsincehe also mentionsthat "nationalismin education was not completelyachievedin the Veblen settlement,"that Andrew Veblen had "attendedthe sameschool," and that ThorsteinVeblen enteredthe college at the sametime as his sister Emily (1934, 10, l3). Third, there is the issueof Veblen's"aloofness,"which wasemphasizedby Dorfman,who speculatedthat this "preventedstrongpersonalattachments"andthatVeblen"cared or "people"(1934,42, 119, 276). It did not little" for "booksaspossessions" seemto occur to Dorfman that Veblen'spenchantto give his books away was motivatedperhapsby friendship and a concernthat othersshouldbenefit from them, too (R. Bartley 1994). In contradictionof his marginality

42

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

thesis,Dorfmanprovidesplenty of evidenceof Veblen'scapacityfor generating "personalloyalty" and "strong friendships" (1934, 252, 255). In fact, his accountof Veblen is repletewith referencesto the "many loyal friends" with whom he maintainedcontactduring a life of considerablegeographical mobility (271). He also shows that Veblen'smany friendships were sufficiently deepand lasting that at the momentsduring his life when he needed support the most, such as when he was jobless,penniless,or homeless,it was invariably forthcoming. For example,in his biographyand otherpublications Dorfman documentedhow a variety of friends played key parts in assistingVeblen to obtain various appointments,including the ones at Stanford, Missouri, the Dial, and the New School. It was the same with regard to income and accommodation,he was often helped by his friends and colleagues,notably, Leon Ardzrooni, Wesley C. Mitchell, William R. Camp, Herbert J. Davenport,Walter Stewart,and IsadorLubin. This list of closefriendshipsis eloquenttestimonyof Veblen'sability to form long-term social relationships,which, consideredalongsidethe evidenceof his commandof the English languagefrom an early age and his familiarity with the social world beyond the ethnicity of his family of origin, suggestsan element offalse reasoningin Dorfman'saccountof Veblen. This in tum raises certaindoubtsaboutthe validity of his relatedthesisthat Veblen'sideasare explicable in terms of his maladjustment.It would seemthat Dorfman's pathographyis doubly paralogical.The availability of Dorfman'sprimary researchmaterials from 1992 onward, in the Butler Library at Columbia University, provided the opportunity to explorethesereservationsfurther. As part of the researchfor Thorstein Veblen and His America, between 1925 and 1932 Dorfman engagedin extensivecorrespondence with Andrew Veblen, Thorstein'soldest brother, and with a youngerbrother, John.5 He also wrote, in vain, to Thorsteintwice in 1928,requestinginformation about his career.6 The Dorfman papersalso contain copiesof letters he received from a number of people who knew Veblen, the majority of them ex-colleaguesor ex-students.By far the most significant of thesedata sourcesare the lettersAndrew Veblenwrote to Dorfmanin reply to his enquiriesregarding the Veblen family in generaland Thorstein'slife and work in particular. After Andrew had read a draft of Dorfman's book in 1930, his letters to Dorfman becomeespeciallyrevealing. The early letters from Andrew Veblen to Dorfman (sevenlettersbetween March 1925 and February4, 1929) are polite, tend to involve brief answers to specific questions,and show that Andrew was apprehensiveabout Dorfinan'sproject from the outset.In his first letter he wrote, "I am not sure that what I havegiven you hereaboutmy brotherand his parentageis of any momentto you in trying to find causesor reasonsfor his mental growth or

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

43

development;and I hardly know what more I could give you that would be significantto you in your study.,,7After receivinga copy of Dorfman'sdraft manuscript,Andrew wastedno time in expressinghis initial reactionby writing to Dorfman on February5, 1930,even thoughhe had written to him the previousday. He wasalsofeeling unwell andwas "loadeddown with work." As a consequencehe noted, "I shall expendlittle vision or energy of any kind on correspondence or anything else till this [work] is through."g Notwithstandinghis health and work situations,in the final paragraphof this letter, Andrew expressedhis preliminary impressionsof Dorfman's draft: "Let me just remark that I have now before me your first letter to me, undatedbut received 18 March, 1925. I thought then you were engagedin a hopelessquest,as you statedyour object and somewhatof indicatedworking theory. I confessthat this early suspicionhas only been strengthened, and has fairly assumeda feeling of certainty sinceI gave your MS its first reading."In addition to Dorfman'sunscholarlytendencynot to datehis letters to potential respondents,Andrew's first impressionof Dorfman'sdraft manuscriptsuggeststhat at the beginningof his research,namelyat the datacollecting stage,Dorfman had a "working theory" about Veblen'slife and work. The form and scaleof Dorfman'spreconceptionswere revealedin the next two lettersAndrew wrote to Dorfman. The two key lettersin questionfrom Andrew Veblen to Dorfman amount to elevenpagesin all, one double spacedand the other single spaced,which at a conservativeestimatetotal approximately6,000 words. They are the longest letters Andrew ever wrote to Dorfman, which is indicative of the extentofAndrew'sconcernaboutDorfman'sdraft manuscript.AndrewVeblen was extremelycritical of Dorfman'sdraft manuscripton the groundsthat it containeda numberof interrelated"misapprehensions, misstatements,and misleadingnotions.,,9Essentially,Andrew Veblen'sconcernswere twofold: Dorfman's "hardship and misfortune" and "cultural segregation,"refrains upon which he (mis)constructedhis story of Veblen'slife. With regardto the adverseeconomic conditions allegedly experiencedby the Veblen family duringThorstein'schildhood,AndrewVeblenobjectedto Dorfman'sdescription of the Veblen family home as "primitive" with a "ladder and trapdoor accessto the secondfloor," by noting, "This is as fantastic as your yam about our housebesidethe Carleton campus."!OIn the caseof Dorfman's assertionthat Thorsteinexperiencedcultural isolationasa youth, duein large partto his lack of Englishprior to attendingCarletonCollege,AndrewVeblen found such a claim "incomprehensible,"given that Thorstein was a voracious readerof the readily availableEnglish-languagenovels,manuals,and magazines,andthat he "had English-speakingplaymatesasearly ashe could toddle."!! Regardingthe relatedclaim by Dorfmanthat "the cultural frontier

44

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

washeavilyguarded'in our community,"AndrewVeblen wasforgiving about Dorfman'slack of knowledge,but added:"I do blameyou for making a big numberof it and seriouslybuilding on it." Andrew Veblen concludedthis long letter by noting, "I have filled a lot of space,and yet I have touched upon only a few of the fantasticdistortions."l2 In his next, and even longer letter, Andrew Veblen'stone of resentment and impatienceincreased,as he reiteratedin greatdetail all the samepoints in an effort to counterDorfman's"persistenthunt after elementsof inferiority and untowardhandicapsout of which Th. at last arose,"in other words, aspectsof economicand social marginality.13 Specifically,Andrew Veblen referredto Dorfman'sfocus on poverty and adversityas an "obsession"and notedthat in the caseof his mother'sfamily in Rice County,they "developed one of the finest farms there. Not exactly downedby hardshipand misfortune."l4 With referenceto Thorstein'sfluency in the English-languagedimension of Dorfman's "cultural segregationor isolation" discourse,he commented,"It takes a grotesqueimaginationto conceivesuch a thing as ignoranceof English."l5 The selectionof words and phrasesAndrew Veblen usedin this letter indicatesunambiguouslythe extentto which he disagreed with the whole tenorof Dorfman'saccountof his youngerbrother'slife and intellectualdevelopment:"misunderstanding," "no understanding,"''untruth,'' and "you have it all wrong." At the end of this exceptionallylong letter, Andrew Veblen is exasperated becausehis bestefforts appearto have been in vain: "It seemsto me that the lot of time I have given to giving you authentic information has been spent absolutelyto no purpose.You entirely ignore my statements;and even twist a few things to significationsthat it seemsto me you mustknow arethe oppositeof what I plainly indicated."He added,perceptively,"But if I do not misunderstandyou, it looks as if the hardshipand misfortuneidea is still to be the key-noteof your whole symphony of twisted and fantasticdiscords."l6 Andrew Veblen continuedto correspondwith Dorfman for anothertwo years.During this time he wrote over a dozenmore letters in which he remainedfirm in his conviction that Dorfman was not doing the information he suppliedjustice. Dorfmanneverachievedthe respectand hencethe trust of this vital sourceof data. Andrew Veblen was sufficiently dismayedby Dorfman's "study" that he sought to distancehimself from the results: "I should not like to appearas any sort of sponsorto a treatmentsuch as the draft I had to read last winter. You know what I thought of that and am not going againinto specifications."l?Clearly,Andrew Veblen continuedto be a model of polite helpfulness,but was reluctantto repeatall the relevantdetails of the Veblenfamily history. Notwithstandinghis self-imposedrestraint, on occasionhe did makebrief commentson the twin issuesof economicand

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

45

cultural marginality. For example,earlier in the sameletter he mentioned yet again "The 'log cabin' of your informants fiction," and reemphasised Thorstein'scommandof English as a youth: "He composedverse ... in English,beforehe cameto Carleton."Similarly, in his next letterhe oncemore contestedDorfinan'suse of the term "primitive" to describethe Veblen farmhousein Minnesota;andin oneof his last lettershe referredto Thorstein's"Log cabinbesidethe campus"and his "inability to speakEnglishwhen he cameto Carleton" as "apocryphalyarns.,,18Finally, he reflected, "I have certainly given you freely the informationyou havesought,andif! judgethe result to be a failure, why, what canyou expect?Perhaps,after all, it might be better to wait until I cannotjump on the 'productionwith both feet,' which I shall do, if! feel like it and am able to do the jumping."19 Andrew Veblen died in 1933, the year before the publication of Dorfinan's accountof the life and times of his brotherThorstein. AndrewVeblen'sevidence,wantonlyabusedfor the mostpartby Dorfinan, wascorroboratedby two otherVeblens:Johnand Florence.JohnVeblenwas nine yearsyoungerthan Thorsteinand in his letter to Dorfinan he broached the twin topicsthat areat the crux of the debateconcerningthe validity of the latter's account.First, JohnVeblen wrote about "the idea that you think he [Thorstein] was raisedin poverty, worked his way throughcollege,etc. That is not so. Our parentswere well to do farmer folk. Fatherowned some300 acresof southernMinn. land, andnot oneof the family did muchof anything towardspayingtheir way throughschool.,,2oSecond,he contradictedDorfman with regardto his constructionof Thorsteinas an alienatedloner: "He wants all and sundry to think that he is so phlegmatic and impersonalas to be scarcelyhuman,but take it from me he is all human." He addedfor good measurethat Thorsteinwas "what we call a good sport, loyal to his friends and his family.,,21 Similarly, FlorenceVeblen confirmed: "ThomasVeblen prosperedon his Minnesotafarms, as in Wisconsin." Alluding perhapsto Dorfman, Florencewent on to note, "There has beensomeattemptto surround ThorsteinVeblen'syouth with the fashionableAmerican decoration of hardship,privation, and struggle.There was never any ground whatever for this" (1931, 190). In the caseof Thorstein'salleged cultural isolation, Florencereferredto the importanceof "c1osefriends" in his private andpublic life, and noted that English as well as Norwegian wasspoken during "dinner table discussions"whenThortsteinlived at home(1931, 192). Given that this additional evidence,wholly supportiveof Andrew Veblen'sfundamentalobjectionsto Dorfman'saccountof ThorsteinVeblen'seconomicorigins and social development,was also available to Dorfman prior to the publicationof his book-lengthstudy, it is remarkablethat Dorfmanpersisted with his marginality thesis.Thus, contraryto the impressionpropagatedby

46

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

the publicationof Dorfman'sbiography,Andrew, John,and FlorenceVeblen were united in their view that Thorstein Veblen's upbringing was neither economicallyimpoverishednor linguistically and socially limited. Although Dorfmanrevisedhis original tome and had other opportunities to modify his accountof Veblen'slife (1949; 1958a; 1958b; 1968; 1973),he did not do so despitethe availability of other evidencethat invalidatedkey elementsof it. For example,one of Veblen'scloseCarletonfriends who becamea lawyer, RudolfvonTobel, informed Dorfman that "he wasmasterof as correct and precise English . . . as anyone in college." In answerto Dorfman's question,"Was there anycultural antagonismbetweenNorwegiansandNew Englanders?"he replied,"Nonewhatever."22Similarly, Wesley C. Mitchell, who knew both Veblen and Dorfman personally,notedthat the "Veblens prosperedas efficient farmers" and that Thorstein experienceda "bilingual upbringing"(1964 [1936], xi, xvii). Furthermore,the pivotal point of Veblen's grasp of English prior to entering Carleton College was challenged by anotherof Veblen's close friends, Isador Lubin, who was also convincedthat "he knew English" as a youth (1968, 137). It is noteworthythat Lubin's recollectionswere expressedorally before they were publishedas part of a seminarseriesheld at CarletonCollegeand attendedby Dorfman,whosepresentationwaslikewisepublishedin the same volume, yet Dorfman failed to address,at leastin print, the challengeto his thesis that Lubin's material posed.To his great credit, the director of the eventand editor of the collection, Qualey,was alert to the conflicting interpretationsregardingVeblen'slife, consultedthe Archives of the NorwegianAmericanHistorical Associationat Northfield, anddiscussedwhat he called "the outsidersyndrome"in his introduction (1968, 3-4). Quoting from the secondof Andrew Veblen'skey long letters to Dorfman, dated March 13, 1930,which wasreferredto at lengthabove,QualeynotedthatAndrewVeblen had "vehementlystatedthat Thorsteinknew English well before he had attendedthe school, and that he had no senseof being a 'Norskie' in a New England type school" (4). Qualey also drew upon the "Memoirs of Emily Veblen" (Thorstein'ssister),held in the samearchives,to assertthat "Veblen did not comefrom an impoverishedor underprivilegedhome" (5). As far as I am able to discover,Qualeywas the first academicto checkout the veracity of Dorfman'saccount usingsomeof the sameprimary historical sources as Dorfman. The implicationsof Qualey'sinterventionwere clear; someone was mistaken,either Veblen'ssiblings or Dorfman. In his final publication, Dorfman had the opportunity to reconsiderhis long-heldview on Veblen.Ratherthanacknowledgeits possibleweaknesses, Dorfmanattemptedto shoreup his thesisin an ironically titled andextremely long (over-300-page)chapter,"New Light on Veblen,"by quotingfrom people

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

47

who knew Veblen as a matureadult to the effect that "his English was quite limited whenhe enteredCarleton"(1973,23; seealso 190). Equally surprising is that he cited Andrew Veblen, FlorenceVeblen, and Lubin, yet continuedto ignorethoseaspectsof their testimonythatthreatenedvital components of his thesis(Dorfman 1973,208,275).This maneuverby Dorfmansuggests that he was not unawareof the contentiousnatureof certainkey featuresof his pathographyof Veblen, but did not desistin adheringto his original social construction. The markeddivergencebetweenDorfman'saccountof Veblen and some of the evidencecontainedin certaindocumentarysourcesthat he had drawn upon has not gone unnoticedby an increasingnumberof other researchers over the past twenty-five years.Galbraith, a long-termVeblen admirer and critic, sought to nail the "legend of Thorstein Veblen" since it "has only limited foundation in fact" (1973, 33). On the basis of Andrew Veblen's lettersin the archivesof the MinnesotaHistorical Society,the FlorenceVeblen article,plus his knowledgeof the rich VeblenfarmlandandsubstantialVeblen farmhouse,Galbraith rejected the"legend of Veblen's dark and deprived boyhood" and consideredthe claim that Veblen "had difficulty" with the English languageas a youth, to be "nonsense"(34, 35). In a short but perceptivearticle, Galbraithsuggestedthat the Veblensdid not considerthemselvesto be deprivedin any sense;andthat in fact they"regardedthemselves, not without reason,as the representativesof a superior culture," treating of the "local Anglo-Saxonelite" (39). with "contempt" the pretentiousness He concluded,"The Veblenmyth (as the Veblen family hasalso insisted)has exaggeratedthe alienationof the Norwegiansin generaland the Veblensin particular" (35). Surprisingly, Galbraith failed to mention that Andrew Veblen's letters were written to Dorfman and did not cite Dorfman as the creatorand curatorof "the legendof ThorsteinVeblen" (32). In an apparent contradiction,Galbraithrefersto Dorfman as "the pre-eminentauthority on Veblen" and acknowledgesthat, for much of his information aboutVeblen's life and career,he is "indebtedto Dorfman" (36, 40). More recently, Mattson and Tilman have examinedthe same archival materialandhaveconcluded,albeit in a footnote,that "no scholarbearsmore responsibilityfor misrepresentingVeblen'searly life than Dorfman" (1986, 232). Subsequently,Tilman addedthat "many of the Veblen siblingsmarried individuals of British ethnic origin," therebyraising yet further doubtsabout Dorfman'sinterpretationof Veblen'sbackgoundasculturally isolated(1992, 5). Tilman drew upon the hitherto little-used portrait of Veblen by Jacob Warshaw, one of Veblen's contemporariesat the University of Missouri. Tilman notesthat "Warshawknew Veblen far betterthan Dorfman"; hence, his commentson Dorfman'sVeblen commandattention(1992, 7). Briefly,

48

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

WarshawdescribesVeblen as a personwith a senseof humor, an engaging companion,whosebehaviorwasthat of a "regularguy" (Tilman 1992,9). This is hardly the pictureof an alienatedoutsiderthatpermeatesDorfinan'saccount. Moreover,this additionalevidenceis lessthanconduciveto Tilman'slatermodification of his positionregardingthe Dorfinan thesis,discussedabove. Finally, the latestarchivalandoral history researchby Bartley andYoneda (1994),Bartley andBartley (1999),and the Jorgensens (1999), as well as the architecturalresearchby Larson(1994),haveaddedto ourknowledgeofVeblen's origins and life, and in the process haveunderminedwhateverconfidence remainedin Dorfman'spathography.Bartley and Yoneda'smeticulousresearchinto Veblen'stime on WashingtonIsland with other Scandinavians, especiallyhis personallibrary and the social relationshipshe developedthere, reveal that Veblen had a heightenedsenseof belongingand awarenessof his cultural heritageand a capacityto make and sustainclose friendships.This picture of Veblen is, yet again, in clear contrastto Dorfman'sportrayal of him as the maladjusted"immigrant" (1934,434).For example,Bartley and Yonedashowthat Veblendid not discardpeopleor booksas Dorfmanwould have us believe (1934, 276). On this and other pertinentpoints regarding Veblen'sallegedlack of socialintegration,they chargethat"Dorfman'sjudgement seemsexcessive,actuallymisleading"(Bartley and Yoneda1994,20). They further suggestthat, in an effort to comprehendVeblen'spersonality and radical outlook, "Dorfman createda sophisticate'sfantasyof rustic impoverishment,cultural isolation and ethnic angstthat bore little relation to fact" (Bartley and Yoneda1994,2).Dorfman'sefforts to depict Veblen as a serial failure in his careerand social life are also shownto be spurious.For example,Andrew Veblen'sclaim that Veblen madeno job applicationsduring the "first four yearsof his convalescence"from malaria after obtaining his PhD from Yale in 1884,hasbeensupportedby the Bartleys(1999, 285). For their part the Jorgensenshave unearthedyet more evidencethat confirms Veblen's"bilinguality," therebyrefuting a pivotal plank of Dorfman's marginality thesis, and have concludedthat Veblen "lived life on his own terms in the rigidly conformistVictorian society,and survived" (1999, 186, 214). Larson's(1994) critique of Dorfman takes as its point of departurethe importanceof Norwegianartistic culture to Veblen, a dimensionof Veblen's life that he contendsDorfman is at a loss to understandand thereforeto explain. Larson,like Andrew Veblenbeforehim, is familiar with the quality of workmanshipof the Veblen family home in Minnesota,and, like him, is particularly outragedby Dorfman's denigrating description of the "attic" reachedby a "ladder through a trap door" in the housebuilt by Veblen's father Thomas(1934, 10). With the aid of photographicevidenceof the re-

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

49

storedVeblenhousein which Thorsteingrewup, Larsonsuggests,"The stairway to the secondfloor is very functional andwasteslittle space,andtrue to Nordic traditions it turns. This, Mr Dorfman is not a ladder" (1994, 2). Dorfman's claim that, for the Veblens, "Woollen clothing was unknown" (1934,6),advancedin the contextofa paragraphdevotedto the deprivation experiencedby pioneeringself-sufficientfarmersfrom Norway, is alsoquestionedby Larson: "This supposedlydescribesthe life of a Norwegianimmigrant (wherewool cloth hasbeena tradition for centuries)who raisedprized sheepand built a 100m room with wainscotingand a wood ceiling to honor his wife's greatartistic skills" (1994, 3). Larsonjudgesthat Andrew Veblen "was consistentlycorrect" about Thorstein Veblen's social origins, not Dorfman (1994, 6). The varied details of Veblen's life and work consideredby researchers during the 1990smay be regardedas arcaneif viewed individually, but consideredtogether,they all point in the samedirection, and that direction is in conformity with the thrustof the critique of Dorfman advancedoriginally by Andrew Veblen. Hence,from the first to the last as it were, once othershad startedto assessindependentlythe same datathat Dorfman had utilized to assemblehis version of Veblen's life and work, his sins of omission and commissionbecamemore rather than lessprominent.Dorfman'srefusal to addressthe issuesraisedby evidencethat contradictedhis social construction of Veblen and/oramendhis interpretationin ways that would softenthe more negativeelementsof his marginality thesis of Veblen resultedin its being perpetuatedin all his publicationsafter the first edition of Thorstein Veblen and His America. Reflections on Dorfman's Pathography

Thus far, the cumulative weight of evidencefrom Andrew Veblen, John Veblen, and FlorenceVeblen, from Veblen'sclose friends Wesley Mitchell and IsadorLubin (all of whom, unlike Dorfman, knew Veblen at first hand) and from thosemore independent-minded researcherswho have not relied uncritically on Dorfman'spublishedworks but havescrutinizedvariousprimary sources,suggestsstrongly that the "foundations,"as Andrew Veblen onceput it, of Dorfman'sbiographyof Veblen are questionableempirically and interpretatively.23Specifically, the caseagainstDorfman's version of Veblen'slife is that the twin issuesof economicand social deprivation,central to his marginality thesis,are contradictedby his own evidenceand that submittedby severalothersat the time andmanyotherssince.This raisesthe question,how did Dorfman get it so wrong? One possibility is that Dorfman was a poor judge of the significanceof

50

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

the "slices of data" available to him (Glaser and Strauss1968, 65) to the extent that he seemedto place greaterweight on the testimony of people who knew Veblen superficially than those who knew him well. This difficUlty with evaluatingdataparallelsGoffman'sdistinction betweenthe front and back regionsof social life (1969). Front regions refer to formal social occasionsin which a premiumis placedon impressionmanagingone'sperformance,whereasbackregions are informal social gatheringsthat encourage the expressionof feelings. In the light of this dramaturgicalmodel, Dorfman'srelianceon dataprovidedby Veblen'sex-students,manyof whom arereferredto by namein the text and listed elsewhere(1934,525), suggests that the bulk of his analysisfocuseson Veblen'sfront-region behaviorand attitudes.Conversely,the accountadvancedhere is basedmore heavily on the recollectionsof peoplewho interactedwith Veblen in the personalback regionsof his life. The key issueis the impersonalityof public life and the intimacy of the private sphere.HenceVeblen'sfabled reservein public situationscould be construedas a deviceto protecthis dignity and core identity from the vicissitudesof an unevencareer(cf. Bergeret al. 1974),or it could indicateambivalence,or evena lack of concern,regardingtraditional career successandthe conventionsassociatedwith it, potentialitiesthat werehinted at in Dorfman's narrative but were underdeveloped(e.g., 1934,247,310, 349,424). A secondpossibility is that Dorfman, those who have amplified his pathography,notablyCoser(1977 [1971J), andeventhose whohaveadopted a modified Dorfmanposition, suchas Tilman (1996), demonstratedthe penchantto treat the terms"stranger"and "marginal man" as synonymous.Arguably, this tendencysuffers from conceptualderangementsince it can be shown that they are different social categories.In an attemptto develop a typology of strangerrelationships,Levine "found four distinct and rather significant areasof confusion" (1977, 16). The one of relevancehere concernsthe tendencyfor Simmel'sconceptionof the strangerto be "equated with the conceptof the 'marginalman,'which is a very different socialtype" (16). According to Levine, this particularconfusion"was createdby Robert E. Park" (17). Levine arguesthat Park, a translatorand disseminatorof Simmel'ssociology,"cited Simmel'sdefinition of the strangerandproceeded to delineatea conceptof the marginal man as its equivalent" (17). In the processof applying Simmel'sconceptof the strangerto the study of migration andmarginality, Levine showsthat Park distortedSimmel'sconception (cf. Park 1928; Simmel1950[1908]). Levine statesthat Park'sidea of the marginalmanis someone"who aspiresto but is excludedfrom full membership in a new group," whereasSimmel'sstranger"doesnot aspireto be assimilated; he is a potential wanderer,one who has not quite got over the

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

51

freedomof coming or going" (1977, 17). As a consequence,Park's"excluded marginal man is depictedas suffering from spiritual instability, intensified self-consciousness, restlessness, and malaise,"which is in marked contrastto Simmel'sstranger,who by virtue of "occupying a determinate position in relationto the group,was depictedas a successfultrader,a judge, anda trustedconfidant"(17). In supportof his argumentthat thereis a differencebetweenthesetwo social types,Levine cites the work of one of Park's students,Stonequist(1961 [1937]), who first notedthat Park'sconceptionof the marginalpersonis quite different from Simmel'sideaof the stranger,but that his clarification had beenoverlooked. Referenceto thosewho originally formulatedtheseterms,namelySimmel and Park, confirms that the strangerand the marginalpersondo not havethe samerelationshipto groups.Simmelemphasizesthat the strangeris part of a group spatially but not socially, and that "to be a strangeris naturally a very positive relation; it is a specific form of interaction"(1950 [1908], 402). As a resultof this particularposition, Simmel suggeststhat the strangertendsto be characterizedby mobility, objectivity, and abstractrelations,the "classical example" of which is "the history of EuropeanJews" (403). Simmel sumsup by noting that "we do not know how to designatethe peculiarunity of this position other than by saying it is composedof certain measuresof nearnessand distance"(408). As indicatedby Levine (1977), althoughPark cited Simmel'sanalysisof the stranger,in developinghis idea of the "marginalman" with referenceto migrationandthe processof assimilation,he alteredthe meaningof Simmel's conceptof the stranger.Specifically, Park defined the marginal personas someone"on the margin of two culturesand two societies,"and as a consequenceof this position, the marginalpersonis likely to experiencea "sense of moral dichotomyand conflict" in the "period of transition,when old habits are being discardedand new onesare not yet formed" (1928, 892, 893). Park concludedthat the marginalpersonis in a permanentstateof transition and hencepersonalconflict and crisis. The crucial contrastbetweenSimmel'sconceptof the strangerandPark's conceptof the marginalpersoncanbe summedup by noting that the stranger is comfortablewith a free-floating position whereasthe marginal personis uncomfortablewith a peripheralposition. In certain respects,the marginal personand the strangerare both "outsiders,"in that neither is totally integratedsocially into the groupor groupsin which they mix (cf. Levine 1977). Thus, the vital point is that the marginal personseekssocial acceptability and hence tends to be a conformist, whereasthe strangereschewssocial acceptabilityand is more inclined to be a nonconformist.The questionis, which type bestdescribesVeblen?

52

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

In theheydayoflife-history researchat the Universityof Chicago,Veblen's colleague,the sociologistW.1. Thomas(Dorfman 1934, 125), advancedhis famousdictum: "If men define situationsas real, they are real in their consequences"(1928, 572). By this Thomasmeantthat the subject'sview is the most important factor in the interpretationof his or her behavior. From Dorfman onward innumerable commentators have suggestedthat Veblen's essayon the intellectualpreeminenceof "renegadeJews"was a self-portrait. To the extent that this is in fact the case,and in the light of the distinction betweenSimmel'sconceptof the strangerand Park's conceptof the marginal person, it is instructive to note that Veblen's article is essentially Simmelian.For example,Veblenassertsthat intellectualcreativity requiresa "skepticalframe of mind"; furthermore,the intellectually gifted secularized Jew"is in a peculiarlyfortunateposition"(Ardzrooni 1964[1934], 226, 227). Accordingto Veblen,this is becausesomeonewho hasescapedfrom Jewish cultural origins, but hasnot internalizedgentile culture, is intellectually unattached,as it were, and henceis immune to "the inhibitions of intellectual quietism"(227). In anotherpassage,which is reminiscentof an essaySimmel publishedover a decadeearlier, Veblen wrote that such a personbecomes "an intellectualwayfaringman,a wandererin the intellectualno man'sland, seekinganotherplace to rest, farther along the road, somewhereover the horizon" (227). The impressionthat Veblen'sessayon the creativity of emancipatedJewsis Simmelianis reinforcedwhen he suggeststhat "The young Jew finds his own heritageof usageand outlook untenable;but this doesnot meanthat he thereforewill take over and inwardly assimilatethe tradition of usageand outlook which the gentile world has to offer" (229). As a consequence,such a person"is in a peculiar degreeexposedto the unmediated facts of the currentsituation;and in a peculiardegree,therefore,he takeshis orientationfrom the run of the facts as he finds them, rather than from the traditional interpretationof analogousfacts in the past" (229). At the sametime thereare, arguably,also shadesof Park'smarginalperson in Veblen's article on emancipatedJews.This is especiallynoticeablewhere Veblen refers not just to "loss of allegiance"but also to "divided allegiance" (226). However,at the endof the article the Simmelianthrustof Veblen'sanalysis is reaffirmed:"One who goesawayfrom homewill cometo seemanyunfamiliar things,and to take note of them; but it doesnot follow that he will swear by all the strangegodswho he meetsalongthe road" (230). The dominantthemeconveyedby Dorfmanis that Veblenwas embittered and alienated,an archetypicalmarginalman. To recap,this is evidentin his discussionof Veblen's alleged maladjustmentat Carleton and later at the Veblenfarmstead,which apparentlyreached"tragic" proportionsat Stanford (Dorfman 1934,271).If anything, the marginality dimensionof Dorfman's

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

53

accountbecamemore pronouncedas time went on. For example,he suggeststhat Veblen'slife "presentsa headon conflict betweentwo cultures" and that, as an outsider,Veblen was "condemnedto loneliness"(1949, 434, 455). Similarly, later still Dorfman yet again emphasizedthat Veblen was "reared in one culture" and "matured in another" (l958b, 2). Finally, his marginal-manthesisreachedits apotheosisin his "man from Mars" versus the "man in the mainstream"essay(Dorfman 1968,128-29),andin the writings of thosewho followed his false trail. This essentiallynegativeportrayal of Veblen is in keeping with Park's conceptualizationof marginality and obscuresthe positive, Simmelian"stranger"elementthat is also presentin his life history of Veblen. This view of Veblen is compatiblewith the most recent and revealing Veblenarchivalscholarship.For instance,Tilman'sexcavationof theWarshaw profile of Veblen(1992) is instructive,sinceit revealshim to be asrelaxedas anyonecould be given the turmoil of his domesticand professionalworlds. By the sametoken,BartleyandYoneda'smaterialon Veblen'stime on Washington Islandover a thirty-yearperiod (1994) showshim to be a personwith an acutesocial spatialidentity via his attachmentto people,places,and artifacts. This was also apparentfrom researchinto Veblen'stime at the University of Missouri,which "wereperhapsthe mostcontentedof his entire career" (Bartley and Bartley 1999,295).Theseglimpsesof Veblenrepresenta positive alternativeto Dorfman'spathologicalaccountand are congruentwith a Simmelianunderstandingof Veblen. Moreover,the aptnessofSimmel'sconcept of the strangerhasbeenrecognizedevenby thosewho havealso mentioned marginality but havenot distinguishedclearly betweenthe two ideas (e.g., Rosenberg1956; Coser1977 [1971]; Tilman 1996). In addition to the problemsof evaluatingdataand conceptualconfusion, a third possiblereasonfor how Dorfman managedto producesuch a less than robustthesison Veblenconcernshis lack of familiarity with the distinction betweenthe characteristicsof groupsor areasand the characteristicsof individuals. This led Dorfman to infer from historical accountsof "Scandinavianimmigration" and "Norwegiansettlement"during the mid-nineteenth century that Veblen'sexperienceas a memberof a pioneerfarming family was characterizedby povertyandsocial isolation(Dorfman 1934,525,526). In other words, Dorfman's study was basedon an ecological fallacy, the significanceof which is that inferencesabout individuals within a group or area are, at the very least, "uncertain" (Bulmer 1982, 65). In view of the exceptionaleconomicsuccessof the Veblen farmsteadand the educational achievementsof the offspring, especiallyAndrew and Thorstein,imputing to this particularimmigrant family characteristicsassociatedwith the group and areawhere they settledis hazardousin the extreme.

54

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

The three methodologicalissuesdiscussedso far concernDorfman's limited grasp of researchtactics. Of more fundamentalimportanceis the distinct possibility that his whole researchstrategywas deficient to the extentthat he embarkedon his study with certain"preconceptions,"noted but unexaminedby Tilman (1996, 3), regardingVeblen's apparenteconomic and socialmarginality, which in tum influencedthe datahe selected and his interpretationof it. In the history of ideas there are other more promisingcandidatesto whom one could attacha marginality thesis,notably Marx, but biographershave resistedthe temptationto do so (Edgell 1996). Although Veblen was from a Nordic, not an Anglo-Saxon,pedigree,he was white, Protestant,male, and in due coursefamous-hardlya major contenderfor the marginal-mantitle awardedto him by Dorfman. As Larsonhasperceptivelyobserved,"Veblen neverconsideredhimselfto be a genericWASP. Dorfman treatsthis as a failure to cometo terms with the dominantAnglo-Yankeeculture. Never does he considerthat Veblen may havebeena superbexampleof the alternativeculture in which he was raised" (1994, 6). One potential and speculativeexplanationfor Dorfman'sperverseand persistentfocus on marginality in his study of Veblen is that it is not unconnectedto Dorfman's own biography.Thus, in the light of Dorfman's social origins (he was a Russian-bornJewish immigrant), his economically deprived upbringing (urban poverty), his geographicalisolation in the provincial Far West (Portland,Oregon),the social contextof his early researchon Veblen (he was an inexperiencedscholarand an aspiring PhD candidate),and his academicaudience(metropolitanprofessorsat a prestigious institution), it is likely that it was Dorfman who felt marginal, not Veblen. Recentarchival researchshowsthat Dorfmanexperiencedrelative poverty during his early life, that he startedhis Veblen project before he had completedhis MA, and that he was an ambitiouscareeristat Columbia University in New York. This researchstrongly supportsthe possibility that Dorfman did indeedfeel marginal (Bartley and Bartley 2000). It may also be relevantthat Dorfman'sentry into America was part of an era of exceptionallyhigh immigration from easternand southernEurope,in contrast to the earlier patternof immigration from northernand westernEurope. Consequently,during Dorfman'sformative years,immigration was a lively political issueand measureswere proposedby the prevailing forces of conservatism,and sometimesimplemented,to restrict the numbersof immigrants (Tindall and Shi 1992). These considerationssuggestthat Dorfman's perceptionof Veblen was not only impaired by faulty lenses from the outsetbut that it may tell us more about the author than it does about the victim, more about the seekingof conventionalacademicsuc-

MISTAKEN MARGINALITY

55

cessand social acceptabilitythan it doesaboutthe origins of Veblen'sacclaimed critical social thought. Concluding Remarks Although no biography,howevercomprehensive, caneverbe complete(Evans 1993), Dorfman'saccountof Veblen hasbeenfound to be at besteccentric, and at worst to reduce its subjectto a unidimensionalcliche. Thus, those who haveregardedVeblenasthe personificationof marginalityaremistaken to a greateror lesserextent,and thosewho have soughtto explain his subversive analysisin terms of this epitaphare doubly mistaken.Even bearing in mind that Andrew Veblen'slettersto Dorfman were inspiredin part by a concernto protect the reputationof his youngerbrother, the factual and interpretativedistortions perpetratedby Dorfman demonstratethat Andrew Veblen'saccountof ThorsteinVeblenenjoysa verisimilitude far greaterthan that achievedby Dorfman.24 Remarkably,in the face of mounting evidence to the contraryand many opportunitiesto amendhis versionof Veblen'slife and work, Dorfman persistedwith his marginality thesis to the end of his career-anoutstandingcaseof a closedmind in an increasinglyopen society. The consequences of Dorfman's insistenceon appraisingVeblen from the perspectiveof the dominant class-itsinstitutions, interests,and values-wasto enhancehis academiccareerand renderVeblen's radicalism politically ineffective.In otherwords,the myth of Veblen's marginalityhelped to underminethe legitimacy of his criticisms of modemcapitalism,thereby reinforcing the statusquo (cf. Perlman1979; seealso Tilman 1992). Those Veblen scholarswho have deferredto Dorfman's magnumopus have augmentedthe myth of marginality ratherthan aiding the liberation of Veblen from the biographicalstraitjacketconstructedby Dorfman. Eventually, echoesof Andrew Veblen'salternativeversionof Veblen'slife beganto be heard,and when Dorfman'spapersbecameavailablein the early 1990s, theseechoesbecamemorevoluminousandmorevociferous.Ironically, within the wide-rangingdetails on Veblen amassedby Dorfman therewas a hint of a more promising theoreticalperspectivefounded on Simmel'sconceptof the stranger,considerationof which suggeststhat this dimensionof Veblen's life deservesto be emphasizedat the expenseof Veblen'sspuriousmarginality. Suchan exerciseopensup the prospectthat Veblen's"ideashad sources other than the social marginality inducedby living in an ethnic Norwegian environment"(Tilman 1992,5).In the final analysis,the sagaof Dorfman's pathographyis un-Veblenian;his false trail betraysan idle curiosity encumberedby preconceivedideas and its amplification a lack of scepticismtoward an establishedpoint of view.

56

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Notes 1. Andrew Veblen, letter to his sisters,April 9, 1931 (CUL). 2. On the Kristevantheory ofintertextuality,seeWorton and Still (1990). 3. This is one of the earliestexamplesof a sociologicalgenrethat is regardedas "emergent,"at leastin Britain (Stanleyand Morgan 1993,4). 4. SeeespeciallyAndrew Veblen'sletters to JosephDorfman on April 3, 1925, February5,1930,andApril 21, 1931 (CUL). 5. BetweenMarch 1925 and February 1932 Andrew Veblen wrote twenty-six lettersto JosephDorfman.JohnE. Veblenwrote oneundatedletterto JosephDorfman (CUL). 6. JosephDorfman,lettersto ThorsteinVeblen,undatedbut postmarkedMay 15 andNovember11,1928;the first letteraskedtwelve questions,thesecondthree(CCA). 7. Andrew Veblen,lettersto JosephDorfman,March 19 andApril 3, 1925 (CUL). 8. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,February5,1930(CUL). 9. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,February25-26, 1930(CUL). 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,March 13, 1930(CUL). 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,April 21, 1931 (CUL). 18. Andrew Veblen, letters to JosephDorfman, May 10, 1931, and January11, 1932(CUL). 19. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,April 21, 1931 (CUL). 20. John E. Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman, undated(CUL). This letter was referredto by Andrew Veblen in his letterto JosephDorfman,March 13, 1930(CUL), andby Dorfman (1934, 30, 57). 21. Ibid. 22. RudolfvonTobel, letterto JosephDorfinan,February28, 1930(CUL). Dorfman quotes extractsfrom this letter in the first edition of his book (1934, 34) and in the footnoterefersto von Tobel as Ernest(528). Although he correctedvon Tobel'sfirst namewhen he revisedhis tome in 1966, he yet again failed to mention the crucial points raisedby this letter when he had anotheropportunityto do so. This is a good exampleof Dorfman'scorrectingminor detailsbut neglectingto attendto the major pointsthat would havechallengeddirectly the economicandsocialmarginalitythesis he advancedin the first edition. As far as I am able to determine,the most recent reprint was made in 1972; it is identical to the first edition in 1934 in all essential respects. 23. Andrew Veblen,letter to JosephDorfman,February25-26, 1930(CUL). 24. Family pride wasa factor that motivatedAndrew Veblento maintainhis extensive correspondence with JosephDorfman.This canbe seenmostclearly in the admiration he expressedin his letters for his parentsand his youngerbrother,Thorstein. He also informed Dorfman that his firsthand knowledgeand understandingof his family of origin was secondto none. Seeespecially,Andrew Veblen, letter to Joseph Dorfman,April 21 , 1931 (CUL).

3 Beyond the Myth of Marginality: Ethnicity and Evolutionism

The history of EuropeanandAmericansociologyis, in large part, one of sociologists contesting,on the basisof theory, evidence,and argument,accepted interpretationsof reality (Berger 1963; Bottomore 1975; Gusfield 1990). This critical orientationwasa featureof the contributionsof Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim, who, in their very different ways, altered forever our understandingof social change,modem capitalism,and scientific sociology, respectively.Veblen playedno small part in this intellectualproject via his rejection of the hedonisticand ahistoricalpreconceptionsof classicaleconomics, which infonnedhis critique of modemcapitalism,and in the processplayeda major role in the foundationof a radical social scientific tradition. RatherthanreducingVeblen'scritical perspective detenninistically to the fiction of his marginality, or reverting to the oppositestandpointbasedon the sociologicallynaive propositionthat it was theproductof his uniquemind, this chapterwill steera middle coursebetweenagencyand structure.This course will retain the Veblenianassumptionsthat "there is no isolated self-sufficing individual" andthatthe humananimalis an "intelligent agent... endowedwith a proclivity for purposefulaction" (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934],33,80). In other words, it will build on the earlier analysis,which linked Veblen'sworks to the social environmentshe experienced,while avoiding the temptationto imply that his "extremelysevere"critique of capitalismwas "rooted in personal distress"(Dorfman 1949,447).Hence,this chapterand later chapters will extendthe analysisto the key cultural and intellectualforces,especially the relatively neglectedEuropeandimensions,that helpedto shapeVeblen's contribution to social thought. 57

58

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Veblen's Ethnicity

The history of America is inextricably linked with immigration, a process that transformedimmigrants into ethnic groups.Veblen's agrarianNorwegian parentswere amongthose whotrod American soil for the first time in 1847,and Thorsteinwasborn ten yearslater on the Wisconsinfamily farm.! Given that Veblenintroducedthe concept"spiritual capital" to refer to intangible assetssuchasprestige(l964b [1917],27),the mostobvious,andapposite, startingpoint with regardto transcendingthe stumblingblock, albeit a crumbling one,of Dorfman'spathography,is to considerVeblen'sethnicity. This will be done with referenceto Bourdieu'sdistinctionsbetweendifferent forms of resources,which he terms capital, economic(financial assets), social(relationswith significantothers),cultural (knowledge),linguistic (languages)and symbolic (prestige)(1991). Bourdieu'sargumentis that positions in a stratified society are the result of, and involve differential access to, various forms of capital, over which there are strugglesin terms of its valuationand acquisitionby different classes,in different places,and at different times. On the basis of this model it can be arguedthat Dorfman's accountof Veblen focusedalmost exclusively on the alleged lack of economic capital availableto him, and addedinsult to injury by presentinghis Nordic social, cultural, linguistic, and symbolic capital in an unremittingly negativeway, notwithstandingthe evidenceto the contraryavailableto him. Thus far, the significanceof Veblen'sethnic capital hasbeennoted with respectto the mutuality and asceticismof Lutheranism,and the democratic egalitariansimof Nordic political culture, specifically as manifestedin Veblen'sIbsenite supportfor feminism, which in tum paralleledthe values expressedin Norsemythology. By the sametoken,Veblen'sfamed capacity for deadas well as living languages,including fluency in the languageof the dominant social group (English-speakingAnglo-Saxonimmigrants), arguably reflects well on the linguistic capital availableto him in his family of origin. Above all, thereis the abundantevidenceprovidedby AndrewVeblen that his parentswere sufficiently aspirantand prosperousimmigrantsto be able to provide the economiccapital for all their children to attendcollege. Less directly, Veblen'sideal of workmanshipand his lack of respectfor all forms of predationresonatewith his early experiencesas a memberof an efficient family group of cooperatingindividuals, united successfullyin the struggles,againstnatureand, againstless than scrupulouscompetitors. There are hints rather than detailed analysesof Veblen's Nordic backof his life and work, which are noground in the most prominent accounts table either for their brevity (Diggins 1978; Hobson 1936; Wasser1996) or for their misrepresentationand platitudinous negativity (Dorfman 1934;

BEYOND THE MYTH

59

Riesman1960 [1953]). For example,in their otherwisebanefulaccountsof Veblen, even Dorfman and Riesmanconcedethat his Nordic background was not without its advantages.Thus Dorfman notedthat "He had a special feeling for languagesand old-world, particularly northern, sagasand cultures" (1958b, 5); and Riesmanjudgedthat "he never soughtto escapehis Norwegian identity and affiliations" (1960 [1953], 5). There are several, mostly recent,exceptionsto this tendency.In an interestingreinterpretation of Dorfman and Riesman,Fredricksonarguedthat the Norwegianlandowning peasantattitudesof freedom and independence"dominatedhis work" and led him to become"like a Viking wanderer"(1953,415). Equally suggestive are the study of the relationshipbetweenVeblen's ethnic identity and his conceptof workmanship(Schwartz1990); an explorationof the significance of Icelandic culture to Veblen, basedon his social ties with the Icelandic community on WashingtonIsland, Wisconsin (Bartley and Yoneda 1994); and an assessment of the impact of experiencesas part of an emergentNorwegian-Americaneducatedelite on his life and work (Christianson1995). Therearealsothreesomewhatshorter,thoughnonetheless constructive,contributions to the ethnic dimensionof Veblen'slife and work: Tilman (1996) has discussedVeblen's early family life and how it relatesto his stresson workmanship;Edgell has exploredthe possiblelinks betweenVeblen'sfamiliarity with contemporaryNorwegian literature and his feminist values (Edgell 1996); and Peukerthas argued,"The touchstoneof Veblen'smoral values isto be found in the peacefulfarmer ... of the primitive Icelandic community(1996,4). Thesediscussionssuggestthat Veblen'sNordic "capital" is a promisingline of enquiry that until recentlyhasbeenat bestunderplayedandat worst ignored,amongthoseinterestedin his achievementsand the genesisof his radical contribution. The use of the term "ethnicity" to denotethe cultural featuresof an ethnic groupcanbe tracedbackto the mid-twentiethcentury,althoughthe word "ethnic" was usedwidely in English from the Middle Ages to the mid-nineteenth century, when it was supersededby lexicon of race (Williams 1976).2Following the publication of Gobineau'stheory of racial types in 1854 and Darwin's theory of naturalselectionin 1859,for the next 100 years,the idea of different races,with its emphasison inherited physical characteristics, waspopularamongbiologistsand social scientists(Hraba 1994).During the last fifty years,the attemptto classifyhumansinto racial categories,often in hierarchicalterms,hasbeendiscreditedon the groundsthat there isno such thing as a biologically pure individual; hence,thereis no scientific basisfor classifyinghumansinto different races(Rex 1986). However,the rise of the also beenthe subjectof some languageof ethnicity has,like its predecessor, debate,leading one contributor to declarethat it is difficult to define and

60

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

therefore"of increasinglylimited utility" (Banks1996,10). Of the two tenns, "race" and "ethnicity," the fonner is arguablythe more problematic,in the sensethat it is both scientifically spuriousand politically emotive. The debateaboutraceasa scientific tennwasat its heightduring Veblen's lifetime (Malik 1996), and he was particularly well infonned about it. He cited the major naturaland social scientific authorsin his discussionsof the issue,particularlythosewriting in the anthroposociologicaltradition in Germany (Otto Anunon), France(G. Vacher de Lapouge),England(Augustus Keane),andAmerica (William Ripley, CarlosClosson),both in his specialist articles on race (1969a [1919],459,489,497)and in his books (1975 [1904],354; 1964a[1914], 17; 1966 [1915],281).Although Veblenusedthe languageof racial classification,he expressedscepticismregardingthe idea of racial purity; "thereneitheris nor everhasbeena pure-breddolicho-blond individual" (1969a[1919],469; seealso 1966 [1915], 8). He also criticized thosewho advancedtheoriesbasedon "antiquatednotionsof racial identity" preferringthe tenn "social groups" (Dorfman 1973 [1915],532).He therefore adoptedthe concept"ethnic-types,"noting that"The word 'type' is used loosely, to denotevariationsin temperament,"when describingthe composition of populations(Veblen 1970 [1899], 145, 146). Thus he indicatedhis awarenessof the societalrather than the biological natureof race when he usedthe phrase"social group or race" in one of his early articles(Ardzrooni 1964[1934], 64), andtendedto usethe word "peoples"(Veblen 1964a[1914], 129). This was a generationbefore the suggestionwas madethat the tenn "race" should not be usedwith referenceto humanpopulationsin scientific discourse,recommending thatthe tenns"ethnic group" and "people" were more appropriate(Huxley and Haddon 1935). Veblen'schoice oftenninology reflects his view that culture ratherthan naturewas more important in the socialscientific analysisof change,because"Not only is the individual's conducthedgedaboutand directedby his habitual relationsto his fellows in the group,but theserelations,being of an institutional character,vary as the institutional schemevaries" (1969a[1919], 242). In otherwords,for Veblen, what countedwere cultural habits and social institutions, not racial differences,since these"act to direct and define the aims and end of conduct" (Veblen 1969a [1919], 243). Veblen demonstratedthis most clearly in his historical analysisof the social conditionsthat explainedwhy Englandtook the leadin industrializationandwhy GennanyovertookEnglandsubsequently (l964a [1914]; 1966 [1915]).3 Veblen'sinterestin ethnicitywasconsiderableandoneof the moreprominent featuresof this aspectof his lecturesand writings was the frequency with which he referredto the prehistoryand history of Scandinaviancultures to illustrate a theoreticalpoint. In addition to figuring prominently in his

BEYOND THE MYTH

61

main course,"The Economic Factorsin Civilization,"4 if one includeshis highly praisedtranslationof the LaxdaelaSagawith its distinctively "sociological" introduction(Dorfman 1934,493)and his collectionsof articles as well ashis monographs,it is instructiveto notethat he drew uponhis knowledgeof Scandinavianpeoplesin nine out of his twelve books. Thematerial used by Veblen in thesevarious publicationsfocusedprimarily on Viking history (Veblen 1925, 1964b [1917], 1966 [1915], and 1969a [1919]; and Ardzrooni 1964 [1934]), but he also discussedthe "senseof the superior erudition" amongNorwegianpeasants(1970 [1899],237),the possiblereasonsfor the lack of "imperialistic ambitions"amongScandinaviancountries (1969b [1919], 151), Danishstoneage culture, and Scandinavianmuseums (1964a[1914]), and he quotedfrom Grieg'sPeerGynt in the original and in English (1964c [1923]). Dorfman interpretedVeblen'sfocus on the VIkings as an indicationof his "long sustainedinterestin anthropology"(1973, 187), but it could be more persuasivelyunderstoodwith referenceto his senseof self and belonging in that his predilection for all things Scandinavianextendedfar beyondmere scholarship. During his lifetime Veblenbenefitedfrom his distinctivebackgroundand took every opportunity to develop his Scandinavianinterests,knowledge, and contacts,as is evidentfrom Dorfman'saccount.For example,Dorfinan acknowledgedthat Veblen'sparentswereunusuallyable andsuccessful,and when his father died the size of his estateshowedthat he had "been more interestedin the welfare of his children than in accumulatinga fortune" (Dorfman 1934, 269). He also notedthat, in 1880,Veblen obtaineda teaching position, with the help of his brotherAndrew, at MononaAcademy,an institution under the control of the NorwegianSynod at Madison,Wisconsin. Veblen built upon this familial social capital by befriending Rasmus Anderson,with whom he worked on "translationsfrom Norwegian literature" (Dorfman 1934,36). Later, when Veblen was a postgraduate,"he read Ibsen and spreadthe knowledgeof him on the Yale campus,"and he also welcomeda visitor from Norway "as a fellow countryman"and "discussed with him the language,literature,and politics of the motherland" (Dorfman 1934, 43). Furthermore,Dorfman noted other friendships,the catalystfor which wasVeblen'sconcernto extendhis knowledgeof Nordic cultural history, notably William Morris, who sharedVeblen's values (socialism) and interests(translating Sagas).Veblen's Nordic-inspiredsocial relationships werenot restrictedto academics,but includedmembersof the Icelandicfarming and fishing community of WashingtonIsland, whom Dorfman referred to as "neighbours"(1934,452)and providedevidenceto show that Veblen selectedthis place in order to improve his "knowledgeof the Icelandic language,"insisting that only Icelandicbe spokenin his company(1973, 189).

62

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

He also reportsthat Veblenwas awareof his brother'sstatusamongNorwegians in Minnesotaand hopedthat this would work to his advantagein a researchgrantapplicationon Scandinavianprehistorylate in his career(1973, 199).5 In other words, Dorfman documentedVeblen'sextensivesocial, cultural, linguistic, and symbolic Nordic capital, but is either negativeor neglectful regardingits sociologicalsignificance. Recentresearchon Veblen's frequent tripsto WashingtonIsland over a thirty-year period shows that "his quest for a fuller comprehensionof the languageand folklore of the Icelandersled eventuallyto the publicationof his translationof TheLaxdaelaSaga"andin the processhe developed"close andlastingties to the local Icelandiccommunity"(Bartley andYoneda1994, 595, 603). Although Veblen tendedto "devote himself to scholarshipon WashingtonIsland," it is clear that it was here that he entertainedrelatives and friends, and, by all accounts,was very relaxedduring his sojournson this island (Bartley and Bartley 1994, 594). Veblen's enthusiasmfor this place was such that he purchasedsomeland, and built two cabinsand "all the furniture for both" (Gunnerson1963, 5).6 This suggeststhat Veblen's attachmentto and involvementin WashingtonIsland enhancedconsiderably his social, linguistic, and cultural Nordic capital, in addition to contributing to the quality of his family life and leisuretime. Veblen's Nordicethnicity was also a factor in his choice of placesand people to visit on his many trips to Europe, which as far as I am able to discovertotal at leastfour occasions;1896, 1899, 1904,and 1914.7On these various trips abroad,significant in themselvesas an indication of Veblen's cosmopolitanism,the purposewas essentiallyacademicin that he met likemindedEuropeanbiologists,socialscientists,socialists,andIcelandicscholars,suchasMorris, Geddes,Branford,andHobson,andto visit Scandinavian museums(Dorfman 1934, 1973). However,Veblen combinedhis interestin "Northern antiquities and ethnographicmaterial" with a concernto travel with his brotherAndrew and to visit other relativesin Valdres,from whom he collectedsome"family heirlooms,"which he gaveto his brother(Dorfman 1973, 191). Veblen visited Norway again in 1914 and apparentlyspokein "glowing terms" about it to studentsupon his return (Dorfman 1934,329). Veblen was not keen on patriotism (1975 [1904]), nor on all forms of "dynasticrule," from which he did not exemptthe "patheticand droll miniature" example of the Norwegian constitutionalmonarchy (l964b [1917], 284). Unsurprisingly, his brotherAndrew noted that he was, "not particularly 'strong on all things Norwegian.",8 However, this view needsto be seenin the context of Andrew's extensiveinvolvement in Nordic culture, especiallyhis ancestry,which culminatedin his producinga Veblengeneology, and becominga leaderof the bygdelagmovement(Lovoll 1999; F. Veblen

BEYOND THE MYTH

63

1931). Veblen'spredilectionfor ancientand modemScandinaviancultures, plus the testimonyof two friends who recalledthat he expresseda pride in his Nordic background(Duffus 1944)anda greataffectionfor Norway(Lubin 1968), suggeststhat Veblen felt positive abouthis ethnicity. This was probably reinforced when he was offered a professorshipat the University of Oslo (Dorfman 1973).Veblenretainedhis interestin Scandinaviato the end; in 1924he wasplanninganotherresearchtrip to Scandinaviaand in 1926he visited WashingtonIsland for the last time (Dorfman 1934; 1973). Thus, althoughVeblen's lifelong engagementwith Nordic cultureswas primarily instrumentalin the sensethat his careerwas founded and furthered with consistentreferenceto it, it was an important part of his family and social life too. Thereis additionalevidencethat Veblen'ssenseof belongingto an ethnic group comprisedan emotionaldimensionandan ideal by virtue of his strong family bonds,nurturedin a successfulimmigrant family. This is clear from Andrew Veblen'scorrespondence with Dorfman, a constantthemeof which concernedthe economicstrengthand social cohesionof the Veblen family group.Veblen'sparentsemigratedin the late 1840swith severalmembersof their kin group, typical of the early period (Lovoll1999), and closefriends, many of whom lived together,preemptedland together, farmed together, andgenerallysupportedeachother.9 This providedtheir offspring, including the young Thorstein,with a model of the benefits of cooperativelife and work, and was demonstratedin practical terms with economic and social supportwheneverit wasneeded,notablywhenattendinguniversityandlooking for employment,andwhich he reciprocatedwhenthe occasiondemanded (Gunnerson1963).Theclosenessof the relationshipbetweenThorsteinand his brother Andrew clearly transcendedtheir divergent lives and political values, as has been shown above with referenceto the proactive role the latter playedin Thorstein'searly academiccareerand their intendedvisit to Norway togetherin 1899; and it is also apparentfrom their "frequent contact" (Bartley and Bartley 1999,287). Family pride and a concernto defendthe reputationof any or all its members was no doubt a major factor, which instigatedand sustainedAndrew's lengthy and detailedcorrespondence with Dorfman. In the processhe provided a rich legacy of details regardingthe Veblen family history that emphasizes,amongother things, that he regardedhis parent'sfarmsteadas an "outstandingcaseof 'self-sufficiency'" andleadersin their community,thanks in largepart to their experienceof independence in the harsheconomicconditions in Norway, their exemplarywork skills, their progressiveattitudeto innovation,the high value they placedon education,and the democraticorganizationof their religious (Lutheran)institutions.10 In due course,Andrew

64

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Veblen becamea leaderin his community,albeit in a different way to his parents.The possibleimpact of this Nordic cultural heritageand associated symbolic capital on an unusually able offspring is acknowledgedboth by Dorfman, who reportedthat Veblen"admiredhis father'sintellectualqualities" (1934,12),andby Riesman,who opinedthat "he [Veblen] claimedthat his father had taught him more than any other man" (1960 [1953],6), but they misreadthe potentialsignificanceof this point andin the processmissed anotheropportunityto constructa lesspathologicalaccountof his life. It is difficult to know how much weight to attachto Veblen'sexperience of Nordic values,but it is not unusualto surmisethat they count for something (Edgell 1996; Tilman 1996). Minimally, one could suggestthat the exampleof successfulfamilial cooperation;the virtues of hardwork, education, and prudence;the premiumplacedon the welfare of the group; and the priority of earninga living ratherthanmakinga profit werenot lost on Veblen. Theseelementsof Veblen'scultural heritagewere manifestedin the emphasis in his writings on peacefulworkmanshipas opposedto conflictual predation, on collectivismin preferenceto individualism,on necessaryratherthan wasteful production and consumption,and on the open-mindedpursuit of knowledge. Somewhatmore speculatively,it may be suggestedthat in Veblen'smany discussionsof the peaceableworkmanshipthat characterizedthe early period of the Icelandic Republic,beforeits "decayand eventualcollapse"into a more predatorysystem,there is a hint of Veblen's ideal society that was rooted in his ethnicity (1966 [1915], 329). The potential significanceof Veblen'swritings on the Viking Age, particularly his analysisof its material foundationsand social organization,ratherthan the predatoryoccupationof piratical enterprisethat, notedVeblen, "gave its nameand its character"to this era (Dorfman 1973 [1925],545),hasnot goneunnoticed(Qualey1968), but it hasbeenunderestimatedin accountsof the possiblelinks betweenhis life and work. SchwartztracesVeblen'spivotal concept,workmanship,to its manifestations in prehistoricNordic societies,which led him to arguethat it "has its origins in Veblen'sethnic identity" (1990,116).However,the key featuresof a workmanship-based societylike the IcelandicRepublicwere derivedfrom Veblen'sfamiliarity with the Sagasand his intimate knowledgeof Norwegian history, as indicatedby his referenceto his ancestralregion,the "valley of the Valdres" (1966 [1915], 316). They also provideda model for the first stageof his evolutionaryschemaandan ideal to which modemsocietywould, he hoped, approximatein due course.Veblen's "tentative delineation" of "pagananarchy"involved a civil systemin which poweris vestedin a democratic assemblyof self-sufficientfreehold farmers(men and women),and is

BEYOND THE MYTH

65

organized"on the assumptionof neighbourhoodautonomy" within which "the individual is dependedon wholly to take careof his own interest,with the backingof his kin"-in otherwords,a societycharcterizedby "no appreciable hierarchicalorganization,and no great degreeof coerciveauthority" (1966 [1915],44--46,323). Veblen'sEvolutionism Discerning the intellectual forces that shapedVeblen's social thought is a problematicexercisesince more often than not he eschewedthe academic conventionof citing referenceson the groundsthat they "should be readily traceableto their sourceby fairly well-readpersons"(1970 [1899], xx). Given that Veblen had readvoraciouslyfrom an early age and had a knowledgeof classical and modem Europeanlanguages,this explanationcould be construedas somethingof an understatement.In responseto this unpromising situation, numerousscholarshave soughtto establishthe influence of specific individuals, schoolsof thought,or disciplineson Veblen ideas.In addition to thosediscussedabove,namely,race or ethnicity and Nordic cultural history, considerationof thesevariousefforts suggeststhat Veblen'sthought canbe tracedto a wide spectrumof intellectualforces,including philosophy (Kant, Hume),pragmatism(Pierce,Dewey),political economy(Smith,Rae), evolutionism (Darwin, Spencer),anthropology(Boas, Tylor), psychology (James,Loeb), socialism(Marx, Hobson),and utopianism(More, Bellamy). Multistrand reviews (Dugger1979)contrastwith the more commonsinglestrandaccountsof the intellectual influenceson Veblen (Edgell and Tilman 1991), in terms of their respectiverange and superficiality, and depth and selectivity. The approachadoptedin this study will be to try to combinethe best of both theseoptionsandto discriminateamongthe varietyof intellectualforces that influencedVeblen. Such an exerciseis facilitated by those occasions when Veblen did cite authors:his reviews of English, German,and French languagebooks,which numbernearly fifty (Dorfman 1973); the eighty-odd referencesVeblen recommendedin his most famous lecture course,"Economic Factorsin Civilization" (Dorfman 1934,239),publishedin bookform, with references,as The Instinct of Workmanshipand the Stateofthe Industrial Arts (Veblen 1964a[1914]); the authorsmentionedby Andrew Veblen in connectionwith his brother'sformal and informal educationin his two dozenor so lettersto Dorfman; the fifty-plus books,reports,andoffPrints he gaveto ex-studentfriends, someof which arelisted by Dorfman (1973, 19195), and the recentlyavailablecontentsof his personallibrary, which number over 300 items (Bartley and Yoneda 1994).11 This is in addition to the

66

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

evidenceof what Veblen wrote (textual exegesis),and the social circumstancesof his writings (contextualanalysis),which wasthe focus of muchof the materialpresentedin the first two chapters.Consideredas a whole, what thesevariouspiecesof informationaboutVeblen'sworld of learningshowis that his seemingly insatiableappetitefor all kinds of knowledge, and his commandoflanguages,which enabledhim to keep abreastof the latestEuropeanideasbefore the books containingthem had beentranslated,facilitatedan impressiveerudition. Consequently,Veblen'swritings are likely to reflect a particularly diversecombinationof intellectualinfluences. Veblen is often regardedas a highly original thinker whoseworks are a challengeto thosewho seekto pigeonholehim in a taxonomyof social scientific perspectives(Edgell and Tilman 1989, 1004). His contribution has beenvariously labeled,ranging from "philosophicalanarchism"by Hodder (1956: 356) to "elitist" by Bell (1963, 33). He has been likened to Marx (Davis 1957) and to Weber (Martindale 1961); comparedadverselyto the "giants of social thought," such as Marx and Weber (Coser 1977 [1971], 301); and groupedwith Marx and Weberas one of the "three greattheorists of industrial capitalism" (Diggins 1978, 85). Even in economics,Veblen's role and staturein the developmentof Americaninstitutionalismis the subject of somedebate(cf. Junker1979;Mayhew 1987).This bewilderingarray of judgmentssuggeststhat Veblen'scontribution defies neat and simplistic categorization.Therefore,what is requiredis an assessment of the multiplicity of intellectual influences,major and minor, on Veblen with referenceto his overall perspectiveand his specific works. In this chapterthe most pervasiveand profoundintellectualinfluence on Veblen will be ascertained,leaving aside those that have beenthoroughly researchedalready,suchas EdwardBellamy (Leathers1986; Tilman 1985), Marx (Diggins 1978; Edgell and Townshend1993), John Rae (Edgell and Tilman 1991),andmoregeneralappraisals(Diggins 1978;Edgell andTilman 1989;Tilman 1996).It will be arguedthat the paramountissuein every field of nineteenth-centuryWesternthought was evolutionism,and that it had a singular impact on Veblen's conceptionof social scienceand analysis of social change. The idea of evolutioncanbe tracedbackto ancientGreece,notablyin the writings of Aristotle (Bock 1978). However,the foundationsfor the modem debatewereestablishedby CharlesDarwin (1809-82),JeanBaptisteLamarck (1744--1829),andErnstHaeckel(1836-1919)---"thegreatestnineteenth-century evolutionistsin England, France,and Germanyrespectively" (Gould 1980, 34).Veblenwas cognizantof the works of all three. He mentioned Haeckelin a book review (Dorfman 1973, 450) and Lamarckin a footnote (1975 [1904],369).As will becomeapparentbelow, he referredto Darwin

BEYOND THE MYTH

67

extensivelyin his writings. Darwin's epoch-makingbook The Origin ofthe Speciespublishedoriginally in 1859, was one of the threebooksby Darwin in Veblen'spersonallibrary.12 Theissueof evolutionismdominatedintellectual debate,particularly during Veblen's lifetime. From the referenceshe cited in his discussionsof social change,it is clear that he was extremely well informed about evolutionism, from anthropologyto zoology. This is indicatedby the following list of the main authorsmentionedby him: Franz Boas(1858-1942),JamesFrazer(1854-1941),William James(1842-1910), JacquesLoeb (1859-1924),Lloyd Morgan(1852-1936),William McDougall (1871-1938),GregorMendel(1822-84),CharlesPierce(1839-1914),Werner Sombart(1863-1941),HerbertSpencer(1820-1930),EdwardTylor (18321917), and Hugo de Vries (1848-1935).Veblen knew personallyseveralof thesethinkers, all of whom wrote within or in relation to the Darwinian tradition (Tilman 1996, 59). Veblen first showedan interestin the natural sciencesduring his childhood: "He was always observantand in a way a constantstudentof nature, and thus acquiredat an early age, a good deal of knowledgeof plants and animals."13In his adult life Veblen extendedthe knowledgehe had obtained "by direct contactwith things ... by readingand by intercoursewith men [for examplethe biologist Loeb] well versedin the biologic and physical sciences."14 This is confirmedby his extensivecollectionof up-to-datebooks on geology,physiology,botany,paleontology,andrelatedmaterialincluding numerousvolumesdetailing Cook's voyagesof discoveryto Australia and the Pacific.15 Veblen'sgraspof so many branchesof knowledgeis impressive, though less surprising in an age not yet accustomedto dividing the academicworld into an increasingnumberof specialisms. Indicative of the interdisciplinarycharacterof researchin the nineteenth centuryis thatDarwin drewuponthe work of socialscientists,notablyThomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer(Hodgson 1994). By the sametoken, social scientistswereinfluencedby naturalscientists,especiallytheir contributions to evolutionary theory; specifically, Lamarckian and/or Darwinian evolutionism wereadoptedby social scientistsin England(HerbertSpencer),continental Europe (Karl Marx), and above all in America (Lester Ward and William Sumner).As far as Veblen is concerned,in addition to being well informed aboutboth the natural and the social sciences,one of his tutors at Carletonwas an evolutionist,namely, John BatesClark. As a postgraduate studentat Yale, Veblen studiedfor two yearswith the arch conservativesocial evolutionistSumner,who admiredSpencer'sapproachto sociologyand politics (Dorfman 1934). Unsurprisingly,Veblen'sfirst sociologicalarticle in 1891 was written in responseto the social evolutionist Spencer,and his methodologicalcritique

68

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

of economics,elucidatedin articles publishedover the next decadeor so, was imbued with the Darwinian idea that evolution has no purposeand no direction. In Darwin's own words: "I believe ... in no necessarylaw of development.,,16This conceptionof changewas to becomea key factor in Veblen'sdistinction betweenpre- and post-Darwinianeconomics:"The differenceis a differenceof spiritual attitudeor point of view in the two generations of scientists"(1969a[1919], 60). More specifically,Veblenarguedthat for classicaleconomists"The ultimate laws and principles which they formulatedwerelaws of the normal or the natural,accordingto a preconception regardingthe ends to which, in the nature of things, all things tend" (65). Accordingto Veblen,"The notion of a legitimatetrendin the courseof events is an extra-evolutionarypreconception,and lies outsidethe scopeof an inquiry into the causalsequencein any process"(76). Consequentlya postDarwinian "point of view ... leavesno place for a formulation of natural laws in terms of definitive normality, whether in economicsor any other branch of inquiry" (76). Thus, for Veblen the "significant difference" betweenthe two "points of view" is that the latter, in contrastto the former, is a "theory of the processof consecutivechange,which is takenas a sequence of cumulativechange,realizedto be self-continuingor self-propagatingand to haveno final term" (36, 37). In otherwords,Veblen'salternativeDarwinian evolutionarypreconception"is thenotionof a cumulativea causalsequence" in which the abnonnalbecomesnonnaland the outcomeuncertain(176). According to Veblen, the teleological characterof pre-Darwinianeconomic theory was not its only flaw. Relatedpreconceptionsprevalentat the time he wasadvancinghis critique of orthodoxeconomicsincludeda "faulty" hedonisticconceptionof humannature;"that is to say, in termsof a passive and substantiallyinert and immutably given humannature" (1969a[1919], 73). Informedby the latestresearchin psychologyand anthropology,Veblen proposeda contrastingconceptionof humannature: "it is the characteristic of manto do somethingnot simply to suffer pleasuresandpainsthroughthe impact of suitableforces ... but rathera coherentstructureof propensities and habits which seeksrealisationand expressionin an unfolding activity" changewith no (74). The idea of the variability of humankindand ceaseless built-in guaranteeof ultimateperfectionwaspureDarwin. Moreover,Veblen's alternativeconceptionof humannaturealso followed Darwin, who thought that the hedonisticconception"may be erroneous"(1874, 102). Veblen put the point more memorablywhen he ridiculed the assumptionthat humankind was like a "lightning calculatorof pleasureandpains" and castigatedit for reducingeconomicsto an "interpretationof humannaturein tennsof the market-place"(1969a[1919], 73, 141). The mechanismbehindDarwin'sclaim regardingthe indeterminatecourse

BEYOND THE MYTH

69

of changewas natural selection,the basisof which may be outlined following Gould's summary:"(1) Organismsvary, and thesevariationsare inherited (at leastin part) by their offspring. (2) Organismsproducemore offspring than canpossiblysurvive. (3) On average,offspring that vary most strongly in directions favored by the environmentwill survive and propagate.Favorable variationwill thereforeaccumulatein populationsby naturalselection"(Gould 1980, 11). The simplicity of this theory is deceptivebecausein orderfor natural mustalso be randomand small scale selectionto be a creativeforce, v~ation betweeQ (1980). Point 1 may be summarizedby the terms ''variability'' and "inheritance/'point 2 by populationincreaseand the strugglefor life, and point 3 by natural selection.The application of Darwin's theory to the social realm by Veblen is readily apparentfrom the following lengthy quotation: The life of man in society,just like that of other species,is a strugglefor existence,andthereforeit is a processof selectiveadaptation.The evolution of social structurehasbeena processof naturalselectionof institutions.... Institutions are not only themselvesthe result of a selectiveand adaptive processwhich shapesthe prevailing or dominanttypesof spiritual attitude andaptitudes;theyareat the sametime specialmethodsoflife andof human relations,andare thereforein their tum efficient factorsof selection.So that the changinginstitutions in their tum make for a further selectionof individuals endowedwith the fittest temperament,and a further adaptationof individual temperamentandhabitsto the changingenvironmentthroughthe formation of new institutions.(Veblen 1970 [1899], 131) That Veblen was an evolutionarysocial theoristthere isvery little doubt; that his evolutionarycredentialswere Darwinian is almostas incontestable, given his widespreaduse of Darwin's model of unteleologicalchange.He referredto this model as a "schemeof blindly cumulativecausation"(Veblen 1969a[1919], 436). As indicatedabove,it incorporatedkey Darwinian elements,notably variability, strugglefor existence,and natural selection. This interpretationprevailsamongthe majority of thosehistorians,economists, and sociologistswho haveconsideredthis mattersinceVeblen'sdeath (e.g.,Edgell andTilman 1991;Harris 1934;Hodgson1994;Hofstadter1945; Murphree 1959; Russett1976; Sowell 1967).17 However, there have been those who have dissentedfrom this ongoing consensus.For instance, Rosenbergclaimed that Veblen "pays lip service to Darwinism" but concludedthat he was certainlyan evolutionist(1956,35), and Coserseemedto be unsurewhether or not Veblen was a "Spencerianor Darwinian" evolutionist (1977 [1971],265).A more sustainedcritique of Veblen'sDarwinism by Jones(1986)arguablymisunderstands both DarwinianandVeblenianevo-

70

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

lutionism (Tilman 1996). Finally, anotherassessment notesthat Darwin was one of manyintellectualinfluenceson "Veblen thestaunchevolutionist,"yet concludesthat he was "closer to Hegel than Darwin" (Diggins 1978, 55). This most cursoryof discussionsis also the most curious,given that Veblen rejectedwhat he called "The neo-Hegelian,romantic,Marxian standpoint," becauseit was teleological(1969a[1919], 436). However,to concludethat Veblen was a Darwinian evolutionistdoesnot do justice to the intricaciesof his thought.Although Veblen unambiguously identified himself with what he called the post-Darwinianconceptionof modemscience,he qualified his predilectionto invoke Darwin's name by noting that it "does not imply that this epochof scienceis mainly Darwin's work," sincehe was one of many contributorsto the debateaboutscientific inquiry (1969a [1919], 36). In other words, "Darwin, of course,does not standalone.He is the greatexponentof a massmovementwhich involves a shifting of the point of view" (Veblen 1975 [1904],369).Suchwas the interplay andpervasiveness of evolutionaryideaswithin andbetweenthe natural and social sciencesin the Victorian era that disentanglingDarwin's specific contribution from those of others suggestsa need to go beyond the label, however applicable,to considerthe possibility that Veblen'sevolutionism reflects the influenceof theoristsin addition to Darwin. An important casein point concernsthe developmentof Veblen's (Darwinian) thoughtin relation to the contributionsto evolutionismby Lamarck who advancedthe first modemtheory of evolution (Haines 1988), and the English sociologistand biologist Spencerwho coined the term "survival of the fittest" and who encouragedthe use of the term "evolution" at a time when others,including Darwin, Lamarck,and Haeckel,were reluctantto do so (Gould 1980; Hodgson 1994). Veblen was aware of the work of both evolutionists.In addition to mentioningLamarckin a footnote,notedabove, Veblen also alluded to him in another(1970 [1899], 150). Veblen was particularly familiar with Spencer'sworks for, as noted already,he contested Spencer'santisocialistargumentsin oneof his first articles.Veblenalsocited Spencerseveraltimes in various later articles (1969a [1919]), and his personal library containedseveralbooksby Spencer.18 Therearetwo interrelatedinterpretativeissuesat the coreof the LamarckSpencer-Veblennexus; one concernsthe teleological conceptionof evolution andthe otherthe characterof Veblen's accountof the processof selective adaptation.In his first book, publishedin 1851,Social Statics,Spencer"developed a Lamarckianinterpretationof the utilitarian conceptof progress. This conceptof progressis teleological" (Haines 1988, 1206). As has been shown above,Veblen dismissedas pre-Darwinianany theory basedon assumptionsinvolving hedonismanda "meliorativedevelopmentaltrend" from

BEYOND THE MYTH

71

whateverscholastictradition it emanated(1969a[1919],150;seealso 167). Thus, Veblen was not only highly critical of Spencer'ssocial evolutionary theory of progress,but also of Lamarck'sbiological evolutionarytheory of progress.Specifically,the issueof teleologywasdeemedby Veblento be the point that marked "Darwin's advanceover Lamarck" (1975 [1904], 369). However,when Spencerrevisedhis accountof social change"by recourse to other factors, alien to the rational hedonisticscheme,suchas habit, delusions,useanddisuse,sporadicvariation,environmentalforces,"Veblenconsideredthat this representeda move on Spencer'spart in the directionof "the modempost-Darwiniansciences"(1969a[1919], 192). While this interpretationof Veblen'sviews on teleologywould appearto be both unambiguousandwidely accepted(Dugger1979;Edgell andTilman 1989; Edgell and Townshend1993; Hodgson1994;Tilman 1996),it hasled to some disquiet among certain economists,particularly in recent years (Jenningsand Waller 1994; O'Hara 1995; Walker 1977). The problem revolves aroundVeblen'sconceptionof individual economicaction as teleological and his well-known argumentsagainst advancinga teleological accountof the evolution of societies;or what has been called "the little-t teleologyof individual intentionality"and the "Big-T Teleologicalvision of change"(Jenningsand Waller 1994, 998, 1001). The questionis: To what extent,if any, doesVeblen'sdiscussionof thesetwo forms ofteleologywithin the frameworkof his theoryof evolutionamountto a contradiction?Veblen's early articles suggestthat he was fully awareof the distinction betweenthe teleology of individual economicaction "in the sensethat men always and everywhereseekto do something,"which he contrastedwith'the unrealistic which conducesto assumptionthat humannatureis passivelyunchangeable, the contentionthat thereis "a legitimatetrendin the courseof events,"which he dismissedas "an extra-evolutionarypreconception"(1969a [1919], 75, 76). This is a Kantian distinction betweenteleologicalactionsand teleological explanations(Murphey 1990).Veblen'sreasonfor arguing thus was, "What, in specific detail, they [individuals] seek,is not to be answeredexcept by scrutiny of the details of their activity" (1969a[1919], 75). In other words, "variation of ends"amongindividuals, as opposedto conceivinghuman natureto be "unified and harmonised,"facilitatesa dynamicaccountof changein keeping with the Darwinian model of an unending"cumulative causalsequence"(Veblen 1969a[1919], 75, 93, 176). What Veblen objected to, therefore,was not teleologyper se, but the determinisminvolved in limiting all economicaction to one historical social construction,the "rationalistic, teleologicalterms of calculationand choice" (1969a[1919], 239). For humankindfrom all otherlife forms. Veblen,the capacityof thoughtseparates Habits of life generatehabits of thoughtand, when they becomeroutinized,

72

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Veblen refers to them as "institutions." It is thesethat "act to direct and define the aims and endsof conduct" (1969a[1919], 239, 243). Thus, the teleologicalpostulateof unspecifiedpurposiveaction is essentialif economic scienceis to transcenda "static" analysischaracterizedby a lack of "lag, leak, or friction" exceptas "aberrations"(Veblen 1969a[1919], 190,249). This suggeststhat the contradictionin Veblen's account of evolutionary changeis more apparentthan real. In the light of this interpretation,it is arguably unnecessaryto "reinterpret and partially reformulateVeblenian descriptionsof evolutionary economicsand cultural changefrom today's vantagepoint," namely,hermeneutics(Jenningsand Waller 1994,997). The secondand related issue concerningselectiveadaptationis somewhat moreproblematicdueto Veblen'sinconsistentandimpreciselanguage, consideredto be an obstacleto unambiguousinterpretation(Diggins 1978; Dowd 1964).The nub of the debateaboutthe processof selectiveadaptation in Veblen'swork is the extentto which it is groundedin biological or social inheritance.The most recentand conventionalview is that in his pre-Darwinian accountof adaptation"Spencerrestatedthe Lamarckianpremisesof useanddisuseof organsandof the inheritanceof acquiredcharacters"(Haines 1988, 1206).In otherwords,for SpencerandLamarck,changeresultedfrom the impact of the environmenton individuals, whereasfor Darwin, it was due to both variation and the environment(Hodgson 1994). Thereforethe questionis: Did Veblenfollow Lamarckand Spenceror Darwin in his theory of evolutionarychange? Needlessto say, for the reasonsindicatedabove,the evidenceis mixed evenif evidenceis taken from the samevolume. On the one hand it is possible to find statementsthat encouragea Lamarkianreadingof Veblen,such as: "Not only havethe habitsof men changedwith the changingexigencies of the situation,but theseexigencieshavebroughtabouta correlativechange in humannature"(Veblen 1970 [1899], 146). Othershave quotedfrom different Veblenian material to make the samepoint (Tilman 1996). On the other hand, it is also possibleto locate passagesfrom Veblen'sworks that conduceto a more Darwinian interpretationwith its characteristicemphasis on variation followed by environmentalselection.For example,in the context of discussingthe "processof natural selectionof institutions," Veblen claims, "Taken in the aggregateor average,this humansubjectis more or less variable; chiefly, no doubt, under the rule of selectiveconservationof favorablevariations"(1970 [1899], 131-32).Onceagain,othershavequoted from different Vebleniain supportof this interpretation(Hodgson1994).On yet anotheroccasionin the samework, Veblen appearsto be equivocalregardingthe choicebetweena Lamarckianand a Darwinianmodel of adaptation: "it neednot be a questionof seriousimportancewhetherthis adaptive

BEYOND THE MYTH

73

processis a processof selectionand survival of persistentethnic types or a processof individual adaptationand an inheritanceof acquiredtraits," becausethe key issuefor Veblen was how "institutions changeand develop" (1970 [1899], 133, 132). Given that Veblen was steepedin the literature of evolutionarytheory and drewfreely uponits lexicon,thatthethrustof his accountof evolutionarychange, the ''unifYing'' dimensionof his thought(Edgell 1975,278), gaveprecedence to the cultural ratherthan to the biological; and that he emphasizedthe selective role of habitsand institutions-perhaps the last quotationsarethe mostinstructive for interpretersof Veblen. It suggeststhat in the fmal analysis,the distinction betweenbiology andculture,andthe differencesamongLamarck,Spencer, andDarwin, were oflessconcernto Veblenthanthey wereto othersat the time and since.After all, Veblen consideredhimself both a Darwinian and a "disciple" of Spencer.He expressedadmirationfor Spencer's"genius,"althoughhe clearly distancedhirnselfmorefrom Spencerthanfrom Darwin (1969a[1919], 191,387).Moreover, in one of his discussionsof selectiveadaptation,Veblen madeno distinction betweenthe "Darwinian and Spencerian,terms and concepts"(1970 [1899], 148).Above all, therefore,Veblen was an evolutionist.In this respect,he was very muchan intellectualof his time.

Concluding Remarks This analysissuggeststhatVeblen'sexpertisein premodernandmodemEuropeanlanguages,in largepartattributableto a precociousnaturallinguistic ability that was nurturedin a favorablefamilial environment,was a significant asset that fed directly into his involvementin pastand presentNordic societiesand people.It would seemthat Veblen'sNordic ethnicity was far more of an advantagethan a disadvantageduring his life and career,in that he benefitedin many ways throughouthis life from his own and his family'S growing economic, social,cultural, andsymboliccapital,to thepoint where hewasdeemed to be worthy of a chair at the premiereuniversity in his ethnic homelandand the presidencyof the AmericanEconomicAssociation. Less directly, but not necessarilyany less significantly, Veblen'slinguistic capital ensuredthat he was conversantwith the latestEuropeanas wellas Anglo-Americanthinking on the big issueof the era, namely,evolutionism. In this respect,this assetcould be said to have contributedto his accumulation of both cultural and symbolic capital. Veblen, in keeping with all the majornaturalandsocialscientistsduring his lifetime, disregardedthe emerging disciplinary boundariesand drew upon a greatvariety of sourceswithin the evolutionarytradition to forge his own view on the origins, nature,and future of social change,the core of his intellectualproject.

74

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

In the light of thesepoints, it could be suggestedthat Veblen'sEuropean roots were positively visible in his life and his work; he was less of a renegadealienatedJew than is often supposed,more like an independentNordic intellectual,exploringthe frontiersof socialscientificknowledgewithout fear or favor. In other words, in his terms,he was not an embitteredfailure, but a successfulNorwegian-Americanevolutionarytheorist.

Notes 1. Andrew Veblen,letter to JosephDorfman, March 19, 1925 (CUL). 2. The revival of the term ethnicity datesfrom 1953 accordingto Mann (1983, 114). 3. There would thereforeseemto be no groundsfor labeling Veblen a "racist" (Riesman1960[1953], 82). 4. Notestakenby Fred R. Yoder (CUL); seealso Dorfman (1934, 525). 5. Andrew Veblenwasa successfulacademicanda "leadingfigure ... both in the Valdressocietyand in the [bygdelag] movementas a whole" (LovollI999, 284). 6. It is relevantto the argumentof this book to note that Gunnersontoo, was critical of Dorfman's interpretativeskills: "Although Dorfman[1934,452]beginsthe secondparagraphalmostasI havedone,I disagreewith the balanceof the paragraph. Veblendid not plan fictitious holidaysand birthdaysor amusements or hunts.Veblen enjoyedthe family groupingform of entertainment,not largeamountsof people.This was the kind of thing I had ascertainedin every interview" (1963, 5). Riesman's reiterationandthereforeperpetuationof Dorfman's ungenerousaccountofthis aspect of Veblen'slife is also worth noting (1960 [1953], 28). 7. Veblen visited Europein 1899 and 1914, wrote Andrew Veblen in a letter to JosephDorfman,April 12, 1930(CUL), andin 1896and 1904accordingto Dorfman (1934,133,253).Dorfmanhasalsoreportedthat Veblenvisited Scotlandin 1902,but I havenot uncoveredany otherreferenceto this trip (1973, 87). 8. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman, June23, 1930 (CUL). Yet Veblen possessed over two dozenbooks on Nordic history and culture (WashingtonIsland Library ofThorsteinVeblen,CCA). 9. SeeAndrew Veblen, lettersto JosephDorfman,November9, 1929; February 4,1930;February5,1930;March 18, 1930;April 12, 1930;January11, 1932(CUL). 10. SeeAndrew Veblen, letters to JosephDorfman, February4, 1930; February 25-26, 1930; January14, 1931; December7,1931; January11, 1932; February8, 1932 (CUL). 11. Precisenumbersare irrelevant,sincemany of the items are duplicated,some were destroyed,and othersgiven to friends on the island (Gunnerson1963; Bartley andYoneda1994). 12. The other two were: The DescentofMan, and Selectionin Relation to Sex (1895) andJournal ofResearches into the Geologyand Natural History ofthe Various Countries Visited during the Voyage of HMS BeagleRoundthe World (1908) (WashingtonIslandLibrary ofThorsteinVeblen, CCA). 13. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,April 3, 1925 (CUL). 14. Ibid. 15. Veblenpossessed ten volumesof JamesCook'saccountsof his voyagesto the

BEYOND THE MYTH

75

Pacific andAustralia(1775, 1796),andeightvolumesof RichardHakluyt'sPrincipal Navigations,Voyages,TraffiquesandDiscoveriesofthe EnglishNation (1907,191013), plus severalotherbookson this subject(WashingtonIslandLibrary of Thorstein Veblen, CCA). 16. Cited by Edgell andTilman (1989,1005). 17. For a fuller list, seeTilman (1996, 66-Q7). 18. Veblen's personallibrary containedfour of Spencer'sbooks on philosophy (WashingtonIsland Library of Thorstein Veblen, CCA), and Spenceris listed by Gunnerson(1963)and Dorfman(1973).

4 Evolutionary Change: Back to the Future?

Veblen'stheoryof evolutionarychangeis a relatively neglectedaspectof his corpus,but unlike similarly neglectedfeatures,it is arguablymore centralto an understandingof the coherenceof his overall contribution(Edgell 1975). A partial exceptionin this regardare thoseheterodoxeconomistswho tend to approachVeblen's evolutionary theory from the perspectiveof institutional change(Bush 1987; Rutherford 1984). There are other exceptions, notablyWatkins(1958)andRoss(1991),but generallydiscussionsof Veblen's evolutionarytheoryarefrom the standpointof economicsthoughthey sometimes enphasizethe unity of Veblen'stheoreticalsystem(Anderson 1933; Dente 1977). Occasionally,the evolutionary dimensionof Veblen's social theory filters down to American and British sociology textbooks (Kivisto 1998; Lee and Newby 1983). A possiblereasonfor the lack of focus on Veblen'sevolutionarytheory of changeis that, sinceits heydayin the nineteenthcentury,interestin evolutionarytheory has wanedconsiderably,notwithstandingthe evidenceof renewedappreciationof this form of theorizing in both economics(for example,Hodgson[1994], who cites Veblen extensively) andsociology(for example,Sanderson[1994], who citesFranzBoas, Lewis Morgan, Herbert Spencer,and Edward Tylor but not Veblen). This suggeststhat not all is lost; there is the possibility that since Veblen developed his evolutionarytheory toward the end of the vogue for such an approach,this aspectof his work could,onceagain,becomepartof a fashionable theoreticaldebate. Aside from Veblen'searly methodologicalpapers,which weremainly but not solely concernedto evaluatecritically the assumptionsof classicaland neoclassicaleconomistsin the light of his Darwinian scientific standards, his contributionproperly beginswith his article on woman'sdress,and his 76

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 77

threepublicationsin the late 1890sin the AmericanJournal ofSociologyon workmanship,ownership,and the statusof women.Theseshort essayscontain in embryonic form many of Veblen's important theoreticalideas,and hint at what were to becomehis lasting substantiveinterests,namely, the origins, nature,and future of industrial capitalism.More immediately,they provided the theoreticalbasisfor his first book, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An EconomicStudy ofInstitutions (1970 [1899]), which was originally, andarguablymoreaptly, subtitledAn EconomicStudyofthe Evolution ofInstitutions.1 Although the contrastbetweenwastefulemulativeconsumptionand "socially more serviceable"emulationhad beendiscussedby Veblenin his antiSpencerarticle on socialismin the early 1890s(1969a[1919], 399), it was not until three yearslater when Veblen applied this emergentdistinction to woman'sdressthat he usedthe term "conspicuousconsumption"for the first time (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934], 77). In the otherthreepapers,Veblen'sfundamental evolutionary categories--peaceable savageculture and predatory barbarianculture--areintroducedwith referenceto his active conceptionof human nature and the evolution of instincts and habits (the workmanship article), the changefrom cooperativeproductionto the institution of individual ownershipand the concomitantdivision betweenindustrial andpecuniary employments(the ownershiparticle), andthe crucialrole oftechnology in the productionof an economicsurplusthat facilitates occupationalspecialization initially along genderlines the (status-of-womenarticle). Consideredtogether,thesepaperscontainedall the basicingredientsthat wereto reach fuller realization with the publication of The Theory of the Leisure Class and The Instinct of Workmanshipand the Stateof the Industrial Arts (1964a[1914D, and were an integral part of all his other works to a greater or lesserextent. Among the manyreviewsof The TheoryoftheLeisureClass,mostseemed to find it ideologically offensive for one reasonor anotherbut mostly becauseit wasperceivedas a political satireon competitivebehaviorandthose who gain most from it economicallyandsocially. Only one review out of ten annotatedby Simich andTilman (1985) between1899 and 1900 focusedon the evolutionarydimensionof the book in a positiveway, and that wasWard (1900), who was not only an admirerof Darwin (eoser1978)but a supportive academicfriend to Veblen (Dorfman 1934). The tendencyto fail to see the evolutionarywood for the satirical treeshasbeenattributedin largepart to the loss of the original subtitle (Saram1999),yet it is alsothe casethat this particularbook is referredto still for its pivotal role in the establishmentof the sociologyof consumption(Edgell 1999). The fate of The Instinct of Workmanshipand the State of the Industrial

78

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Arts contrastsmarkedlywith Veblen'sfirst and most famousbook in that it receivedvery little attentionwhen it was first publishedin the unforgettable year of 1914,and hasbeencited rarely sinceexceptby Veblen scholars.For example,in the introduction to a recent reprint, it is claimed that, in this "little read volume," Veblen "succeededin formulating a consistentsystem of fundamentaltenets" (Murphey 1990, viii). Veblen's own view on this book is interestingand possibly instructive; he regardedit as "his only importantbook," and uniquely it containsa dedication,presumedto be to his stepdaughters (Dorfman 1934,324). In sum,neitherthe ever-popularTheoryofthe LeisureClassnor the neverpopular Instinct of Workmanshipand the State of the Industrial Arts was renownedat the time of first publicationor sincefor the evolutionarytheory of changethat underpinsthe former and comprisesthe essenceof the latter. Conceptual Foundations: Instincts, Habits, and Institutions

In his preliminary discussionsof the origins and evolutionof economicproduction and consumption,Veblen focusedon two instincts and their correspondinghabits and institutions in two basic evolutionary stages,namely, thosein which eitherworkmanshipor predationpredominated.In the Theory of the Leisure Class, the ramifications of these two instincts, habits, and institutionswereexploredin greaterdetail with specialreferenceto the "cultural evolution" of a leisure class, from its emergenceduring the "beginningsof ownership"to its "bestdevelopmentat the higherstagesof barbarian culture," and beyondto the social and economicimplicationsof the survival of its "archaic institutions" into modemsociety (1970 [1899], 21, 33, 177). However,Veblen'smostcomprehensiveandmatureaccountof his theoryof evolutionarychangewas presentedin The Instinct of Workmanshipand the State of Industrial Arts, which Veblen consideredto be a "cursory survey rather than an exhaustiveinquiry" into "such correlation as is visible between industrial use and wont and those other institutional facts that go to make up any given phaseof civilization" (l964a [1914], xi). In between thesetwo books,and in his later publications,Veblen'sanalysesof various aspectsof societalchangewere invariably embeddedwithin his evolutionary model.Of necessity,the mostrelevantquotationsaretakenfrom Veblen's most detailedstatementsof his theory, ratherthan from the publicationsthat representhis less than fully developedaccountof evolutionarychange.The main implication of such an approachis that someof the allegedinconsistenciesand ambiguitiesin his analysisare minimized, therebyunderstating the details of how his theory developedover time in the light of new ideas andgiving a potentiallyfalse impressionregardingthe coherenceof his theory.

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 79

Veblen's Darwinian foundational assumptionsregardinghuman nature andchange,namely,thatpeopleareproactiveandthatthe directionof change is indeterminate,establishedin contradistinctionto thoseupon which mainstreameconomistsadvancedtheir static analyses,were the points of departure for Veblen'stheoryof evolutionarychange.To theseassumptionsVeblen addedtwo more, that humanbeingsare social animalsand that what is distinctive about this speciesis their relatively greaterintellectual power as comparedto all other animals (Veblen 1964a[1914]). The conceptVeblen usedto build on thesevarious assumptionswas the then highly fashionable one of instinct. Veblenwas clearly awareof the controversysurroundingthe useof this conceptin the biological and social sciences,but consideredthat since he was primarily interestedin the ways in which they "take effect in the give and take of cultural growth, no better designationthan the timeworn 'instinct' is available" (2-3). Veblen's reservationsconcerningthe "vagueand shifty characterof instincts" (13) are reflectedby the plethoraof synonymsthat he usesthroughouthis work&--for example,proclivities, impulses,dispositions,and spiritual endowment-andparticularly where he refersto "the underlyingtraits of humannature(propensities,aptitudes,and what not)" (l969a [1919],242). Veblen defined instincts in an unconventionalway in keeping with his assumptionsthat humanswere active and intelligent animals,namely, that they involve "consciousness andadaptationto anendaimedat" (1964a[1914], 4). In otherwords, instinctsfor Veblen were biological, but were "guidedby intelligence to a degreenot approachedby other animals" (6). Hence,"the samerangeof instinctive dispositionsinnatein the popUlationwill work out to a differenceeffect as regardsthe demandsof race survival" (17). Veblen notes that there are many instincts and arguesthat the ways in which they operateare complicated.Consequently:"In instinctive action, the individual acts as a whole and in the conductwhich emergesunderthe driving force of these instinctive dispositionsthe part which each several instinct plays is a matterof more or less,not of exclusivedirection" (1964a [1914], 11). Thus, instincts for Veblen do not operateindependently,but "incontinently, touch, blend, overlap and interfere," sometimesin unison and sometimesin conflict (11). Either way, "each one contaminatesor is contaminatedby the workings of otherpropensitiesthat go to makeup that complexof instinctive dispositions"and it is thereforeoften not possibleto distinguishsharply betweenthem (12). In his early works, namely,in the 1890s,only two instincts,workmanship andpredation,wereoutlined,but in his publicationsbetween1900and 1914, the period when his theory of evolutionarychangewas reachingits fullest development,severalotherswere introduced,notably idle curiosity,parental

80

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

bent, sportsmanship,and pugnacity. In the light of his view that in reality instinctsare difficult to identify individually, Veblenunsurprisinglysuggests that "in somemeasurethe severalinstincts spring from the samecommon ground of sentientlife" and notes that the phrase"senseof workmanship" signifies "a concurrenceof severalinstinctive aptitudes"(1964a[1914],12, 27). Given that someinstincts"reinforceone another,"Veblenusesthe term "group of instincts" (9, 41). It is thereforelogical and appropriateto reduce Veblen'slist of instinctsto two basictypes: thoseofa group-regardingcharacterandthoseofa self-regardingcharacter(Ayres 1958;Dugger1984;Edgell 1975; Hunt 1979; Tilman 1996; Watkins 1958). The former may be placed underthe headingof the "instinct of workmanship,"which is a "senseof the merit of serviceabilityor efficiency and the demeritof futility, waste,or incapacity" and is concerned"to further the life of the group" (Veblen 1970 [1899], 29, 30). The other type may be included under the "predatory instinct," which involves the expressionof "aggression"in a "contest" in orderto obtaingoods andservicesby "seizureor compulsion,"andis concerned with self-interest(30, 38). Veblen sumsup the contrastbetweenthesetwo constellationsof instinctsin severalways: in termsof action it is a matterof "exploit ratherthanindustry... an assertionof prowess,not of diligence"; in terms of economictheory, "the two may be called the invidious or selfregardingand the non-invidiousor economical";and as far as social implicationsareconcerned,it is a distinction"betweenthe interestsof the individual and thoseof the group" (27, 36, 161). Thus, these"two rangesof aptitudes and propensities"are in effect polar opposites,and "may be conceivedas alternative directions of human life" (161). The import of this point for Veblen'stheory of evolutionarychangeis that it is a major sourceof conflict at all levels of analysis--theindividual, the institutional, and the societal. Startingwith his first extendeddiscussionofthe instinct of workmanship in 1898, Veblen neverwaveredfrom the view that the group-regardinginstincts were vital in the sensethat at all stagesof cultural evolution, but especiallythe first, the savageera,the well-being of the group dependsmore on the exerciseof workmanshipthan on predation: The two [instincts] are found togetherin full discord in the common run of men; but whenevera deliberatejudgmentis passedon conduct or on events,the former [workmanship]assertsits primacy in a pervasive way which suggeststhat it is altogetherthe more generic,more abidingtrait of humannature.Therecanscarcelybe a seriousquestion of precedencebetweenthe two. The former [workmanship] is a human trait necessaryfor the survival of the species;the latter [predation] is a habit of thought possibleonly in a specieswhich has dis-

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 81

tancedall competitors,andthenit prevailsonly by sufferanceandwithin limits set by the former. (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934], 82) In essence, Veblenclaimedthatthe instinctof workmanshipis a "generically humanand serviceabletype of spiritual endowment"(1964a[1914], 16). The "paramountsignificanceof the instinct of workmanship,"which "occupiesthe interestwith practical expedients,ways and means,devicesand contrivancesof efficiency andeconomy,proficiency,creativework andtechnological masteryof facts" is, accordingto Veblen, "peculiarly subjectto bias" (33, 34). Prominentamong the factors that "reinforce the instinct of workmanship"is another"innate predisposition"that Veblen called "parental bent," defined"as an everresilient solicitudefor the welfare of the young and the prospectivefortunes of the group" (48). Veblen also includes "instinctive curiosity" in this bundleof mutually reinforcing instincts,although he doesnot do so until the analysisis well advanced,at which point he states that its presence"has beentacitly assumedthroughoutthe argument"and that he considersit to be "a creativefactor in civilization" (85). Veblennotes that the instinctsof idle curiosity and workmanship"sharethat characterof pliancy and tractability commonto the whole rangeof instincts, and especially characteristicof thoseinstinctive predispositionsthat distinguishhuman naturefrom the simplerandmore refractoryspiritual endowmentof the lower animals" (85-86). More specifically, the instinct of curiosity is "an 'idle' propensity,in the sensethat no utilitarian aim enters in its habitual exercise;but the materialinformationwhich is by this meansdrawninto the agent'savailableknowledgemay nonethelesscometo servethe endsof workmanship"(88). Veblen undertakesa similar analysis in the case of "pugnacity, selfaggrandisement and fear," or, in otherwords, thepredatorybandof proclivities (43). However, Veblen also suggeststhat, although self-interested aggressionwas evident "at a relatively early stage," it was insufficiently prevalentfor it "to shapethe dominanthabits of thought" (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934],87).The key point for Veblen regarding"theseinstinctivepropensities" is that they tendto "deflect and obstructthe naivepursuit of workmanlike efficiency" (1964a[1914],47-48).This is the origin of Veblen'sfamous dualism-workmanshipversuspredation,industry versusbusiness--which is the fulcrum of his analysisof modemcapitalism. This dualistic and conflictual understandingof the role of instincts in Veblen'stheory of evolutionarychangeis favored by virtually all interpreters, from Edgell (1975) to Tilman (1996),the notableexceptionbeing Shannon (1996).He dismissesthosewho "simply opposeproductionto exchange" and advances whathe suggestsis a "subtler" account(Shannon1996, 9).

82

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

This is predicatedon the argumentthat "Veblen roots the evolution of human culture in the interplay of 'instinctual proclivities,'" which in tum is rooted "in a single instinct, the instinct of workmanship"(4). Further, with the aid of copiousquotations,he claims that Veblen seemsto be "unwilling to concedethe integrity of any instinct otherthanworkmanship,"andconsequently, in the final analysis,"Veblen offers not so much a history of the instinct of workmanshipbut ratherhistory as the instinct of workmanship" (5). This is an interestingand original readingof Veblen, and there are certainly many textual examplesto supportShannon'ssingle instinct thesis. On the other hand, it is also possibleto cite passagesfrom Veblen that point in the other direction, someof which havebeenquotedin the exposition presentedabove.A telling considerationconcernsthe statusof the two clustersof instincts,the predatoryand the workmanship.Veblen clearly regardedworkmanshipas"morefundamental,"(1970 [1899],179)in the sense that "this dispositionis effective in suchconsistent,ubiquitousand resilient fashion that studentsof humanculture will haveto count with it one of the integral hereditarytraits of mankind" (1964a [1914], 28). Yet, the "paramount significanceof the instinct of workmanshipfor the life of the race" does not precludethe existence,from the beginning as it were, of other, contrary instincts, such as those capturedby the term predation(43). For example,as noted above,even amongotherwisepeaceable savages, "there must have been some wrangling in the distribution of goods," but it was insufficient for it to becomea dominant cultural feature (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934], 89). Thus,Veblen seemsto be sayingthat, by definition, all instincts are presentin all people,at all times; it is simply that at anyonestageof evolution, dependingon the conditions,"the humanpropensityfor action" may be expressedin one of two broaddirections,to the benefitof the group or the individual (1970 [1899],220). This is becausehumaninstincts "are guidedby intelligenceto a degreenot approachedby other animals,"hence the pliability of all humaninstincts (1964a [1914], 6). If this were not the case,Veblen would not be able to talk about conflict betweenthesetwo clustersof instincts,let alone analyzehow they take effect and work out at different stagesof evolution, as indeeddoesShannon(1996). A complicatingfactor regardingthe instinctual basisof Veblen'sevolutionary theory of change,and thereforehis accountof modemcapitalism,is that emulationis arguablya viable alternativecandidatefor a single instinct theory to workmanship.On the basisof the assumptionregardingthe social natureof humanlife, and in particularthe humansensitivity to "rebuke and approval" by virtue of their associationallife, in Veblen's first article on workmanshipin 1898, and in all subsequentdiscussionson the subject of instincts,he distinguishesbetweenemulationin termsof predationandwork-

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 83

manship(Ardzrooni 1964 [1934], 90). More specifically, Veblen suggests that emulationis "a pervadingtrait of human nature," yet different conditions oflife encouragedifferent degreesandkinds of emulation(1970 [1899], 84). Thus,the transitionfrom savagery,characterizedby little emulationofa workmanshipkind, to barbarisminvolves an increasein emulation and a changeto a more predatoryform. Sinceall emulationis invidious and there is somedoubt aboutwhetheremulationis an instinct at all, but may instead be a motive (Campbell 1995a),although it is more usually bracketedwith predationas an instinct (O'Hara 1999), advancinga single instinct theory with referenceto emulationwould also be problematic.This suggeststhat Veblen'saccountof the instinctualbasisof humanlife throughouthistory is not without its ambiguities, inconsistencies, and thereforedifficulties. This in tum cautions againsta too-dogmaticreading of his works on the stillcontroversialsubjectof humaninstincts. Veblen's other foundational elementscrucial to the constructionof his theoryof evolutionarychangewere habit and institution. Theseconceptsare less problematicthan the biological idea of instincts and were familiar in sociologicaldiscourse,especiallythe concepthabit at the time Veblen was writing (Camic 1986). They are best explicatedwith referenceto specific evolutionarystagesandcanthereforebe dealtwith morebriefly. Building on his premisethat "[a]ll instinctive behavior is subject to developmentand hencemodification by habit," Veblen suggests,"In human conductthe effects of habit ... areparticularlyfar-reaching"(l964a [1914], 38). The main reasonfor this is that "human culture" for Veblen "is a schemeof institutions," which "are an outgrowth of habit" (l969a [1919],241).In Veblen's oft-quotedwords: Thegrowthof cultureis a cmnu1ativesequenceof habitation,andthe ways andmeansof it arethe habitualresponseof humannatureto the exigencies that vary incontinently,cumulatively, but with somethingof a consistent sequencein the cmnulativevariationsthat so go forward,-incontinently, becauseeachnew move createsa new situationwhich inducesa further new variation in the habitual mannerof response;cmnu1ative1ybecause eachnew situationis a variationof what hasgonebeforeit and embodies ascausalfactorsall that hasbeeneffectedby what wenton before;consistently becausethe underlyingtraits of humannature... by force of which the responsetakesplace,andon the groundsof which the habitationtakes effect remainsubstantiallyunchanged.(Veblen 1969a [1919],241--42) Thus, for Veblen, changewas endlessand involved all elements;moreover, clearly habits and institutions are the keys to understandingcultural

84

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

change,not instincts.This is probablythe reasoninstinctsare discussedonly in one chapter(the introductorychapter)in TheInstinct o/Workmanshipand the State0/ the Industrial Arts, the rest of the book is concernedwith the evolution of habits and institutions. Veblen'sprimary concernwith the social dimensionof human conduct and societiesis also readily apparentfrom The Theory o/theLeisure Class, which analyzesthe cultural implicationsof the "broadprinciples" (or habits of thought) traceableto workmanshipand predationwith referenceto the relative stability of classand consumption(1970 [1899], 82). Although the focus of this book is narrowerthan the aforementioned,Veblen nonetheless takesthe opportunity to summarizesuccinctly the essentialelementsof his model: Social evolution is a processof selectiveadaptationof temperamentand habits of thoughtunderthe stressof the circumstancesof associatedlife. The adaptationof habitsof thoughtis the growth of institutions.But along \:Vith the growth of institutions has gone a changeof a more substantial character.Not only havethe habitsof menchangedwith the changingexigenciesof the situation,but thesechangingexigencieshavebroughtabout a correlativechangein humannature.(Veblen 1970 [1899], 145-46) In keepingwith his division of the "purposesof economiclife" into purposespertainingeither to workmanshipor to predation,Veblen correspondingly distinguishesbetweentwo types of institutions, those that serve the "invidious or non-invidiouseconomicinterest" (1970 [1899], 143). By the sametoken, in modem societies,"economic institutions fall into roughly pecuniaryand the industrial," with which either two distinct categories-the predatoryor workmanshiphabitsof thoughtareassociatedin termsof both a causeand an effect (154). To understandinstitutions representsfor Veblen the object of his analysis,and he praisesany effort that sharesthis objective, so long as "it aims at a Darwinianaccountof the origin, growth, persistence, and variation of institutions" (1969a[1919], 265). Veblen's"conceptualfurniture" (1969a[1919], 279) is thereforea complex systemof independentelements,instincts,habits,andinstitutions,which are also interrelatedin that any or all of them may change,causingreverberationsthroughouta systemwhoseoriginal conditionsof life were conducive to a group-regardingculture.2 It is also an ambitious systemby the standardof today, in that Veblen'smodel aspiredto comprehendthe interconnectionsamong biology (instincts), anthropology(conditions of life), pyschology(habits),and sociology(institutions).In this respectVeblenwas typical oflate-nineteenth-century social science(Fletcher1971).

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 85

The intellectual inputs to the conceptualframework that Veblen developed inthe processof explicatinghis evolutionarytheoryof changearemore transparentthan is often the casewith Veblen'swritings, thanks largely to his relatively generoussprinkling of referencesin The Instinct of Workmanship and the Stateofthe Industrial Arts and to the survival of lecturenotes, which includekey sources,takenfrom his course,uponwhich this book was based.3 Accordingly, the relevantintellectualinfluenceshavebeenthoroughly debatedover the years and are now documentedin some detail. A recent review of the relevantliteratureby Tilman (1996) echoesHoman (1927) in that his list of intellectualinfluenceson Veblen is almostidentical,but adds that the intellectualinputs to Veblen'sconceptualframework, especiallythe problemsconcerninghis alleged inconsistentuse of the term instinct, "can be tracedto his relianceon the work" of certainevolutionarytheorists,all of whom were influenced by Darwin to varying degrees--namely,William McDougall,JacquesC. Loeb,Lloyd Morgan,William James,andJohnDewey (1996, 73). In particular,Tilman advancesa casefor the underratedsignificanceof the convergencebetweenVeblen'spsychologyand that of his colleagueand friend, Loeb, and the uneveninfluenceof James,on the grounds that they were prominentDarwinian evolutionarytheorists(1996, 83). The commondenominatorin Tilman's accountof the intellectualorigins of Veblen's conceptualframeworkis Darwin, althoughreferenceto his works is limited to one citing of The Origin ofSpeciesconcerninghis rejection of any "law of necessarydevelopment"(1996, 60). The analysispresentedin chapter3 confirmedthat, in addition to the above,Veblen'spersona11ibrary also containedtwo of Charles Darwin's later publications, including The DescentofMan; that he consistentlyinvokedDarwin'snameby way of identifying his own theoreticalposition;andthat hispoint of departureandwhole approachwere inspired by evolutionary ideas,particularly thoseof a Darwinian variety. In the light of this confirmation, considerationof the possibility that Veblen'sanalysisof instincts and habits was basedon Darwin's accountof the evolution of the humananimal would seemto be a promising line of enquiry.4Somewhatsurprisingly,as far as I am aware,such an exercise doesnot seemto havebeenundertakenbefore.Even more remarkable, apart from one or two minor exceptions(e.g., Edgell and Tilman 1989; Eby 1998b),is the almostuniversallack of any detailedciting of Darwin's writings wheneverhis influence on Veblen is discussed(e.g., Harris 1934; Hodgson 1992; Liebel 1965; Murphree 1959; Russett1976; Sowell 1967; Watkins 1958). Aside from a sharedlexicon, including blind chance,self-regarding,arresteddevelopment,sympathy,and even social instinct,5 Veblen's assumption concerningthe social characterof the humankind,his argumentthat

86

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

hwnan instincts are guided by reasonand subjectto modification by habit, and above all his distinction betweenworkmanshipand predation(or the group-regardingand self-regardinginstincts, including the primacy of the former andthe conflict betweenthem)beara striking resemblance to Darwin's accountof the origins and natureof hwnanconductin The DescentofMan (1874), as the following quotationsmake abundantlyclear: Man is a social being ... he [has] retainedfrom an extremelyremoteperiod somedegreeof instinctive love and sympathyfor his fellows.... [T]he very essenceof an instinct is that it is followed independentlyof reason.... [L love, sympathyand self-commandbecomestrengthenedby habit. ... The more enduringSocialInstinctsconquerthe lesspersistentInstincts ... the simple result of the greaterstrengthof the social or maternalinstinctsthan that of any otherinstinct or motive.... The other so-calledself-regardingvirtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemedby savages,thoughnow highly appreciatedby civilized nations. We havenow seenthat actionsareregardedby savages,andwereprobably so regardedby primeval man, as good or bad, solely as they obviously affect the welfare of the tribe,-notthat of the species,nor that of an individual memberof the tribe. [T]he so-calledmoral senseis aboriginally derived from the social instincts,for both relateat first exclusivelyto the community.... [T]he self-regardingvirtues, supportedas they are by reason,should now appearto us so naturalasto be thoughtinnate,althoughthey werenot valuedby man in his early condition. Selfish and contentiouspeoplewill not cohereand without coherence nothing can be effected.... [I]t is not surprisingthat there should be a strugglein man betweenhis social instincts,andtheir derivedvirtues, andhis lower, thoughmomentarily strongerimpulsesor desires.(Darwin 1874, 105, 106, 115, 118, 121,127) Impressiveas theseparallelsare betweenVeblen'sand Darwin's respective analysesof the evolution of humankind,they do not exhaustthe possibilities, since Darwin also noted the importanceof language,curiosity, and the industrial arts in relation to the hwnan capacityfor adaptationto changing circwnstances,which contributedin no small way to the achievementof progress,and that men are more selfish and competitivethan women. Furthermore,the normativepreferencefor group rather than self-regardinginstinctsand habitswas indicatedby both, albeit somewhatmore explicitly by Darwin than Veblen. The numberand range of theseparallels suggestthat the Darwinian influence on Veblen is even more profound than has previ-

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 87

ously beenjudgedto be the case,an argumentthat is constructedlargely on the basisof the influence of Darwin's conceptionof unpredictablecumulative changeon Veblen'scritique of mainstreamand Marxian economics,and his reformulationof social science.Veblen, it seems,madea shrewdchoice whenhe nominatedDarwin ashis main intellectualmentor,given that among the theoriesof evolution advancedin the modemera,Darwin'shasstoodthe testof ongoingbiological researchbetterthan all the others(Dawkins 1985). There is also evidencefrom gametheory suggestingthat cooperativerather than selfish behavior enhances economic survival (Axelrod 1984), which vindicatesboth Darwin and Veblen. As far as the problemof conceptualclarity is concerned,in his review of the literature Tilman highlighted Veblen'stendenciesto substitutethe term "impulse" for "instinct" andto usethe phrase"half-tropismatic,half-instinctive impulses,"and noted that Veblen was often unclear about whetherhe was talking aboutan instinct or a motive, as evidenceof his "conceptualvagueness"(1996,86). Othershavenotedthat vaguenessalsocharacterizes Veblen's use of the concepthabit (Walker 1977) and his conceptualapparatusgenerally (Rutherford 1984). Yet a close reading of Darwin revealsthat he too usedthe sameterminology; he noted that with humankind"the instinctiveimpulses have different degreesof strength" and in his discussionof the evolutionof languageamonghumanshe also usedthe phrase"half-art, halfinstinct" (1874, 107, 122). This indicatesthat Darwin consideredthe complexity of human biological evolution to be so great that distinguishing betweenanalyticallydiscreteelementswas exceedinglyproblematicwhen it came to illustrating the point with examplesfrom various cultures. This is due to the difficulty of knowing for surewhetherparticularforms ofbehavior are the result of natureor nurture, since they are inextricably linked for the humananimal-apoint expressedby both Darwin and Veblen: It is, however,impossibleto decidein many caseswhethercertainsocial instinctshave beenacquiredthroughnatural selection,or are the indirect result of other instincts and faculties, such as sympathy,reason,experience,and a tendencyto imitation; or again, whetherthey are simply the result of long-continuedhabit. (Darwin 1874, 103-D4) It is this endlesscomplicationandcontaminationof instinctiveelementsin humanconduct,taken in conjunctionwith the pervadingand cumulative effectsof habit in this domain,that makesmost of the difficulty andmuch of the interestattachingto this line of inquiry. (Veblen 1964a[1914J,29) This passagefrom Veblen is indeed"a telling example,"but not necessarily of his conceptual"vagueness"and "ambiguity" as Tilman infers, but ar-

88

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

guablybecauseit reflectsVeblen'sdeep-rootedDarwinianpedigree,a point the footnote attachedto this quotationamply confirms (1996, 87). The key nexusof factors for both Darwin and Veblen was the social instincts,which were guided by intelligence and subjectto the effects of habit, and which they consideredfundamentalto the survival of humangroups. The pervasiveness of the impact of Darwin on Veblen is unsurprising,in that they were both part of the sameAnglo-American intellectual milieu. Hencethey addressed the sameissuesconcerningsocialevolution,citedmany of the samesources,notably Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, David Hume, ThomasMalthus, EdwardTylor, and especiallyHerbert Spencer,for whom Darwin expressedconsiderableadmiration(1874,65,199); and often illustratedtheir argumentswith referenceto the samesmall communities,suchas Eskimos,Polynesians,Fuegians,Kaffirs, andNorthAmericanIndians.Moreover, the theological implications of Darwin's evolutionaryexplanationof the origins of humankindwould haveundoubtedlyappealedto someoneinclined toward atheism,as Veblenwas.Thus,therewould seemto be a strong case for claiming that Veblen was the authentic voice of Darwinism in America, not the politically conservativeand sociologically suspectSocial Darwinists.Yet Veblenwas not a "completeDarwinist" (Russett1976,148). Aside from other possibledivergencies,Darwin and Veblen differed profoundly in their appreciationof the social qualitiesof dogs.

Stagesof Cultural Evolution It is generallyacceptedthat Veblen borrowedhis stagesof evolution from the nineteenth-century AmericananthropologistLewis Henry Morgan(Davis 1957; Herskovits 1965 [1940]; Murphey 1990; Rosenberg1953), and that Morganwas one of severalanthropologistswhoseworks Veblen was familiar with (Tilman 1992, 1996). However,I could find no direct evidencethat Veblen possessed any of the works of Morgan and thereis no referenceto Morgan in Dorfman (1934; 1973).6Thereis, though,a high probability that, given Veblen'sfocus on Darwinianevolutionismand his familiarity with the writings of Spencer,both of whom cited Morgan,Veblenwould haveknown of Morgan'sresearch,since he too was interestedin Spencer'swork before he had comeunderthe spell of Darwin (Leacock1972). Otheranthropologistswho arethoughtto haveinfluencedVeblen'smodel of cultural evolution include an Englishmanwho was a "convincedDarwinian" (Burrow 1966,256),namely,Tylor andhis researchon animism;a Scotsman who followed in "Tylor's footsteps,"namely, Frazerand his studiesof the work of women in peacefulagrariancultures,as well as his studiesof kingship (Burrow 1966, 256); and an American who "challengedthe fixed,

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 89

unilinearmodel of evolutionarychange,"namely,Boasandhis fieldwork on Eskimo and Indian cultures(Ross1991,319). In contrastto Morgan,Veblen cites all of theseanthropologists,in The Instinct of Workmanshipand the State of the Industrial Arts. Consideredas a group, of thesenotedAngloAmerican anthropologists,the only one to be subjectedto an extendeddiscussionin termsof their intellectualinput to Veblen is Tylor (Dawson1993). The others,with the marginal exceptionof Murphey (1990), have tendedto refer somewhatbriefly in passingto the link betweenMorgan and Veblen. Suffice it to saythat Veblenwas steepedin anthropology,especiallythat of a Darwinian evolutionarypersuasion. The one otherintellectualinput to Veblen'scharacterizationof evolutionary stagesis well documented,namely,the influence of Werner Sombartto his understandingof postfeudaleconomichistory (Davis 1945;Diggins 1978; Dorfman 1934; Harris 1951; Jaffe 1924; Loaderet al. 1991; Riesman1960 [1953]).1 Veblen reviewed three of Sombart'sbooks on capitalism, all of which remainedin his personallibrary; this showsthat he admiredSombart's economicsanalysis,informed as it was by the distinction betweenbusiness and industry (Dorfman 1973).8Veblen also cited Sombartextensively,and for the most part positively, in his own books such as The Theory of the BusinessEnterpriseand The Instinct of Workmanshipand the State of the Industrial Arts. The thrustof Veblen's theoryof cultural evolutionis that the driving force for changethroughouthistory is the stateofthe industrialarts,or technological advances,which set off a chain reactioninvolving eventuallya conflict betweenthe institutional forcesthat encouragetransformationand thosethat enhancestability. The historical interactionof technology,instincts,habits, and institutions is examinedby Veblen with referenceto four broad evolutionary stages:the savageera, the barbarianera, the handicraftera, and the machineera.Veblen'scentralthesisis that someenvironmentsaremore conducive than othersto the expressionof thoughtsand actionsthat ultimately derivefrom the instinctsandhabitsof workmanshipandpredation.Although thesetwo instinctsare omnipresent,their expressionand thereforeinfluence variesaccordingto the prevailingmaterialconditionsandthe extentto which the various institutions at anyonestageare adaptedto the new situation. With the aid of this evolutionarymodelVeblenanalyzesthe degreeof change and stability of different institutions,with the main focus on modemsocieties. This is readily apparentin all his studies,from his analysisof the institution of the leisureclassto his accountof political institutions,and is clearly indicatedby his extensivecross-referencingof his own works. The first evolutionarystagewas the most protractedof all, accordingto both Morgan (1967 [1877]) and Veblen, who called it "the incredibly slow

90

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

and blindfold advanceof the savageculture" (1964a [1914], 63). Veblen arguedthat it was dominatedby the instinct of workmanship,or in Darwin's terminology, the social instincts, since the low level of technology"yields no such disposablesurplus ... worth fighting for" and ensuresthat workmanship,upon which the survival of the group depends,ratherthan predation, prevails as the major factor that shapesthe cultural life of the era (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934], 51). In The Instinct of Workmanshipand the State of the Industrial Arts, and elsewhere,Veblen'sdiscussionof workmanship containsmany referencesto the freedomthis instinct typically enjoysin the senseof being availableto all of economicand social necessityin an essentially peacefulenvironment.In other words, in the beginning, "As determinedby the stateof the industrial arts in sucha culture,the membersof the communityco-operatein much of their work, as to the commongain and to no one'sdetriment,sincethereis substantiallyno individual, or private,gain to be sought"(Veblen 1964a[1914],142).Veblen goeson to emphasizethat reciprocalobligationsand a "senseof mutuality" dominatethe culture, not market-basedexchange,and that although someuseful and decorativearticles may be consideredin personalterms, there are so few things "worth owning" that "the habitsof thoughtwhich go to makethe institution of ownership and propertyrights have not takenshape"(1964a[1914], 143). Economic interdependence in the savagecommunityencouragedits membersto considerthe interestsof the group rather than thoseof any individual, and thereis minimal socialdifferentiation.However,Veblensuggeststhatwomen playeda vital role in peaceablesavagerylargely because"the parentalbent and the senseof workmanshipwill have worked togetherto bring women into the chief place in the technologicalscheme"(94). Partly as a result of this pattern,Veblen is unusuallysensitiveto the sexismof his language,in that he often qualifiesthe word "workman"by addingsomethinglike, "more typically perhapsthe work women" (144; seealso 76). Veblen is sometimesaccusedof romanticizingthe peaceablesavageera by his focus on its "utopian" character(Shannon1996, 8; seealso O'Hara 1999); but Veblen acknowledgedthat "this primitive man hasquite as many and as conspicuouseconomicfailings as virtues" (1970 [1899], 152); that there are certain"institutional complications"or "contamination"of the instinct of workmanshipby "self-regardingsentiments"which encouragesome form of gerontocracy"(1964a[1914], 42, 44); andthat "specialinterests"of a "personaland family" kind were "presentand active" from the beginning (1964b [1917],50). Veblen notedthat evidenceto supporthis interpretation of the savageerawas difficult to find, but Eskimo culturewas often cited for both the group-regardingand the self-regardingfeatures.While Veblen's normativebias in favor of a culture organizedby and for the collectivity is

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 91

not difficult to detect,it would be more accurateto note that he provided a balancedaccountof this era. As notedabove,thereis the unmistakableimprint of Darwin on Veblen's accountof the savageera, in termsof both the main featuresof the communities so designatedand the explanationof them. Perhapsless well known, given their more obvious ideological divergencies,are the parallels in the works of Spencerand Veblen (Eff 1989). In addition to the convergencies identified by Eff, including the ideaof cumulativeadaptationand the industrial-militant dualism,I would suggestthe following main similarities. First, that SpencerandVeblenconcuron the essentiallypeaceableandcooperative culture of the earliestknown humancommunities.Second,that Veblensupportedhis thesisaboutsuchgroupswith referenceto the sameexamplesas Spencer,which, as we have seen, w~re the sameas thosecited by Darwin betweeQ (for example, Eskimos, Fuegians,Pueblos,Todas, and Veddahs).Third, Veblen'sclaim that "the mostnotabletrait commonto membersof suchcommunities is a certain amiable inefficiency when confrontedwith force or fraud" (1970 [1899],24), is reminiscentof Spencer'scontrastbetweenthe "gentle and affectionate"Veddahsand the murderousviolence perpetrated by his Victorian contemporaries(1969 [1876, 1893, 1896], 175). The key difference in Spencer'sand Veblen'srespectiveanalysesof the savageera concernsthe origin of private property. Spencerclaims that "The fact that evenintelligent animalsdisplay a senseof proprietorship, negativesthe belief propoundedby some,that individual property was not recognizedby primitive men" (1969 [1876, 1893, 1896],469), whereasVeblen argued, possibly with Spencerin mind, that although some forms of personalproperty were prevalentin the earliest human societies,"it would be a vicious misapprehension to readideasandrights of ownershipinto thesepractices"(1964a [1914], 143). This point reflects a more fundamentaldifferencein Spencerand Veblen'sappreciation of the savageera. While Veblen treatsthis stageas a legitimateone, Spencertends not to accordit the samehistorical significance.Despite noting that "the impedimentsin the way of private land-ownershipare greatand the incentivesto it are small," Spencerelsewhere,on the occasion of advancinga case for the universality of class distinctions, excludes "those small wandering assemblageswhich are so incoherent" from his survey of the "beginnings of social life" (1969 [1876, 1893, 1896],239,473).To include them would have compromisedSpencer's estimationof the role of conflict, as opposedto cooperation,in the evolution of human societies,which is central to his thesisand contradicts Veblen'stheory. This amountsto a profounddivergenceregardingSpencer and Veblen'saccountsof the savageera, but it shouldnot be allowed

92

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

to obscurethe more numerous,though arguablymore superficial, convergencies,which, as will be shown in due course,are not limited to this evolutionarystage. The transition to the next evolutionary era is slow and the factors that bring it about "are often complex and recondite,and they are seldom the samein any given two instances"(Veblen 1964a[1914], 147).Notwithstanding thesecaveats,Veblen arguesthat gradualadvancesin technologyflow from its freedomfrom cultural interferenceandthat the consequentincrease in productionabovesubsistence,combinedwith the developmentof weapon technology,simultaneouslyunderminesthe instinct of workmanship,along with its associatedhabits and institutions,and encouragesthe emergenceof "predatoryaptitudes,habits and traditions" (Veblen 1970 [1899],32). This changefrom the era of savageryto barbarisminvariably coincides,suggests Veblen, with the growth of private prop~rty, betweeQbut the transitionis sufficiently unhurriedthat the singularinfluenceof workmanshipon industryis likely to "overlap and blend with the succeedingphasein which property relations chiefly decidethe detailsofthe industrialorganization"(1964a[1914],147). Ultimately the emergenceof the "predatoryphaseof culture," namely,barbarism,is tracedby Veblen"to the changein the circumstances of the group's life, of sucha kind as to developand conservethosetraits of humannature and thosetraditions and norms of conductthat make for a predatoryrather than a peaceablelife" (1970 [1899], 32). In this secondevolutionarystage, individual exploitation replacescollective work; self-interestreplacesthe commongood; and differentiationbasedon gender,and eventuallyon class, becomesa key feature of the social structure.In brief, a culture dominated by predationsupplantsone characterizedby workmanship. During this transition,the institution of a leisureclassemerges;a detailed accountof this emergence,arguablythe most famousVeblen thesis,will be presentedin chapter5. Meanwhile,it is sufficient to notethat Veblenconsistently subdivideseachera into higher and lower stagesin a mannercomparable to Morgan (1967 [1877]), and the era of barbarismis no exception. Thus, Veblen refers to the "lower stagesof barbarism,"characterizedby differentiationin termsof both sex and class,and the "higher stagesof barbarian culture," characterizedby a distinct leisure class (1970 [1899], 21, 24). In otherwords, a parasiticclassis possibleonly when a "predatoryhabit of life," involving "force and stratagem,"plus an economicsystemcapable of supportinga groupwho areexemptfrom a "routine oflabor" haveevolved (Veblen 1970 [1899],25). Concomitantwith the new classstructure,a new value systemreflecting the power of the dominantclassis established,one that emphasizesthe statusof individual ownershipand wealth, and which considerswork as undignified. Moreover,onceestablished,the leisureclass

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 93

andits valuesoperateas a majorconservativeforce, to the detrimentoftechnological innovationand thereforeeconomicgrowth. Veblen also distinguishesbetweenstrong and weak social formations of predatorycultures.For example,he suggeststhat societiesfoundedon conquestare likely to be excessivelypredatoryand "their institutionsfoster the invidious sentiments,the self-regardinganimusof servility andof arrogance, beyondwhat commonly happens"in such a culture (Veblen 1964a[1914], 169). This patternof evolution hasprofoundimplicationsfor the instinct of workmanship,which "is constantlydominatedby prevalenthabitsof thought that are worse than uselessfor any technologicalpurpose"(169). This is a recurring themein Veblen'stheory of cultural evolution, which during later evolutionarystagesis discussedin relationto the survival of habitsandinstitutions developedat an earlier time. Veblen'saccountof the barbarianera, or the first stageof predation,exhibits further evidenceof an overlap with Spencer'sinstitutional analysis, notablywith respectto the increasingsocial classand occupationaldifferentiation, and related institutional specialization,associatedwith the rise of barbarism,the concomitantgrowth of ceremonialism,and how excessive militarism inducesa "contempt... for all occupationsother than war" and impedes"improvementsin production" (1969 [1876, 1893, 1896], 669). Spenceradvancesthesepointsin the contextof his distinctionbetweenmilitant and industrial types of societies,which, as noted above,is comparable to Veblen'sdualism, predation,and workmanship,in fact Spencereven refers to the sameera as the "predatoryperiod" (1969 [1876, 1893, 1896], regardingboth this era and the 178). In the light of the many convergencies, earlier one,betweenSpencerandVeblen, and notwithstandingwhat is arguably the more significantunderlyingdifferencein their views with respectto the original characterof humansocieties,this analysisconfirms that there would seemto be stronggroundsfor suggestingthat Veblenwasboth critical of and impressedby Spencer'sevolutionarysociology(Eff 1989). The predatorycharacterof the barbarianera is not all bad news for the instinct of workmanship.During the later stagesof this era,when ownership hasdevelopedmore fully as a habit and henceas an institution, "it conduces to diligencein acquisitionand thereforeindirectly to diligencein work, ifno more expeditiousmeansof acquiringwealth canbe devised"(Veblen 1964a [1914],173).Thus,the now-conventional"disreputeoflabor" tendsto "discourageindustry," is "offset, at leastin part, by the incentivegiven to emulation by the good reputeattachingto acquisition"(175). In otherwords, "the discipline of self-seekingat somepoints favors workmanshipand at others not" (175). Not surprisingly, Veblen describesthe handicraftera as "quasipeaceable"(232). In essence,the coercivedominationof the predatorycul-

94

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

ture declinesand is transfonnedinto a more pecuniaryculture, which provides an "incentiveto work," but it remainsnonethelesspredatoryby virtue of the institution of ownership(173). This suggeststhat neither predation nor workmanshipenjoystotal freedom;they are, in effect, both constrained, or, in Veblenianvocabulary,the two instincts,habits and institutions,suffer mutual contamination.Veblen'sanalysisat this juncture,and indeedsubsequently wherehe acknowledges,albeit reluctantlyperhaps,that "Doubtless, the price systemhadmuchto do with the rise of machineindustryin modem times" (245), undenninesthe view that he rejectedany positiverole for selfregardingsentiments,and that as a consequence he was "unqualifiedly hostile to capitalism"(Davis 1957,64). Veblen is somewhatvagueaboutthe detailsof the transitionto the handicraft era, doubtless,as he would say, becausechangeis inherentlycomplex andthereforevariesin tennsof both placeanddate;yet this transitionrepresentsfor Veblena momentoushistoricalchangein that it signifiesthe startof the "modemera" (1964a[1914], 209). However,he doescontrastthosesituations, suchas despoticoriental societies,where"the predatoryculture has been carried through consistentlyon the predatoryplan," which results in the "decay of the industrial arts," and the less overtly predatoryWestern societies,"where the predatoryphaseproperhaseventuallygiven placeto a commercialphaseof the samepecuniaryculture," which also leadsto a "decline of knowledge,technologyand workmanship"but which is "followed by a slow recovery and advancein technologicalefficiency and scientific insight" and accompaniedby a decline in "religious fear" (180-81). For Veblen the evolution of the peaceablehandicraftera was describedin tenns of the "institutional ground" moving in a direction that reducedthe dominanceof predationandenhancedthe growth of workmanship(183). In addition to the peacedividend, as it would be called today, in the form of technologicalrejuvenation,Veblen notes that this evolutionary changeinvolves a class dimension,specifically the rise of an urban working class, whereasthe earlier expressionof workmanshipwas a communitywidephenomenon.In due course,the creativeworker is drawn into marketrelations, which "acts to keepthe self-regardingsentimentsalert and active andaccentuateanindividualistappreciationof menandthings"(Veblen 1964a[1914], 244). Veblenseemsto placemoreweighton the incidenceof culturalborrowingasan influenceon changeat this historicaljuncturethanthe refonnulationof Protestantism "in tennsconsonantwith the workmanlike conceptionsof the handicraft system"(266). In theseallusionsto the theoriesof Marx and Weberand the rise of capitalism,Veblen'smaterialismis nearerto the fonner than the latter, yet a considerabledistancefrom both due to his refusal to concedea major causalrole to either classconflict or religious ethics.

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 95

The key social actor at the beginningand throughoutthe handicrafterais the "skilled masterlessworkman" (Veblen 1964a[1914],276).The picture of this classpaintedby Veblen is wholly admiring of their achievementof independencefrom the deferentialbondsof the predatoryera and their persistencein maintainingit, therebyeffecting the evolution of a more productive era: By tenaciousassertionof the personalrights which they so arrogatedto themselves, and at greatcostand risk, they madegood in time their claim to standas a classapart,a classof unguardedfree menamongwhom selfhelp and individual workmanlikeefficiency were the acceptedgroundsof reputeand livelihood. This tradition neverdies out amongthe organized craftsmenuntil the industrial systemwhich had so beeninauguratedwent underin the turmoil of politics and finance or was supplantedby the machine era that grew out of it. (Veblen 1964a[1914], 276) It is pertinent to recall that Veblen's father personified the skills, selfreliance, self-sufficiency, and democraticvalues that were the essenceof this class.This eulogy could thereforebe interpretedas further evidenceof the powerful impactof Veblen's ethnic capital in general,andthe exampleof his father in particular, on his life and career.The "lyricism" of Veblen's proseof the prototypical technicalexperthas beencriticized as an instance of an atypical suspensionof "his critical detachment"(Shannon1996, 10). Alternatively, it could be read as an indication of Veblen'sconsideredview on both his father and the important historical role of this class,both in the pastand potentially in the future. The handicraft era of free competition, independentworkers, and petty trade gave way to the machine era, or more precisely "the two [eras] overlap[ped] very extensively,"as the technologicaland economicconditions of the craft worker changed(Veblen 1964a [1914], 321). The initial impetusfor the evolution of a more complexindustrial systemcame,as ever accordingto Veblen, from the surge in technologicalimprovementsfacilitated by a combinationof the removal of institutional constraintson workmanshipand the incentive provided by ownership.This in tum led to the expansionof productionand the market, and graduallyprice ratherthan industrial considerationsbecameparamount.The processwas compounded by so much growth in technical knowledgethat it becametoo "unwieldy" for an individual worker, and by an increasein the scaleof production"requiring organizedgroupsof workmentogetherwith somethingin the way of collective industrial plant," which hastenedthe "concentrationof ownership of the materialequipment"(278, 279).Independentfarmer-ownerswere not

96

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

exemptfrom this generaleconomicprocess,and they too were seducedby the exchangevalue of their enterpriseas opposedto its use value "for himself and his household"(Veblen 1964c [1923], l35). Veblen'sawarenessof the speculativeelementof agricultural land ownershipby pioneerfarmers andtheir tendencyto "standsturdily by the timewornmake-believethat they still are individually self-sufficientmasterlessmen" suggeststhat his appreciation of this classwas not entirely uncritical (l33). Meanwhile,the "schemeof Natural Rights, with its principlesof Natural Liberty and its insistenceon individual self-help" (which was "an outcome of' and "well adapted"to the handicraftsystemof individual ownershipof production)and its relatedreasonablyequitabledistribution of rewards,and upon which classical economic theory from Smith onward was founded, persistedinto the emergentmachineera (Veblen 1964a[1914], 340). This was doubly unfortunateaccordingto Veblen in that it not only createda "discrepancy"betweenmodemeconomicsandthe processit was concerned to understandbut also createda discrepancybetweenthe modemindustrial situationandthe institutionalframeworkwithin which it operated(342). The importanceof thesediscrepanciesfor Veblen's accountof the machineera andthe mainstreameconomicunderstandingof it is reflectedin the frequency with which he addressed theseissuesin his variousarticlesandbooksthroughout his career. One of his most succinct summariescan be found in The Nature ofPeaceand the Terms ofits Perpetuation.From the perspectiveof the fate of workmanship,in termsof both technologyandthosewho worked it, the coincidenceof the philosophyof naturalrights andthe handicraftsystem was "favorable" (Veblen 1964b [1917], 317). However,in the machine era, "circumstanceshaveso changedthat this good old plan has in a degree becomearchaic,perhapsunprofitable,or evenmischievious,on the whole, and especiallyas touchesthe conditionsof life for the commonman" (31819). More specifically,the changeinvolved a reversalof priorities; underthe handicraft system,ownershipwas "subsidiary" to the "immaterial equipment of skill, dexterity andjudgmentembodiedin the personof the craftsman,"in the machineera,whenthe "plantbecametheunit of operationinstead of the workman," the latter becamean "auxiliary factor" (319, 320, 321). Owners,whosecontributionto, and understandingof, the stateof the industrial arts is minimal at best, now "control" the plant and the workers who operateit, with a view to maximizingprivate,not public benefit(322).Veblen regardsthis as an inversionof priorities that doesnot merely limit technological progressand output, but underthe rules of a price systemdeveloped in the previousera,the "deliberateobstructionor retardationof industry," or "capitalisticsabotage,"becomesa "legitimatemeans"of obtaining"personal or partisanadvantage"(324). It is a matterof someconcernfor Veblen that

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 97

serviceabilityfor all is subordinatedto the pecuniaryinterestsof the few at this stage.In the vocabularyof instincts,habits,and institutions,the machineerais characterizedby Veblen as a conflict betweenthe instinct of predationand the instinct of workmanship,with businesshabits and institutions dominatingindustrialhabitsandinstitutions.Amongthemanydeleteriousimplicationsof this inversionof priorities, Veblen consideredthat the "everydaywasteand confucontrol of industry includedunemsion" effectedroutinely by business-class ployment of resources,salesmanship,the production and consumptionof superfluities,andthe systematicdislocationof the economy(1963 [1921], 112). Thus, the adventof the machineera was, for Veblen,the beginningof the end of the freedomof collective workmanship.From this historicaljuncture onward,the price system(predation)dominatesindustry (workmanship),an arrangementthat Veblenconsidersto be a contradictionof the utmostimportance,andwhich he thereforeanalyzesin greaterdepththan any otherevolutionary eraandto which he relateshis otherstudiesof political andeducational institutions.Thesestudiesare framed within the contextof his evolutionary theory of changeand are shownbroadly to contributeto, ratherthan detract from, the continuedsurvival of the pervasivebusinessculture. However, not all is lost, for while the businesssystemmay dominate contemporarysociety, it is at the sametime dependenton and erodedby workmanship: The growth of businessenterpriserestson the machinetechnologyas its materialfoundation.The machinetechnologyis indispensableto it, it cannot get along without the machineprocess.But the discipline of the machineprocesscutsawaythe spiritual, institutional foundationsof business enterprise;themachineindustryis incompatiblewith its continuedgrowth; it cannotin the long run, getalongwith themachineprocess.In their struggle againstthe cultural effectsof the machineprocess,therefore,businessprinciples cannotwin in the long run; sincean effectualmutilation or inhibition of the machinesystemwould graduallypushbusinessenterpriseto the wall; whereaswith a free growth of the machinesystembusinessprinciples would presentlyfall into abeyance.(Veblen 1975 [1904],375)

In short,Veblen consideredthe machineerato be primarily predatoryand hencewasteful,unstable,and ultimately transient. Having examinedthe evolution of humanhistory in termsof the preponderanceof workmanshipand predationin different eras,Veblen, true to his Darwinianpedigree,and in markedcontrastto Marx whom he criticized for the un-Darwinian"teleological character"of his theory of change(Veblen 1969a[1919],436),refusedto predict the future. He merely stated"Which

98

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

of thesetwo antagonisticfactors may prove the strongerin the long run is somethingof a blind guess;but the calculablefuture seemsto belongto one or the other" (1975 [1904],400). In other words, someform of militaristic nationalismor an industrial republic, essentiallya Spencerianprospectminus his confidencein the "progressof industrialism" (1969 [1876, 1893, 1896],546).Darwin had noted: "We must rememberthat progressis no invariablerule," althoughhe was clearly hopeful that in the ongoing struggle betweenthe group and self-regardinginstincts, "virtue will be triumphant" (1874, 121, 137). Veblen was far less sanguine: [H]uman culture in all ages presentsfar too many imbecile usagesand principles of conduct tolet anyoneoverlook the fact that disserviceable institutions easily arise and continuein their place in spite of the disapproval of native commonsense.(Veblen 1964a[1914], 49) . The conservativeforcesthathelpedto sustainthe dominationof thepredatory businessculture will be consideredin greaterdetail in subsequentchapters. For the momentit may be notedthat Veblen considerednationalismto be "the most sinister as well as the most imbecile of all those institutional incumbrancesthat havecomedown out of the past" (1964c [1923],38-39). He also arguedthat the institution of the leisure classin general,and competitive conspicuousconsumptionin particular, comprisedother powerful factorsthat tendedto "conserve,andevento rehabilitate,that archaictype of humannatureand thoseelementsof the archaicculture which the industrial evolution of societyin its later stagesactsto eliminate" (1970 [1899], 216). In addition to the cultural impact of the machineprocess,which "acts to disintegratethe institutional heritageof all degreesof antiquity and authenticity," at the turn of the twentiethcenturyVeblenthoughtthat,potentiallyat least, "socialisticdisaffection"represented themainthreatto the existingsystem,since it encourageda "growing disloyalty to the natural-rightsinstitution of property" (1975 [1904],337,374).However, by the early 1920s,when ownershiphad beentransformedinto "abstenteeownership,"Veblenjudgedthat the "standard formalities of 'Socialism'and 'Anti-socialism' are obsoletein face of the new alignmentof economicforces" (l964c [1923],9). On balance,Veblen consideredthat the forces for conservatismseemedto havethe upperhandduring the periodin which hewaswriting, consequentlyhethoughtthat"abdication"rather than"dispossession"was the mostlikely outcome,given the contradictionsinherentin the businesscontrol of industry(1963 [1921], 133). Thus,Veblen,the Darwinian, was not confident about the prospectsof reform or revolution; it was more a caseof cumulativeevolutionarychange,the end point of which it was impossibleto predict, or perhapseveninfluence.

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE 99

ConcludingRemarks Veblen'sDarwiniancredentialsare amply confinnedby his theory of evolutionary change,up to and including his view that the mostrecentera ismore susceptibleto "natural decay" than social engineeringof an ameliorativeor radical kind (1975 [1904],374).In his own way, Veblen aimedat a Darwinian accountof humanhistory in confonnity with that advancedby his mentor.9 For Veblen this meantthat "human nature will have to be restatedin tennsof habit" (1970 [1899],150).This canbe seenclearly in his concernto build on Darwin'saccountof the origins and natureof instinctsby considering the habitsand institutions thatflow from them: "Under the impulsion of a given instinctivepropensitya given line of behaviorbecomeshabitualand so is installedby use and wont as a principle of conduct"that subsequently "takes its place among'thehabitual verities of life in the communityand is handedon by tradition" (Veblen 1964a[1914], 50). Central to Veblen'sanalysisthroughoutis the distinction betweenworkmanshipand predation,howeverit is represented,and this too arguablyreflects not just the Darwinian division betweensocial and self-regarding instincts, but also the Spenceriandualism, militant and industrial types of institutions and societies.The significanceof the businessand industry dichotomyin Veblen'ssocial theory should not be, and hasnot been,underestimated(Ayres 1958; Coser 1977 [1971]; Dowd 1964; Dugger 1984; Ross1991; Tilman 1996).The sameappliesto the nonnativedimensionof Veblen'sanalysis,which he smuggledin underthe cover of what Darwin called the "ever-enduringsocial instinct" (1874, 119), and which he referred to as an the instinct of workmanship(Bush 1999; Davis 1945; Rutherford 1984; Tool 1996). Notwithstandingthe intenninableconcatenationof intellectualinfluences surroundingthe issueof evolutionismduring Veblen'scareer,Veblen'sdebt to anthropologywould seemto be the majorlacunain the history of Veblen's ideas.Someprogressin this direction is evident(Dawson 1993), but much more detectivework needsto be undertakenif anythinglike a thoroughexegesisof Veblen's Anglo-Americanevolutionaryanthropologicalsourcesis be basedon finner groundthan mere assumption,howeverreasonable. Notes 1. Veblen changedthe subtitle in 1912 on the occasionof the publication of a "specialcheaperedition" (Dorfman 1934,323), 2. Culture is defined byVeblen as "the organizedcomplex of habitsof thought andof conductby which their own routine of life is regulated"(1964b[1917], 55). 3. "EconomicFactorsof Civilization," n.d., notestakenby FredR. Yoder(CUL).

100

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

4. There are someclues, however--notably,for example,Mitchell, who knew Veblen well, emphasizedthe Darwinian influenceon Veblen, and notedthat Veblen "applied the instinct-habitpsychologyof Darwin and William Jamesto explain a wide variety of humanactivities" (1964 [1936], xxxiv). 5. "EconomicFactorsofCivilization,"n.d.,4, notestakenby FredR.Yoder(CUL). 6. Noneof Morgan's bookswerelistedasamongthosethatsurvivedsinceVeblen's death(CCA). Recentresearchhasfocusedon the differencesandsimilaritiesbetween Morgan and Veblen from the standpointof institutional economics(Seim 1996). 7. The article by Loaderet al. goesfurther, in the sensethat it claims: "Veblen's instinctsandSombart'sspiritual elementsalsoshowremarkablestructuralsimilarity" (1991,423).However, since SombartpostdatesDarwin as an influence on Veblen, this observationis interestingbut possiblyoflittle significance. 8. WashingtonIsland Library of ThorsteinVeblen (CCA). 9. A rare and extremeexceptionto the Darwinian Veblen thesisis that of Davis, who claimed: "Veblen'stheory of cultural evolution was Marxian ratherthan Darwinian or Spencerian"(1945, 137; seealso Davis 1957). Seealso the argumentadvancedby Edgell andTownshend(1993) on Veblen'srelationto Marx.

5 The Conspicuous Conservation of Leisure Class Culture Veblen's first and most famous book, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1970 [1899]), henceforthreferredto in this chapteras TLC, receiveda mixed receptionwhen it was first published,and this has continuedto be the caseever since. Consequently,although it is "the only work of NineteenthCentury American sociology still widely referenced"(Fine 1994, 461) and, as far as I am aware, has never been out of print, it remainsthe casethat while the key concept,conspicuousconsumption, theorizedin TLC has enteredpublic discourse,the book itself is more often cited in passingthan discussedin depth, even in commemorative volumes on Veblen (Dowd 1958; Qualey 1968). The purposeof this chapteris to redressthe situationby recalling in some detail the backgroundand substanceof TLC; to assessits social scientific receptionand relevancein the twentieth centurywith specialbut not exclusivereferenceto sociology;and, relatedly,to considerVeblen's thesisthat the survival of leisure classculture acts to conserveobsolete institutionsthat areuselessfrom the standpointof workmanshipandtherefore of the common good. Needlessto say, such an exerciseis fraught with difficulties, not least the unavoidableproblem of selectivity and the challengeposedby a late nineteenth-century text that is informed by intellectual traditions current at that time, but that may be regardedas quaint at bestby theoriststoday. Moreover,TLC was written in a highly distinctive ironic and satirical style, which, though it is integral to Veblen'sthesis(Eby 1998b),tendsto compoundratherthan mitigate all of any eligible the usual dilemmasfaced by an interpreter-cum-assessor classiccontribution to social science. 101

102

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Backgroundto Veblen'sTheory of the Leisure Class Someof the key themesin TLC-for example,that in modemsociety the of successis very muchto be desired,andis evenin manycases "appearance discussedby Veblen as early as 1892 in preferredto the substance"-were his first sociologicalarticle (1969a [1919], 394). This article is significant not just for the ideasthat were to becomecentralto TLC but also becauseit revealsVeblen'sconcernregardingthe wastefulnessandfutility of economic emulationand his hopethat the "abolition of privateproperty" would result in emulationbeing directedat "nobler and socially more serviceable,activities" (1969a[1919], 399). However,the leitmotif of TLC, namely,the conceptof conspicuousconsumption,was first usedby Veblen at the end of anotherarticle published originally in 1894(Ardzrooni 1964 [1934]). Veblensubsequentlyelaborated upon his theory of conspicuousconsumptionin the context of a trio of papers publishedbetween1898 and 1899 in the AmericanJournal of Sociology, in which his embryonic evolutionary model was being developed (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934]). In thesearticles Veblen outlined all the essential elementsof his theoryof conspicuousconsumptionthat constitutedthe basis of his book-lengthaccountof the leisureclass,including, as we haveseenin chapter4, the conceptsof workmanshipand predation,the axis upon which much of his sociologicalanalysishinged. The relevanceof thesearticlescanbe seenmostdirectly in the first half of TLC, which is concernedprimarily to trace the origins and nature of the leisureclass,whereasthe secondhalf focuseson the survival of andlimits to leisure class culture in modem societies.Specifically, Veblen's radicalism (for instance,his hostility to the institution of private property and the class system),feminism(suchashis supportfor the liberationof women), andiconoclasm(notablyhis penchantfor challengingprevailing economictheories),all expressedin his inimitable literary style, are readily apparentin theseearly papers.Moreover, in his analysisof the historical roots of modemeconomic institutionsthereis a hint of Veblen'sutopianismin the form of his hardly disguisedpreferencefor workmanshipwith its emphasison the collective nature of knowledgeand the productionand consumptionof useful goods. As chapter4 showed,in thesepre-TLC articlesVeblen was engagedin a debatewith the urgentsocialscientific issuesofthe late nineteenthcenturyespeciallyorthodox and heterodoxeconomics,for exampleMarshall and Marx, the psychologicaland philosophical foundationsof economicconduct, particularly the instinct-habit theoriesof Jamesand Dewey, and biological and anthropologicaltheoriesof evolution, notably Darwin, but also Spencerand Tylor.

LEISURE CLASS CULTURE 103

The central idea in TLC, competitiveconspicuousconsumption,is suggestiveof two further intellectualantecedents, notwithstandingVeblen'stendencynot to conformto the "usageof citing sourcesandauthorities"in TLC (1970 [1899], xx). Although the conceptof conspicuousconsumptionis most readily associatedwith Veblen, the phrase"consumptionis conspicuous" was used by John Rae in 1834 in his discussionof the tendencyfor the wealthy to display their rank by consumingluxuries (James1965,310).A textual exegesisof the pertinentparts of Rae'sand Veblen's writings suggeststhat there are parallelsbetweenthe two contributions;yet, Veblen did not cite Rae, despitebeing awareof his work. Thus, in all probability Rae influencedVeblen'sanalysesof consumption(Edgell and Tilman 1991) and economicgrowth (Mair 1990). There is even clearerevidencethat the dissuchasthepotlatch"in TLC (1970[1899], cussionof "costly entertainments, 65), reflectedVeblen'sfamiliarity with Boas'sethnologicalresearch,since he knew Boas personally(Tilman 1996), cited his researchextensivelyin the footnotesof a later book (1964b[1914]), and listed him amongthe referencesin his teaching.1 Apart from brief commentslinking the two (Diggins 1978; Tilman 1996),a full accountof the exchangeof ideasbetweenVeblen andBoasawaitsdetailed investigation, aspartperhapsof a studyof Veblen's debt to anthropologicalsourcesper se. More generally,it is relevantto recall that the attackon the selfishwastefulness of capitalist individualism in TLC bearsa striking resemblance,in terms of both the ideasand the languageusedto expressthem, to Bellamy's utopiannovel LookingBackward(Edgell 1975). Researchinto this intellectual antecedentsuggeststhat the influence of Bellamy on Veblen is well establishedand shouldnot be underestimated(Dorfman 1934; Edgell 1996; Edgell and Tilman 1989; Leathers1986; Tilman 1985). The Theory of the Leisure Class Veblen'saim in TLC was to considerthe economicsignificancein modern society of the institution of a leisure class dating from feudalism. His approachinvolved locating his analysiswithin his emergentmulti lineal evolutionary model, one that is organizedaround the distinction between workmanshipandpredation.More specifically,he consideredwhich of these two complexesof instincts, habits, and institutions is predominantat any one stageof cultural evolution.Accordingly, in the savageera,workmanship was the dominantfactor out of necessity,in a subsistenceeconomycharacterizedby a minimal division ofIaborandcommonownership.Consequently, what little emulationoccurredtendedto be in termsof productiveusefulness to the survival of the group. However,due to technologicaladvances,a sur-

104

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

plus is produced,which leads to conflict and the victorious avoiding work. Under thesenew conditions, self-seekingpredationbecamethe dominantfeatureof life and a differentiationbetweennonindustrialand industrial activities developed,initially on a genderand then on a class basis.A distinct leisure classemergeswhosemale members,at the risk of losing honor, engagein activities characterizedby "exploit" (e.g., politics, warfare, religion, and sport) and abstainfrom useful occupations (suchasthe productionoffood), which are characterizedby "drudgery" and are undertakenby women and lower-classmen (Veblen 1970 [1899], 26). With the rise of the predatorybarbarianera, the prospects for pecuniary emulation are enhancedat the expenseof emulation in terms of workmanship.As a result, goodsand servicesacquiredby "seizure or compulsion,serve as conventionalevidenceof successfulcontest," whereasthose obtainedin other ways, notably by physical labor, are considered"unworthy" (1970 [1899], 30). In modemsocieties,where the institution of private propertyis well esthe struggle tablishedandproductionis considerablyin excessof subsistence, to surviveis transformedinto a "strugglefor pecuniaryreputability" in which "the desireto excel everyoneelsein the accumulationof goods"is fostered in orderto gain the esteemof the communityandenhanceself-respect(1970 [1899], 39). It will be recalledthatVeblenhadpropoundedthis view in 1892 in his anti-Spencerarticle; in TLC the implications of it are more fully explored. In both works, Veblen emphasizedthat wealth bestowshonor and is thereforeinvidious--hencethe competitionfor statusis an invidious zerosumgamethat affectsall classesto a greateror lesserextent,eventhe impecunious.Veblen's frequent claim in TLC that he used value-loadedterms suchas "waste" and "invidious" in a "technicalsense"with "no intentionto extol or deprecate"is but one of numerousexamplesof his ironic and satirical style (1970 [1899],40; seealso 1964a[1914],190; 1964b [1917],83). The subversivedimensionof Veblen's style, in terms of both highly regardedsocial theorists,such as Spencer(Dorfman 1932), and conventionally reputablesocial classes,such as aristocraciesof earlier times and modem-daybusinessclasses,has not gone without commentbut has often beenthe causeof misunderstanding (Diggins 1978; Eby 1998a;Fine 1994). The award of esteemdependsupon being able to demonstratewealth, which is not easilyachievedif oneengagesin a wastefullifestyle in private. One solution is to provide evidenceof nonindustrialaccomplishmentsthat consumean immoderateamountof time and effort, for example,"a knowledgeof deadlanguagesandthe occult sciences... of the latestproprietiesof dress,furniture, and equipage;of games,sports" (1970 [1899],47). Such activities also have the advantageof enablingthe leisure classto reconcile

LEISURE CLASS CULTURE 105

the "conflicting requirements"of predationand workmanshipby resorting to the "make-believeof purposefulemployment"(77). However, the increasedscaleand impersonalnatureof social interaction puts a premium on the conspicuousconsumptionof goods rather than on leisure as the main meansof demonstratingpecuniarystrengthand hence repute.The effectivenessof conspicuousleisureand conspicuousconsumption as ways of displayingwealth derives fromtheir wastefulness,although no item of expenditureis purely wasteful; even an inordinately expensive watch has an elementof usefulness.Thesestrategiesapply throughoutthe classstructure,but amongthe nonleisureclasses,economicconstraintsmean that they are often performedby othersin the family. Vicarious conspicuous leisure and consumptionby the dependentsof the lower-classmale headof householdarethereforeindicative of the extentto which theseclassesaccept the standardsof reputability setby thoseat the apex of the classsystem. The key word in Veblen'sanalysisis "conspicuous,"sinceit is not just a matterof abstainingfrom usefulwork andconsumingan excessof relatively expensivegoodsandservicesbeyondthatrequiredto live in reasonablephysical comfort, but being seento be behavingin this mannerso as not to risk socialstandingandthereforerespectability.Veblen'sreferenceto the importanceof "spectators"to the "performanceofleisure" (1970 [1899],46,47), and his emphasisthroughouton display in this semiotic processhas been aptly called the "capitalist gaze" (Eby 1998b, 123). Veblen illustratedhis theory of conspicuousconsumptionin greatestdetail with referenceto apparelbecauseit "is alwaysin evidenceandaffordsan indication of our pecuniarystandingto all observersat first glance" and is used more widely to display successthan any other item of consumption (1970 [1899], 119).Aside from the clothing dimension,presentto someextent in all forms of apparel,the "greaterpart of the expenditureincurredby all social classesfor apparelis incurredfor the sakeof a respectableappearance" (119). Thus, Veblen's analysisof dressas a conspicuouslywasteful expressionof pecuniaryculture involved a condemnationof both fashion and woman's"ornamental"role in modemsociety,therebyconfirming both his anticapitalistand his feminist credentials(126). of a In the secondhalf of TLC Veblen exploresthe social consequences leisureclassculture dating from the barbarianera yet surviving to the modem one. Primary amongVeblen'sconcernsis the conservatismof a leisure class,which he attributesto its members'lack of "exposureto the economic forces that urge a change"and to an economicinterestin maintainingthe existing arrangements(1970 [1899], 138). The influenceof the conservatism of the leisure class extendsto all classesby virtue of the prescriptive examplesetby this classand in part dueto the limited resourcesavailableto

106

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

the subordinateclassesto effect change.Thus, in the eventof a surplusafter one'sphysical needshave beenmet, leisure class norms of pecuniarydecencyrequirethat the nonleisureclassesspendit wastefully,consumingconspicuously:"The result is an assimilationof the lower classesto the type of humannaturethat belongsprimarily to the upperclassesonly" (163-64). Leisureclassconservatismalso pervadessocial institutions,which, from Veblen'sevolutionaryperspective,invariably lag behindchangesin waysof living. In otherwords, at best,leisureclasscultureperpetuatesthe "existing a "reversionto a somemaladjustmentof institutions";at worst it encourages what more archaic schemeof life" (1970 [1899], 142). Veblen was most concernedthat leisureclassculture impactsnegativelyon institutionalmanifestationsof workmanshipandconsideredthis issueonly briefly in TLC, but it becamea major themeof his later books. The remainingchaptersof TLC focus on the persistenceof leisure class cultureandthe survival of the more crucial andancientinstinct of workmanship. Veblen considerssport as an exampleof a predatoryactivity with a semblanceof purposefulness,which conservesbarbariantraits such as ferocity and astuteness,while satisfying the leisure class norm of futility. Veblen'slist of "archaicinstitutions," to which his analysisof sport applies, includesthe classsystemplus "nearly all forms of consumptionthat come underthe headof conspicuouswaste;the statusof womenunderthe patriarchal system;and many featuresof the traditional creeds anddevout observances" (1970 [1899], 177). In the case of the latter, it requires the consumptionof conspicuouslywasteful items (vestments)and the abstention from usefulwork (religiousholidays),both of which area survival from an earlier age, impede economicefficiency, and persist among the upper classesandothersfurthestfrom the exigenciesof modemindustry,who "live by, ratherthan in, the industrial process"(208). of selfIn the meantime,Veblensuggeststhat the economicconsequences regarding attitudes fostered by the persistenceof leisure class culture are mitigated partially by residual noninvidious elementsof religion, such as charity andother"expressionsof the senseof humansolidarity" (1970 [1899], 217). Paradoxically,the shieldedsituation and exclusion from productive work experiencedby upper-classwomenleavesthemwith little option other than to focus on communityinterests.However, the "all-pervadingand alldominatingprimacy" of leisure classculture tendsto underminethe manifest object of efforts of this kind (218). For example,charitablebequests ostensiblyconcernedto further the commongoodtypically resultin the constructionof edificesguidedby the normsof conspicuouswasteandexpense, therebyenhancingthe statusof the donor. Lesspessimistically,Veblencommentedfavorably on the challengethat the "new-womanmovement"posed

LEISURE CLASS CULTURE 107

to the ubiquitous leisureclassculture, in large part due to woman's"more than an evenshareof the instinct of workmanship"(232). The final chapterof TLC concernsthe leisure classeconomicinfluence on highereducationandis a prequelto his book basedlargely on his yearsas an observantparticipantat ChicagoUniversity (1965 [1918]). For Veblen, scholasticritual andvestments,discriminatoryattitudestowardwomen,religious affiliations, sports,and fraternitiesall reflect the leisure classorigins of Americanuniversities,and indeedequivalentinstitutionsin otherWestern societies.The trend toward replacementof religious leaderswith business leadersas headsof universitiesrepresents,for Veblen, the "substitutionof pecuniaryfor sacerdotalefficiency," which is a "concomitantof the modem transitionfrom conspicuousleisureto conspicuousconsumption,asthe chief meansof reputability" (1970 [1899],242).More importantthan theseindicatorsof leisureclassculture is the resistanceto innovationby universities, one consequenceof which is a greaterinterestin wasteful yet prestigious branchesof knowledge,suchas classics,than in the more useful scientific subjects.Veblen also contraststhe invidious, male-dominatedworld of universities with the noninvidious, female-dominatedworld of lower education, particularly the kindergarten,which like the new-womanmovement, and for similar reasons,attractsleisure class women. This is a further instanceof how the institution of the leisure class indirectly encourages noninvidiousness,"which may in the long run, prove a menaceto the stability of the institution itself, andevento the institution of individual ownershipon which it rests"(251). Thus, at the end of an otherwisediscouragingaccountof the pernicioussurvival of leisure classculture, Veblen endson an optimistic note by reiteratinghis hopethat workmanshipwill prevail, eventually.

The ConspicuousConsumptionof The Theory ofthe LeisureClass From the perspectiveof a centuryafter the first publicationof TLC, an observation,madeoverforty yearsago,"History hasdealtharshlywith Thorstein Veblen; for surelythereis no othersociologistof his generationwhosewords are so often quotedbut whoseworks are so little read," still appliesto the majority of commentators(Banks 1969, 119). The neglect extendsfrom Parsons'sill-informed and dismissiveclaim, "Quite adequatecomprehension of all Veblen'sreal contributioncan be found in Weber'swork" (1969, 40), to Bourdieu'sfailure to acknowledgeVeblen's contribution, notwithstandinghis use of the term "conspicuousconsumption"and the essentially Veblenianargumentthat "[ c]ompetitivestruggleis the form of classstruggle which the dominatedclassesallow to be imposedon them whenthey accept

108

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

the stakesoffered by the dominantclasses"(1984,165).It is tempting to speculatethat Parsonsand Bourdieu were being overly deferentto Europeansocial theoristsfor reasonsnot unconnectedto a concernfor academic statusand respectability. Moreover, it has been suggestedby Tilman (1992) that there are those who havesoughtto deradicalizeVeblen'ssocialtheory(e.g.,Merton [1958]) and/orto utopianizehis critical analysisof modemcapitalism(e.g., D. Bell [1963]) in an effort to underminehis critique of the statusquo. It has also beenarguedby Eby (1998b)that othershavesoughtto trivialize his account of the role of consumptionby reducingit to one meaning,namely,"statusstriving" (Lears 1989,75). Hencethe more detailedthan usualexpositionof TLC, which (it is hoped)conveysthe theoreticalcomplexitiesand subtleties of this classicbook. Aside from the above,two major lines of critical evaluationhaveemerged since 1899. First, the historical and spatial relevanceof a study associated inextricably with the "Gilded Age" in America hasbeenquestioned;this is unsurprisingsincethis eramore or less encompassed Veblen'scareer,in that it lastedfrom the 1890sto the financial crashof 1929 and was characterized by a culture of high-spendingcaptainsof industry.A major and typical version of this view hasbeenadvancedby Riesman,who arguedthat Veblen's TLC "fitted not too badly the Americanscenefrom the gay 90sto the not so gay 20s.... It has, I believe,beenthe bounteousness of modemindustry, especiallyin America, which has donemore than anything else to make conspicuousconsumptionobsoletehere" (1954, 225). A relatedcriticism is that Veblen operatedwith a unitary model of the classstructurein which consumption patterns"trickle down" from the upperto the lower classes(Slater 1997). The othermain line of criticism of TLC is that it lacks theoreticalcoherenceand is thereforedifficult to verify empirically. Campbell(1995a; 1996) has articulatedthis position in some detail, arguing that the core concept, conspicuousconsumption,canbe formulatedin variousways, for example, subjectively(i.e., in termsof intention) or functionally (Le., in termsof outcome),both of which are sufficiently problematicto "preventthe construction of an operationaldefinition of conspicuousconsumptionand hencethe extraction of a workable theory from Veblen's discussion"(1995a, 37). A similar point hadbeenexpressed,albeit in lessdepth,earlierby Mason,who had noted that "objective and reliable primary researchinto conspicuous behaviour"is very difficult becausethe "conspicuousconsumer,anxiousto display wealthand gain in prestige,will rarely if everexplicitly admit to any suchintentions"(1981, 42). The abundanceof empirical researchduring the twentieth century confirming the prevalenceof conspicuousconsumptionin a variety of societies,

LEISURE CLASS CULTURE 109

often cited by the abovecritics (e.g.,Mason1984, 1989),suggeststhat these criticisms are largely misplaced.First, the alleged limitations in terms of historical applicability andtop-downperspectiveare predicatedon a narrow reading of TLC, which, among other things, ignores Veblen's claim that virtually all goodscontain an elementof wasteand that workmanshipis a sourceof alternativevaluesand as such representsa potential threat to the dominanceof leisure classculture (Brown 1998). Second,the empirically problematiccriticism derivesfrom an overconfidencein the natural science model of sociology.2 From the earliestexperienceof massconsumptionin America (Lynd and Lynd 1929, 1937) to the designerlabels oflate capitalism (Brooks 1981), from the exchangeof Christmasgifts (Werbner 1996) to fashionableclothing (Barnard 1996), from developingsocieties(Colloredo-Mansfield1994) to the mostadvanced(CarpenterandLees 1995),from collectiveaspirations for respectability(MacDonald 1989) to individual ones(Jager1986), from the ongoingcult of domesticity(Peterson1998)to the gloablizationof competitive invidiousness(Olson 1998), evidenceof the continuedrelevance andusefulnessof Veblen'stheory of conspicuousconsumptionis not inconspicuous(Brown 1998; Edgell 1992, 1999). Any doubts that may be harboredregardingthe interpretivevalue ofTLC following considerationof the relevantresearchon this topic could be dispelledby visiting the midwestern United Statesand observingthat the front lawn is still essentiallya pasture. The only differencein the 1990s,ascomparedto the 1890s,is that modelsof cows, deer, or antelopesare also used now, the latter being "preferredbecauseof their superior expensivenessor futility, and their consequentrepute" (Veblen 1970 [1899], 99). Alternatively, onecould simply reflect upon the workmanship(kindergartenandcharitablework) andpredatory(military andsportingactivities)"employments"undertakenby femaleandmalemembersof the contemporaryBritish royal family and their aristocraticnetwork. Continuing in this positive vein, the classimplications of TLC were endorsedandupdatedin bothacademic(e.g.,Galbraith1962;Mills 1956[1951], 1959 [1956]) and popular (e.g., Brooks 1981; Packard1965) accountsof social stratification inAmerica. Similarly with respectto social theoriesof consumption,especiallyclothing,the influenceofTLC is pervasiveandshows no sign of declining. While standardtexts on the sociologyof consumption invariably acknowledgeVeblen'sfounding contribution(Corrigan1997;Lee 2000; Miller 1987), recentstudiesof fashion in Europeand America, particularly those from a critical and/or a feminist standpoint,typically build upon the ideas expressedoriginally in TLC (Baudrillard 1981; Bell 1992; Davis 1992; Finkelstein 1991). Thus, TLC has becomean essentialpart of the discourseof academicsocial sciencewhere it dealswith social inequal-

110

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

ity and consumption,and has enteredpopular consciousness to an extent matchedonly perhapsby the ideasof Darwin, Freud,and Marx.

Long Live the Leisnre Class! When Veblen wrote TLC, a productivistapproachin economicsand sociology predominated,which marginalizedthe study of consumptionand relegatedit to the confinesof utilitarian theory(Lower 1980).In this intellectual climate, Veblen'sthesisthat all consumptioninvolves social as well as economic meaningwas devastatinglyoriginal. It is not uncommonthereforeto find referencesthat credit Veblen with being the "first sociologistto recognize the social significanceof consumptionin its own right" (Miles 1998, 19) and that in the processhe "alerted us to the social meaningof what money buys" (Zelizer 1989,343).Hence,after readingTLC, "No one ... everagainseesthe consumptionof goodsin the samelight" (Galbraith1973, 38). Yet somecommentators,both academic(e.g., Mason [1981]) andjournalistic (e.g., Elliott [1999]), still treat conspicuousconsumptionas an unusual pattern of consumptionassociatedwith the seriously rich, whereas Veblen clearly arguedthat virtually all goods andservicescontain varying elementsof usefulnessand wastefulness,and that "No classof society,not even the abjectly poor, forgoes all customaryconspicuousconsumption" (1970 [1899], 70). Veblen's pathbreakingcontribution to the sociology of consumptionis often likened to that of the GermansociologistSimmel (1858-1918),especially with regardto theoriesof fashion in modemsocieties(Kaiser 1985) and more generallywith regardto the consumerbehaviorof the urban new middle class(Bocock 1993). Suchis the extentof the apparentconvergencies thattheir respectivetheorieshavebeenreferredto asthe"Veblen-Simmelmodel" (Campbell 1992), notwithstandingthat, to my knowledge,an exhaustiveassessmentof their theoriesof consumptionhasyet to be undertaken. In terms of more recent theorists of consumption,the contribution of Bourdieu(1984) is the one most frequentlymentionedin the samebreathas Veblen (Bocock 1993; Miller 1987). This is unsurprising,given the emphasis given by both Veblenand Bourdieuto dominantstatusgroups,hierarchy, competition,and genderroles and to the ways in which consumptiongoods, practices,and above all the social constructionof taste are used by social classesto differentiate themselvesone from another.While Veblen developedhis theory of consumptionbeforethe adventof massconsumptionand illustratedit with specialreferenceto the nouveauxrichesoflate-nineteenthcentury America, Bourdieu built upon Veblen's insights via his extensive large-scalesurveydata on the whole class structureof Francein the 1960s

LEISURE CLASS CULTURE 111

and 1970sand via an emphasison cultural as well as economiccapital. In manyrespects,therefore,Bourdieu'scontributioncomplementsVeblen's,with which it arguably"bearscomparison,in characterandimportance"(Campbell 1995b, 103). Beyondits pivotal role in establishingthe sociologyof consumption,the lasting significanceof TLC also concernsthe contemporaryrelevanceof Veblen'sfocus on feminism and environmentalism,and his theoriesof class hegemonyand cultural lag. At the time Veblen and other"founding fathers" of sociology were writing, institutional sexism was rife in society and academia,yet Veblen was almost alone in his appreciationof the historical exploitation and oppressionof women (Edgell 1987). Veblen'sanalysisin TLC of the subordinaterole of women in consumptionset him apart from his contemporariessuch as Thomas and Ward (Schwendingerand Schwendinger1971),andis an importantdimensionof the Veblenianlegacy (Brown 1998). Similarly, with regard to the issue to environmentalism; Veblen's critique of the tendencyto prioritize form over function, that led "people to go ill clad in order to appearwell dressed"was founded on his abhorrenceof waste(1970 [1899], 119), hasbeenacknowledgedfollowing the increasedpolitical and academicawarenessof the social costsof capitalism (Brown 1998; Kapp 1978). Furthermore,his views on the wastefulness of industrial capitalismwere not limited to conspicuousconsumption,but extendedto the paraphernalia connected to the productionand consumption of goods,suchas advertising,andto the destructionof naturalresources(see especiallyVeblen 1963 [1921], and 1964c[1923D. Thus,TLC wasprogrammatic in that its focus on wastebecame,in his later works, a more generalized and pioneeringconcernwith the social costs of industrial capitalism. Veblen was thereforeaheadof his time in the sensethat he recognizedwhat is more commonly known nowadaysas the environmentaldeficit and the problemof ecologicalsustainability.The combinationof a concernwith the subordinateyet vital economicrole of women,plus the insitutionalizedlegitimation of wastefulness,sets Veblen apart as a singularly relevant ecofeministtheorist and radical critic of modernsociety.3 Second,an underlying themeof TLC was, as Veblen had madeclear in his 1892 article on the political implicationsof emulatoryconsumption,that the tendencyfor the lower classesto conform to the archaic standardsof pecuniarydecencyset by the upper classesresultsin the "strengtheningof the generalconservativeattitude of the community" and the position of the parasitic leisure classin particular (1970 [1899], 141; seealso 190). Since Veblen'stime this processis more usually referredto as hegemony,following the popularizationof this idea by the Italian Marxist Gramsci (18911937), who defined it as the "consentgiven by the great massesof the

112

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

populationto the generaldirection imposedon social life by the dominant fundamentalgroup ... causedby the prestige... which the dominantgroup enjoysbecauseof its positionandfunction in the world of work" (1971,12). Thus, before Gramsci expoundeda Marxist account of class hegemony, Veblen developeda non-Marxist theory of hegemonythat incorporatedthe ideaof cultural lag andillustratedit with referenceto classsystemin America during the Gilded Age (Edgell and Townshend1993).4 Veblen's thesis in TLC-that cultural practices,notably conspicuousconsumption,are more centralto an understandingof the stability of classrelationsand the persistence of capitalismthan mere economicsufficiency-is a messagethat is arguablyof considerablerelevanceat a time of unparalleledeconomicabundance,for some,that was unimaginablein Veblen'sera. Survival of the Unfittest The conceptsurvival is a prominentone in TLC and Veblen'ssociology of modemcapitalismgenerally.I hesitateto note that it is yet anotherindication of the influence of Darwin on Veblen, since the term "survival of the fittest" was coinedby Spencerand only adoptedreluctantlyby Darwin at a later date (Hodgson1994). More precisely,the basic idea of the survival of elementsfrom past societiesinto the present,in other words, social relics that performno function anymore,was developedby the Scottishevolutionist McLennanand madefamousby Tylor (Burrow 1966). The prominence of survival theory in Tylor's researchinto primitive culturesand its centrality in Veblen'swork, especiallyin his theoryof the leisureclass,led Dawson to argue convincingly that Veblen "appropriated"the conceptof survival "from Tylor's anthropology"(1993, 492). In the handsof conservativesocial Darwinists,especiallySumner,andto a lesserextentSpencer,survival of the fittest was the perfectmetaphorwith which to justify the unprecedented economicexpansionof Westernsocieties, nationally and internationally (Hodgson 1994). When it was incorporated into a linear and deterministic theory of evolutionary progress,it combinedtwo ideas,the natural superiority of the dominant class and the inevitability of competitivecapitalism,that were embracedwith some enthusiasmby those who had a vested interest in the system.For example, Hofstadterquotesa numberof American businessmen,contemporariesof Veblen,includingRockefeller,who claimedthat their economicsuccess"representedthe survival of the fittest" and that it was "merely the working-out of the law of nature" (1945, 51). This was undoubtedlyreassuringmorally, advantageous economically,and useful politically to the dominantclass. Needlessto say,asfar asVeblenwasconcerned,it wasall basedon "make-

LEISURE CLASS CULTURE 113

believe" (1970 [1899], 76, 77,172; see also 1969b [1919]). It was part of Veblen'sprojectto understandhow it cameto passthat in America, the leading industrial societyin the world at the beginningof the twentiethcentury, "the 'economicman,'whoseonly interestis the self-regardingoneandwhose only humantrait is prudence,is uselessfor the purposesof modemindustry," yet regardedas "successfulindividuals" and were membersof the "ruling classes"(1970 [1899],153,162;seealso 154, 182).In termsof his theory of institutional change,Veblen argued,"The situationtoday shapesthe institutions of tomorrow through a selective,coercive processby acting upon men'shabitualview of things, and so alteringor fortifying a point of view or mental attitude handeddown from the past" (132-33).The institutions currently in force are the result of adaptationsto past circumstancesand processes,they "are thereforeneverin full accordwith the requirementsof the present"(133). In other words, to the extent that circumstanceschangeall the time, particularly economicones, contemporaryinstitutions are always out of stepwith them.Veblenadded,"At the sametime, men'spresenthabits of thought tend to persist indefinitely, except as circumstancesenforce a change"(133). Thus,inheritedinstitutions,andthe habitsof thoughtassociated with them,operateas a conservativeforce in the evolution of society.In short, Veblen'stheory of survival contradictedthe Social Darwinists'claim, "Whatever is, is right," by assertingthat "the law of natural selection,as applied to humaninstitutions,gives the axiom: 'Whateveris, is wrong'" .(142). Veblen points out that cultural lag is a matterof degreeand that the main factor that facilitates the survival of inherentlyoutmodedstructuresand values is the ruling class: The institution of the leisureclass,by force or classinterestsand instinct, andby preceptandprescriptiveexample,makesfor theperpetuationof the existing maladjustmentof institutions, and even favors a reversionto a somewhatmore archaicschemeof life. (Veblen 1970 [1899], 142) Veblenwasmost concernedwith the profoundlydeleterioussocial consequencesof survival of"arch~ic betweeQtraits," becausethey impactedon workmanship and thereforethe good of the community. This issue is raisedin TLC but not consideredin depthcomparedto its treatmentin Veblen'slaterbooks. Veblen'sanalysisthroughoutis consistentin thathe considersthatthepredatory institutions and activities datingfrom the barbarianera were transformedinto the pecuniaryinstitutionsand activities of the modemera. Thus, forVeblen, modempecuniaryoccupationsaresimilar to traditionalleisureclassoccupations suchas "government,war, sportsand devoutobservances,"in that they too are essentiallypredatory,not productive(1970 [1899],44). By the same

114

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

token, the pecuniaryclassis as "superfluous"as its predecessor(144). Not unsurprisingly,Veblenlikens the contemporary"captainof industry,"5 a telling military euphemism,to the "war lord of barbarianraids" by virtue of their comparabilityas "the effectualspokesmanandtype-formof the kept classesas well as the keeperand dispenserof their keep" (1964c [1923], 114). The only differencebetweenthe predatoryactionspertainingto the two erasis that there is less emphasison force and correspondinglymore on fraud by the modem pecuniaryclassas comparedto its parasiticequivalentin barbariantimes. In contrastto the survival of invidious institutions, of which Veblen is highly critical on the groundsthat they are "relatively superficial,"he seems relievedto report that noninvidiousinstitutionsalsopersist,indeedare difficult to repressindefinitely, let alone erasecompletely,sincethey contribute to the "fullness or facility oflife" (1970 [1899],223,233).This canbe interpretedto refer to the benefit of the whole of societyin just and meaningful ways,asopposedto a small group of self-seekingindividuals. However,it is instructiveto note that the bulk of Veblen'sanalysis,in TLC and elsewhere, was focusedon the survival of predation,not workmanship. The basisupon which Veblenmakeshis judgmentsaboutthe survival of barbarianelements,and which enableshim to claim tirelesslythat they are "morally colorless,"is from what he consideredto be an "evolutionarystandpoint," namelyworkmanship,the most "fundamental"and "ancient"instinct (142, 179). In otherwords, for Veblen, the control of industryby a business classwasa clearcaseof "technologicalunfitness"(1964a[1914], 222). From this perspectiveVeblen arguesthat while modemexpressionsof "predatory humannatureare indispensableto the competitiveindividual, they are not directly serviceableto the community" (1970 [1899], 174). In effect, Veblen is suggestingthat eachcomplex of instincts, habits, and institutions has its own "logic" andthey arediametricallyopposed.Thereis the "logic of workmanship" (1966 [1915], 113) and the "logic of pecuniarythinking" (1975 [1904],319) or "ownership" (1964c [1923],405),and there is little doubt about which one he applied throughouthis work. Veblen's contentionthat the barbariantraits of "ferocity and astuteness"in the present-daypecuniary culture, especiallyamong the captainsof industry" "are of no use for the purposesof the collective life" (1970 [1899], 182) would seemto be an appropriatesociologicalmodification to Darwin's conclusionthat "we are all descendedfrom barbarians"(1874, 613). ConcludingRemarks In additionto the theoreticalinsightsand substantiveconcernsofTLC, notably Veblen'ssocial theorizationof consumption,his analysisof cultural lag,

LEISURE CLASS CULTURE 115

and his accountof hegemony,the exercisein partial recapitulationat the beginningof this chapterindicatesthe symbioticrelationshipbetweenVeblen's theory of cultural evolution and his theory of the leisure class. It is also suggestiveof a theoreticalunity that is all too infrequentlyrecognized(Anderson 1933; Edgell 1975; Friday 1968; Rutherford 1984). The mostimportantsociologicallessonofTLC is that it demonstratedthe social significanceof money with referenceto the cultural imperative of competitiveconsumption,andthis transformedour understandingof the "economic usesof consumption"(Gusfield 1990,39).Although Veblen'sargument that moneybuysmorethanjust useful goodsandservicesmay seemlessoriginal at the beginningof the twenty-first century,in 1899 it was a point of such profoundnessthat it helpedto subvertmainstreameconomicsand to establish the sociologyof consumption(Edgell 1999).The cultural and social significanceof consumptionis not unconnectedin Veblen'sanalysiswith the operationof the classsystemto the extentthat the lower classesconform to the standardssetby the higherclasses.The combinationof this integrativeprocess andinstitutionalinertialedVeblento emphasizethe survival of capitalismrather thanits impendingdemise,despitethe inherentconflict. Veblen's thesis that institutions emergeduring one era but persist into another,resulting in cultural lag and the survival of, at best, inappropriate habits of thought, reaffirms his evolutionary, and particularly Darwinian, approachto social change.Moreover, in the light of the earlier analysisof Veblen'sethnicity, it is interestingto note that Veblen'sconcernto challenge culturally inherited values is anotherexample of how his work resonates with the themesprominentin Ibsen'splays. Specifically, Ibsen'sfocus on the damagewroughtby conformity to social conventionshandeddown from the pastin bothA Doll's Houseand Ghostsis echoedby Veblenin TLC. That this parallel may well be more than mere coincidenceis reinforcedby the fact that Ibsen, as well as Veblen, was familiar with the works of Darwin (Meyer 1991). With the publicationofTLC, Veblen'sstyle of resplendentlyironic sociology contributedto the foundation of the sociological tradition of social criticism (Mills 1967 [1959]), or what hasbeencalled the "debunkingtendency in sociological thought" (Berger 1963, 38). The Veblen effect, as it were, has not gone unnoticed;his influence on other radical sociologists, especiallyin America, has beenthe subjectof attentionnotably with regard to Mills (Tilman 1984) and Robertand Helen Lynd (Shannon1996). TLC also involved satirizing the dominantclassesof different eras and their wastefulconspicuousconsumption.This thememay well haveinspired not just researchon consumption,but certain contemporary,anticapitalist trends.For example,Veblen'secologicalconcernshavebeennotedandseem

116

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

to be enjoying a far higher profile in the more wasteful societiesthan ever before(Larson 1992).Also, notwithstandinghis mockeryof the "affectation and make-believe"of the tendencyfor the middle classesto "escape"from industrial capitalismby returningto the "simple life," which he considereda form of protest(1964c [1923], 319), his contribution to this issuehas also been acknowledged(Dominguezand Robin 1992). Thus in this century, Veblen'senduringlegacy could be practical and intellectual, and I suspect that this would not havedispleasedthe authorof TLC. Notes 1. "EconomicFactorsof Civilization," n.d. notestakenby FredR. Yoder (CUL). 2. For a recentaccountof the false dawn of attemptsto model sociologyon the naturalsciences,seeBryant (1995). 3. Hutchinsonand Burkitt (n.d.) haverecognizedthis aspectof Veblen'swork. 4. For a review ofItalian anticapitalistthOUghtandVeblen,seeTilman andFontana (1985).Veblen usedthe term "hegemony"once,as far as I know (1966 [1915], 141). 5. Veblenrecommended the "moreaccuratewordsthe captainof solvency"(1964c [1923],114).The term "captainof industry" was widely usedduring Veblen'stime andwasassociatedparticularlywith the ScottishhistorianandessayistThomasCarlyle (1795-1881).Veblenpossessed a copy of Carlyle'sPastandPresent,which included a chapterentitled "Captainsof Industry," and hencehe may well have been influencedby Carlyle (WashingtonIsland Library of ThorsteinVeblen, CCA).

6 The Problem: Predatory Institutions

In his critical articles on the economicanalysesof mainstreameconomists Veblen arguedthat they were not scientific in a Darwinian sense,and therefore their accountsof capitalismwere not objective. In short, "hedonistic economicsmay be takenas an interpretationof humannaturein termsof the market-place"(Veblen 1969a[1919], 141). Accordingly, in Veblen'sview, capitalism was neither inevitable nor universally beneficent,since it was predicatedon the false assumptionthat "the competitive system,with its underlyinginstitution of property,is equitableand 'natural'''(207). Integral to Veblen's rejection of conventionaleconomicswas his claim that it was basicallythe ideologicalexpressionof the dominantcapitalistvalues.Veblen regardedthis asunderstandable in that, "the point of view of economistshas alwaysbeenin largepart the point of view of the enlightenedcommonsense of their time" (86). However, this did not inhibit Veblen from criticizing thosewhom he admiredyetjudgedto be unscientificapologistsfor the existing capitalist system, such as Alfred Marshall and Herbert Spencer.In Veblenianlanguage,the essentialproblemof capitalismwas not only that it was rooted in the relatively ephemeralinstincts summedup by the word "predation,"but that the habits and institutions that were an outgrowth of this self-regardingpropensityoperated,most profoundly in the modemera, to the detrimentof technologicalprogressand thereforethe communityas a whole, yet it seemedto be flourishing ratherthan wilting. At the sametime Veblen was beratingothersfor their lack of objectivity and for acting as apologistsfor capitalism,its obsoleteinstitutions, and its exploitativeruling class,he claimed that he was concernedwith causality, not morality, mostnotablywhenhe defendedhimselffrom "Mr. Cumming's Strictures" (Ardzrooni 1964 [1934]). This affirmation of his scientific de117

118

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

tachmentwas not an isolatedoccurrence,but was expressedby Veblen on innumerableoccasions,someof which havebeencited earlierin the context of his accountof the leisure class.Similarly, with respectto his analysisof capitalism,he referredto the "self-regarding"dimensionof "humannature" as a "humaninfirmity," but professedthat it was not his intention to be "derogatory"; it was simply a matterof the "facts" (l964a [1914], 190). The issueof the credibility of Veblen's;oft-repeatedplea of scientific objectivity hasbeenthe subjectof a not inconsiderabledebate.A recentreview of this controversyhassuggestedthat attemptsto resolvethis mattermay be reducedto three"generalapproaches"(Bush 1999, 127). With a selectionof appropriatequotations,some have arguedthat Veblen was a "positivist"; othershavesaidthat he wasa positivist who "lapsed"from time to time; and still othershavereasonedthat his positivismwas a "rhetorical stratagem"to confusehis detractors,andhencethe "normativeVeblenis real" (Bush 1999, 128). Bush rejects thefirst view on the groundsthat the normativedimension of Veblen'swork is too prominentto sustainthe obverseposition. He dismissesthe secondbecausethe habitualresortto normativejudgmentsby Veblen makesit unlikely that such occasionswere merely linguistic accidents. This leavesBush with the problem of reconciling the "normative Veblen"with his protestationsof scientific objectivity (146). This he achieves by arguingthat "Veblen'snormativemethodologyanticipatesJohnDewey's theoriesof inquiry and instrumentalvaluationand is wholly consistentwith them" (127). The main difficulty with this line of argumentis that it involves"crediting a writer with a meaninghe could not have intendedto convey, since that meaningwas not availableto him" (Skinner 1969, 9). The other strand in Bush'sargumentis derived from the work of Tool (1996) and others,who have suggestedthat Veblen adheredto a theory of instrumentalvalue that informed his assessmentof the desirability or otherwiseof social institutions. Remarksin chapter5 regardingthe impersonalevolutionarystandard by which he judged institutions could be interpretedwithin this normative methodologicalframework. However,onepossibleway of resolvingthe problemof the juxtaposition in Veblen's works of normative and objective statementsis suggestedby Bushbut underplayedby him. This approachis to emphasizeVeblen'sfamed of scientific objectivity as ironic style, which interpretshis pronouncements a rhetoricalstrategydesignedto subvertconventionalunderstandingsof the social order. In otherwords, give due regardto the complexity and intended quality of Veblen'srhetoric (Toulouse1985),and to the seriousnessof both his irony andhis satire(Dawson1993; Eby 1998a).The apparentcontradiction betweenthe normativeand objectiveaspectsof Veblen dissolvesin the

THE PROBLEM 119

recognition that his repeateddenial of the ethical import of the words he usedwasintrinsic to his ironic style of analysis.For example,on the reasonable assumptionthat one of the importantobjectivesof Veblen'saccountof the survival of leisure class culture was to undermineits legitimacy, concepts suchas "invidious" and "waste" in an ostensibly"technical" manner (1970 [1899],40, 78) were not only selecteddeliberatelyto challengethe prevailing commonsenseviewpoint (that is to say, ruling class "canons") that predatoryinstincts,habits,and institutionsare "expressionsof a normal and wholesomehuman nature" but were also used to attack the myth of objective social science(1970 [1899], 179, 227). Thus, the normative dimensionto Veblen'swritings was built-in, and this can be explicatedwith referenceto his philosophicalmethod,his linguistic method,or both. That Veblen was a moralist seemsto be beyond doubt among both his detractors,suchas Cummings(1899), and his admirers,for example,Friday (1968). However, the extent to which Veblen managedto camouflagehis radicalpolitical messagevia irony and satireis still a matterof somedebate. On the onehand,thereare thosewho qualify the label "moralist" by adding, "even if his valueswere not always apparentto his readers"(Tilman 1996, 125). On the other hand,it hasbeennotedthat while his critique of the leisure class was "veiled," his "appreciationof what he seesas an emerging industrial culture" was "not-so-veiled"(Toulouse1985,266).The apparent lack of moral transparencyin writings is arguablybeliedby the consistency with which he lapsed,to paraphraseBush (1999),into explicitly judgmental languagewithout any hint of disclaimers.A few exampleswill haveto suffice in the presentanalysis,sincesomehavebeenindicatedalreadyandothers will be introducedas and when appropriate.Veblen describedleisure classculture and institutions,andthe modernpecuniaryequivalents,as "superfluous,""dispensable,""useless,"and"parasitic"(1970 [1899],143,144, 162). In particular,Veblenportrayedpost-Civil WarAmericaunambiguously "as the recrudescenceof outlawry and the spectacularquasi-predatorycareersof fraud run by certain 'captainsof industry'" (241). Conversely,the economy"shouldbe managedas to give the bestand largestpossibleoutput of goods andservices"(Veblen 1975 [1904], 157), which for Veblenmeans that the "industrial systemhadbestbe entrustedto men skilled in thesemattersof technology"(1969b[1919], 89). This antipredation,proworkmanship languageis hardly that of a value-free,dispassionateanalyst. In social scientific treatisesit is rare for the style of the writing to attract as much attentionas the content.Veblen was an exception,but the price he paid for his original useof the Englishlanguagewasmisinterpretation.Commentatorshaveregularly focusedon his style at the expenseof the message. Even admirerssuchas Mills have failed to look beyondthe humorousstyle

120

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

to discernthat Veblen was extremelyconcernedaboutthe power of the ruling classto setthe standardsfor all classes(Eby 1998a).In Veblen'scasehis style cannotbe separatedfrom content(Fine 1994). Veblen was fully aware of the significanceof language,as the final chapterof TLC makesabundantly clear,for it is at the end of his analysisof the variablestatusof different forms of speechthat he wrote, in his trademarkironic style, that the "cumbrousand out of date" languageof the leisure classcreates"the need for direct and forcible speech"(1970 [1899],258). To risk repeatingwhat othershavewritten aboutso lucidly (Eby 1998a; Fine 1994; Toulouse 1985), the centrality of Veblen's style is such that a coupleof furtherpointsareworthy of attention.Theoft-notedcircumlocutory constructionof his arguments,which tend to culminate in memorably oxymoronicphrases,combinedwith the extensiveuseof the morereputable forms of expressionand frequentprofessionsof scientism,simultaneously lulls anyonewho supportssomewhatunreflectively the statusquo into the securityof thinking that what is underconsiderationis a "matterof common observation,"only to discoverthat the "devout consumptionof goods and services... may, without implying deprecation,be broadlycharacterizedas itemsof conspicuouswaste,"andassuchhonorific (1970 [1899],201).Comparableexamplesaboundin all Veblen'swritings, but mostfamouslyin TLC; invariably "commonplace"manifestationsof dominantvaluesare selected from "everyday facts as lie ready at hand" before they are subvertedand ridiculed,particularlythosepertainingto competitivepecuniaryconduct(1970 [1899], 164). It is difficult to imagine the shock value of Veblen's many punchlines, deliveredwith a straightface to an audiencebaskingin the glow of their economicsupremacyand the certaintythat their God was on their side. For Veblen,leisureclassreality wasan illusion, albeit a very successful one,at leastin its own terms;it waspositivelyharmful whenjudgedfrom the standpointof Veblen'sradical perspective. Veblen'swritings blurred the distinction betweenfiction and nonfiction to greateffect theoreticallyand in the sensethat his style is more typical of literature than social science.The most obvious and apt literary parallel is affordedby the works ofIbsen,with whoseplays,as hasbeennotedearlier, Veblen was undoubtedlyfamiliar. Thus, in addition to irony, the Ibsenite qualities of "doubledensity,when the characterssay one thing and mean another,"andhis penchantfor "circumlocution,"pioneeredin Ghosts(Meyer 1991,24),areprominentin Veblen'swritings. The claim that Ibsen'sdistinctive style was "one of his most importantcontributionsto the techniqueof prosedrama" could apply equally to Veblen (24). Suchis the comparability of their styles that lines from Ibsen'splays would not look out of place in Veblen'sbooks. Take, for example,the shock value in Victorian society of

THE PROBLEM 121

the oxymoron"fallen man,"especiallywhenutteredby a middle-classwoman, andthe ideaexpressedin this passage:"[W]e are all ghosts----allof us," says Mrs. Alving to her Pastor;warming to her themesheadds:"It isn't just what we haveinheritedfrom our father andmotherthat walks in us. It is all kinds of deadideasand all sortsof old and obsoletebeliefs" (Ibsen 1991 [1881], 59,62).The literary deviceswere the sameand the responsewas the same. In Europe, Ibsen'splays, in a well-worn euphemisticphrase,scandalized polite society;the self-nominateddefendersof conventionalnormswerecritical, ignoredthe playsaltogether,or censoredthemby refusingto allow them to be performedin public. In 1882 Ghostsreceivedits world premierein Chicago,where it was performedappropriatelyin the original languagefor an audienceof Scandinavianimmigrants,beforetouring the Midwest. It was over a year before it was put on in Norway in 1883, by a touring Swedish company,andwasnot performedby Norwegiansin Norway until 1890,fully nine yearsafter it was first published(Meyer 1991). Given Veblen'swelldocumentedinterestin Ibsen,thereis everypossibility that he attendedperformancesof both GhostsandA Doll's House,sincehe was residingin the Midwest at the time they werebeingperformedin that region. If Veblentook his literary cue from Ibsen,then the extentand depth of his Nordic cultural capital is evengreaterthan at first surmised. The beguiling linguistic devicesperpetratedby Veblenin his first bookthe useof irony and satireas a style intrinsic to the content,and specifically, variousrhetoricalstrategies,includingthe tendencyto contradictthe reader's expectations,the constructionof oxymorons,and the circumlocutoryform of argument,plus a generoussprinkling of moral imperatives----areall exemplified in his later works to a greateror lesserextent. The themeof all his later booksand articleswas the rise, spread,and persistenceof the business system.

The Rise of PredatoryInstitutions The Theoryofthe BusinessEnterprise(1975 [1904D, hereafterreferredto as TBE, was but an initial historical explorationof the problemof predationin the modemera that was subsequentlyextendedto include an international dimension,before Veblen returnedin his final book to the sameissuewith special referenceto America, namely, AbsenteeOwnershipand Business Enterprisein RecentTimes(1964c [1923]), hereafterreferredto as AOBE. In betweenthesetwo books,in additionto his accountof evolutionarychange, Veblen publishedfive other books on modem capitalism. Consideredtogether,Veblen'ssevenbookson the workingsof capitalismshowthat he was emboldenedto moralizemore frequently as time went by.

122

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

In the analysis of capitalism, market, Veblen's maincompetitorswere Karl Marx and Max Weber. Veblen critiqued the former explicitly and at length, whereashe merely alluded to the latter, albeit somewhatcritically. ThatVeblenwas cognizantof both the Marxian and the Weberiantheoriesof moderncapitalism,in addition to all the othermajor Europeansocial theorists, notablyHerbertSpencerarid WernerSombart,suggeststhat thesewriters, and their followers, constituteda significant section of the academic audiencefor whom he was writing. In Veblen'spre-TBE articles he had addressedthe argumentsadvancedby both the main defender(Spencer)and the main attacker(Marx) of modern capitalism (1969a [1919]). TBE was thereforeVeblen's first opportunity to establishhis own position on this issue,althoughthe reactionto the publicationof his theoryof the survival of leisure classculture and institutions into the presentday had no doubt forewarnedpotential readersaboutwhat to expect. Veblen tracesthe origins of modern capitalismto the handicraftera in Englandbetweenthe fifteenth andeighteenthcenturies,whenthe urbanartisanand tradersupplant"the prince, the soldier, and the priest" as "the tonegiving factors" in economiclife (1975 [1904], 76). In particular,their new habitsof thoughtinvolve the "doctrine of a 'natural' right of propertybased on productivelabor" (79). The key issuefor Veblen regardingthis featureis that "[it] fits into the presentschemeof handicraft,and is lessfully in consonancewith the facts of life in any other situation than that of handicraft" (79). It will be recalledthat Veblen had labeledthis era "quasi-peaceable" (1970 [1899], 58). At othertimes he describedit as the peaceablepecuniary culture,to contrastit with the predatorypecuniaryphaseand to indicatethat, althoughthe "self-regardingimpulses"are still culturally dominant,workmanshipreemergesas an influential force (Veblen 1964a[1914], 172). By the time of the late predatorybarbarianera, most notably in northwesternEuropewhereonly a moderateregimeof statuswas everinstituted, "the growth of institutionshasshifted from the footing of prowessto that of prescriptiveownership,"which allows workmanshipto "comeinto the foreground," which in turn encouragedthe "growth of conditions favorable to their further advance"(203). In effect, Veblen arguesthat in the relatively peacefulconditionsof the late Middle Ages, workers and their tools are enabled to break free from the traditional restrictions of feudalism, such as bondsof fealty and the guild system,and to increaseproduction.Moreover, there is a "[l]anded interest"in the emergingsituation, inthe sensethat the increasein productionbenefitsthe "propertiedclass" (275). Very soon the limitations of the arbitrary manorial systemare exposedas the increased demandfor "superfluities" by the wealthy landowning class, and into the breachcomethe heroesof the age:

THE PROBLEM 123

Herecomesthe opportunityof the skilledmasterless workman.Thegrowth of wealth has provideda place for him in the economyof the time, and having oncegot a foothold he and his followers congregatein the towns and find a living by the work of their hands.(Veblen 1964a[1914], 276) Veblen emphasizesthat this new classtook advantageof the opportunity at "greatcostandrisk," exhibited considerable "initiative," madeandworked simple tools,and was "tenacious"in assertingtheir "personalrights" (1964a [1914],276). Such was their successthat their self-relianceand productive efficiency becamethe "acceptedgroundsof reputeand livelihood," a "tradition" that continuedinto the modemera (276). Veblen'sanalysisof the independentworker applied to the trader: "The pettytradewhich characteristicallyrunsalongwith the developmentof handicraft was carried on after the samedetail fashion and was presentlyorganized on lines afforded by the sameprinciples of work for a livelihood" (1964a[1914], 232). In otherwords,the term "handicraftera" is a shorthand for this quasi-peaceable era, since: "Livelihood was a fundamentalnorm of businessregulations;profits had but a secondarystanding,if any," for both self-employedworkers and traders(Veblen 1975 [1904],276). Both groupsrelied on their individual qualities of hard work and initiative; their relationswith customers,andemployeesif they had any, wereof a personalcharacter;neither was "constrainedby conventionalregulations, statuatoryor customary";andtherewas"an openfield offree competitionin which manmet manon a somewhatequitablefooting" (270). This era,however, was not totally without survivalsfrom the previousone. For example, Veblen noted that even at the end of the sixteenthcentury, in Englandlaw and customregardingcontractsinvolving money,"were in a less advanced state,admitteda less full and free discretion,than the correspondingdevelopmenton the Continent"(81). Veblen'saccountof the independentworker borderson the fulsome: "In the technologyof handicraftthe central fact is always the individual workman,whetherin the crafts properor in the petty trade" (1964a[1914], 234). Individual workers rely on their own resources,owe "nothing to inherited wealthor prerogative,"andare"boundto no relationoflandlordor tenantto the soil" (235). They are a creativeforce and the "embodimentof efficiency and serviceability" who draw upon the "common stock of knowledge" to impressiveeffect by "fashioningthings for use" (235, 243). It is in this context that Veblen suggeststhat "workmanshipratherthan prowessagainbecomesthe chief or primary norm of habitation,and thereforethe growth of institutions; and that there results, therefore,a peaceablebent in the ideals and endeavoursof the community" (204). The spannerin the works was the

124

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

institution of ownership,which "had shiftedfrom the footing of prowessto that of prescriptiveownership"and as such wasa survival from the predatorybarbarianerathat generatedinvidious distinctionsof a pecuniarykind (203). The duality of the handicraftera ceasesto be a caseof two equal parts. The advanceof technologyand the consequentincreasein the scaleof work promotea growing divergencebetweenproductiveandpecuniaryelements. In due course,the increasingsignificanceof the impersonalityof the market beginsto dominateeconomic interaction,and a slow but suredeclinein the "primacy" of the independentworker, and hencein workmanship,ensues. Fromthis point on, the "masterlessman" is doomed,the samefate that befell Kipling's "masterlessman," with the "captainsof industry" playing the role of primal hordewho slay the hero (Bloom 1987,2).1 Thus, although the demise of the predatorybarbarianera was "partly favourable to workmanshipand partly otherwise,"the "progressivedifferentiation" of the pecuniaryandproductiondimensionsof small-scalebusiness operationsresultedin the fonner gaining in prominenceat the expenseof the latter (Veblen 1964a[1914],187).Veblen'saccountof the interactionofpredation and workmanshipduring the "quasi-peaceable regime of business"was highly complex(194).It involved a discussionof the "self-contaminationof the senseof workmanship,"suchas anthropomorphism,which is in tum undermined by the impersonalcharacterof pecuniaryaccounting,and an analysis of the ramificationsof this culture of objectivity for the growth of scienceas well as technology(243). For similar reasons,Veblen'saccountof the end of the handicraft era was portrayedas an equally complicatedprocess"of a cumulative character"(280-81).The transition was protracted,and while Veblen consideredtechnologicaladvancesto be "decisive,"they operatedin conjunctionwith other factors, suchas orderly trade,which then stimulated the demandfor yet more products,the satisfactionof which was beyondthe capacitiesof anyoneindependentworker (228). In tennsof institutions, the significanceof the handicraftera is that the "schemeof Natural Rights, and of Natural Liberty, which so emergesis of a pronouncedindividualistic tenor" wasentirely congruentwith the small-scale productiveand trading conditionsprevalentat the time; that is to say, it was to the advantageof all (1964a[1914],287).However,at the end of this era, industry and its productswere increasinglycontrollednot by the individual worker-ownerbut by a separateclassof owners.Veblenregardedthis change from worker control of industry and tradeto capitalist control to be of the gravestimport due to its impact on work and workers: Whenthis changehastakenpassablyfull effect the workmanwas already securein his civil (natural) right to disposeof his workmanship,as he

THE PROBLEM 125

thoughtbest,but the circumstances of employmentundercapitalisticmanagementmadeit impossiblefor him in fact to disposeof his work exceptto theseemployers,andvery muchon their terms,or to disposeof his person exceptwherethe exigenciesof their businessmight requirehim. And the similarly inalienableright of ownership,which hadsimilarly emergedfrom useandwont underthe handicraftsystem,but which now in effect secured the capitalist-employerin his control of the materialmeansof industrythis sacredright of propertynow barredout any move that might be designedto reinstatethe workman in his effective freedom to work as he choseor to disposeof his personandproductas he sawfit. (Veblen 1964a [1914], 290) Thus, the businessprinciples upon which moderncapitalismis founded were developedduring the handicraftera, although,in point of origin, they were, accordingto Veblen, much older in that they could be tracedback to the predatoryerathat precededit, "being substantiallyof the samenatureas that sentimentalimpulse to self-aggrandizement that lies at the root of the predatoryculture and so makesthe substantialcore of all pecuniarycivilizations" (1964a[1914], 216). Veblen's characterizationof the machine era, so called becauseof the underlyinghabitsof thoughtupon which it depends,ratherthan the designation businessera, despite the ascendancyof its cultural imperatives,was reasonablyconventional.Its main interlocking featuresincludedthe following: (1) a competitive systembasedon property and contract, (2) a price systembasedon money as the measureof efficiency, (3) a technological systembasedon the mechanicalarts and the standardizationof processes and products,(4) a consumptionsystemsimilarly standardized,(5) a largescalesystembasedon private ownershipof both the plant and the technology, and (6) a managerialsystemin the control of the owners(Veblen 1964a [1914], 218-20). The key point for Veblen is that it is a systemin which control resideswith the ownersquite legitimately in terms of rules of property and contractestablishedduring the handicraftera, but from the standpoint of the "technologicalexigenciesof the machinesystem,"they are the least "competent"in terms of "training" and "interest" (344). According to Veblen, somemembersof the businessclassare awareof their "unfitness" and have delegatedoperationalcontrol to "efficiency experts,"but it is efficiencyin termsof "pecuniarygain" ratherthan "industrial efficiency" (345). Meanwhile, the businessclass "retain the decisive discretionarycontrol in their own incompetenthands,"sincethe bottom line, as it were, is that it is a businessinstitution, not an industrial institution (345). What was thereforeunconventionalabout Veblen's accountof modern capitalismwas his claim that it was a form of predationthat had orginatedin

126

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

the barbarianera, that it was organizedon the basisof the conditionsthat prevailedduring the handicraftera, and that the consequences of the business control of industry were largely negative from the standpointof the fullest developmentof workmanship.Veblen's most succinct summaryof the derangements inherentin a profit-basedsystemwere listed in The EngineersandthePrice Systemas: (1) ''unemploymentof materialresources,equipment and manpower";(2) "salesmanship";(3) ''production(and sales-costsof superfluitiesand spuriousgoods)"; and (4) "systematicdislocation,sabotage, and duplication" (1963 [1921], 112). For good measure,Veblen addshis characteristicdisclaimer:"There is, of course,no blame,and no senseof blameor shameattachingto all this everydaywasteand confusion"(112). The irony intrinsic in this statementis affirmed whereVeblen showsthat "businessjargon" is "borrowed from gaming slang," such as referring to "businesstransactions"as "deals" involving an elementof "bluff' (1975 [1904], 33; see also 1964c (1923), 143). The use of this simile reinforces Veblen'snormativeagendain that it emphasizesthat playing pokerandbusinessrequire the samequalities and that both are essentiallydysfunctional andimmoral. Moreover,by presentingmodembusinessas a game,Veblenis not only mockingthe heroic statusof the businesstycoonbut also sustaining his themethat the outmodedideasthat legitimize the systemare all part of a "network of make-believe"he is seekingto demystify (1969b [1919],47). This wasconspicuousrhetoricalstrategyin Veblen'swritings, as canbe seen from the frequencyand variety of predatorycontextsin which he usesthis and sport (1970 description,including his discussionof conspicuous leisure [1899], 170), and nationalism(1964c [1923],64),plus similar termssuchas "delusion"to describeequallyarchaiccultural survivalssuchas imperialism (1969b [1919], 132). Notwithstandingthe radical thrust of Veblen'sdistinctive thesis,he notes that the dominationof industryby predatorybusinessis not entirely deleterious since even membersof the businessclassare moved by the instinct of workmanship(for instance,in preventingrailway accidents),albeit to a lesser extent than other peopleand invariably "within the rangeof businessprinciples, not in contraventionof them" (1975 [1904],43). Further, Veblen's generositytoward the rise of capitalism extendsto the role of "pecuniary gain" as "incentive to industry" in the contextof relatively free competition and free labor (1964a[1914], 185; seealso 175). The rise of the predatoryyet peaceablehandicraft era was not just the beginningof the "modem[capitalistic] era" (Veblen 1964a[1914],209;see also 302), but it also inaugurateda new class,the middle class,and with it a classsystemthat hassurvivedto this day in all thosesocietiesthat operateon modemcapitalisticprinciples,which, in a global system,effectively means

THE PROBLEM 127

virtually all societies(Edgell 1993). In the era of handicraft,"workmanship is combinedand compoundedwith ownership,"and thereforework and its rewardsare "the affair of a class;whereasin the savagecommunities... the technologyand the livelihood in question are those of the community at large" (Veblen 1964a(1914], 204, 296). Veblen notedthat at first this class was relatively lowly in terms of wealth and position but "becamethe dominant elementwithin the local community" by the end of the era, located betweenthe "meritorious" predatoryupperclassand the "discreditable"industrial working class(184, 296). In stark contrastto Weberand his Protestantethic thesisfirst published in 1904-D5 (Giddens 1976), Veblen attributed the rise of this peculiarly pecuniaryculture not to changesin religious attitudes,but to the combination of the impersonaland quantitativecharacterof the "accountancyof price," plus the "growth of material sciencethat runs along as a concomitant of the expansionof the mechanicalindustry during the era of handicraft," which he called "scientific accountancy"(1964a[1914],245,246, 264). In effect, writing a decadeafter Weber, Veblen reversedhis variables;"the fundamentalsof the [Christian] faith wereinfusedwith the spirit of the handicraftsystem,"or, in other words, they were "revised and reconstructedin terms consonantwith the workmanlikeconceptions"of that era (255, 266). Interestingly,bothVeblenandWebercited the works of Sombartandwere influencedby them,but they were also critical of Sombart,especiallyWeber in the extensivefootnotesto his famousthesis.As far asVeblenis concerned, he reviewedand referredfrequently to Der ModerneKapitalismus(1902), which was in part economichistory and in part social theory. In his review of his accountof the Veblen praisedSombartfor the comprehensiveness history of modemcapitalismand for his "careful distinction" betweenbusinessandindustry,but wascritical of Sombartfor concentratingon continental Europesincethe "institutionalandmaterialfoundationsof modembusiness enterprise... are of British derivationand are not found in their bestdevelopmentoutsidethe English-speakingcommunities"(Dorfman 1973 [1903], 504). However,in a long footnote in chapter9 of TBE, oddly neglected by Loaderet al. (1991), and in Veblen'sfullest accountof evolutionarychange, in which he citesthis book in supportof his analysisof the rise of capitalism (1964a[1914], 244), Veblen indicatesthat he placesmore weight on technological changes,albeit stimulatedby the growth of marketforces, than does Sombart,in relationto the rise of scienceand capitalism(1975 [1904],367). Thus Veblen's intellectual debt to Sombartconcernshis economichistory andhis conceptualframeworkratherthan his explanationof the rise of modem capitalism.2

128

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Pecuniary Institutions: Contamination and Conservation

During the handicraftsystem,workmanshipflourishedunderthe "more covert regime of predation,"but this was its "undoing," and consequently,by the end of this era, the upperhandhad passedto the owners(Veblen 1964a [1914], 183,270).For Veblen the handicraft and machinestages"overlap very extensively"(321).Thehandicraftsystemoffreeworkersandfree traders "outgrew itself and broke down into a new phaseof pecuniaryculture" following the increasedscaleand complexity of industry (213). The defining featureof the machineera was "the supremedominanceof pecuniaryprinciples, both as standardsof efficiency and as canonsof conduct" (216). In other words, the "logic of pecuniarydetail" prevailedover the "logic of the machineprocess"(212, 241). The increasingasymmetricaldifferentiationbetweenfinancial and industrial institutions led to workmanship'sbeing "contaminatedwith ideals of self-aggrandizement and the canonsof invidious emulation"to suchan extent that"even the serviceabilityof any given action or policy for the common good comesto be rated in terms of the pecuniarygain" (Veblen 1964a [1914], 217). Picking up on his class theory of conspicuousconsumption, Veblen arguesthat it is not just workmanshipthat is "rated in termsof salesmanship,"but that"commonsensein the community"alsobecomes"trained" to judge goodsin terms of their "pecuniarymerit and invidious distinction" ratherthan their "material serviceability" (217, 218).Veblen is alive to the moral dimensionof the cultural ascendancyof pecuniaryvalues. He notes that anyonewho missesan opportunityto achievefinancial gain and display pecuniarysuccessby consumingconspicuouslyis condemned"for shiftlessness,"which is the modemexpressionof the lack of esteemthat attachesto manuallabor in predatorycultures(217). No institution or individual is exemptfrom the commercializationof everyday life, hencethe privatization of knowledge (Veblen 1969b [1919]); the businessdominationof universities,national politics, and international relations(Veblen 1964b [1917];1965 [1918]); 1966[1915]); and workersof "all kinds and grades"who are "imbued with the samepecuniaryprinciples of efficiency" and "go about their work with more than half an eye to the pecuniaryadvantage"(Veblen 1964a(1914], 346).As Veblenarguedin TLC, and reiteratedin later writings, this is the route to respectability:"The standardsof propriety imposedon the communityby the betterclasseswill have a considerablycorrectiveeffect on the frame of mind of the commonman" (18~6). betweeQ Veblen also repeatshis argumentthat a pecuniaryculture dominated by a businessclass is the "most seriousobstacleto the advancein workmanship"and that this is not to the "material advantageof the commu-

THE PROBLEM 129

nity" (350, 351). This is a subdued expression of the pivotal Veblenianthesis that predationand workmanshipoperatein all societiesat "cross-purposes," to the benefit of the few and the detrimentof most (348). Veblen's accountof the extent to which pecuniaryculture contaminates workmanshipdoesnot ignore counteractivefactors,notablythe cultural significanceof the machineprocess.The "machineprocesspervadesthe modem life and dominatesit in a mechanicalsense,"but it impactsmoreon those who come into direct contactwith it than thosewho are only indirectly involved (Veblen 1975 [1904], 306). According to Veblen, "What the discipline of the machineindustryinculcates... in the habitsoflife andof thought in the workman, is the regularity of sequenceand mechanicalprecision" (309). These experiencesare thought by Veblen to engendera greaterrespectfor "the laws of material causation"ratherthan "thoseof immemorial custom,authenticity,or authoritativeenactment"(311). Importantly,Veblen distinguishesbetweenthosewho are controlledby the machineprocessand thosewho are in control of it. He suggeststhat workers of the first type are less likely than those of the secondto be influencedby the culture of the machineprocessin a positive way, and are correspondinglymore likely to find that their intellectualcapacitiesareunderdeveloped by their work. Those who are not involved at all industrially are constrained"to take cognizance of the mechanicalapparatusof everydaylife," but they are even more inclined to think in pecuniaryterms(316). As if to anticipatehis eventualconclusions,Veblen entersa major qualification to the cultural impact of the machineprocessby noting: "There is presentin the human nature of all classestoo large a residueof the propensitiesandaptitudescarriedover from the past and working to a different result" (309). He also addsthat the machineerais youngerandlesswidespreadthan the pecuniaryculture, in effect sayingthat the competition,as it were, is too strongat the moment. However,Veblen is not entirely without hope,sincehe also suggeststhat the "moral effect of the machinetechnology"is to weakenworkers'support for the "natural right of property" and to increasetheir support for trade unionism,which is, in theory,"at variancewith the natural-rightsfoundation of the commonlaw" (1975 [1904],327,329).Veblensuggeststhat the distributionof oppositionalattitudesto businessinstitutionsis uneven;"it is found in vigorous growth only in thosecommunitiesand particularly amongthose classeswhose life is closely regulatedby the machinetechnology" (35051). According to this analysis,in time the corrosivecultural effects of machine technologywill reducethe "senseof conviction, allegiance,or piety toward the receivedinstitutions,"particularly amongthosewho overseethe process(Veblen 324). Thus, there is somelimited dissentregardingpecuniary priorities, althoughin time it can be expectedto increase,unless"some

130

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

other cultural factor, alien to the machinediscipline, comesin to inhibit its spreadand keep its disintegratinginfluencewithin bounds"(373). Veblen'saccountof moderncapitalism,with specialreferenceto America, was thereforeorganizedaroundthe issue of which "cultural trend" is currently dominant,and which one is most likely to prevail in the future, the culture of predationor the culture of workmanship(1975 [1904],373). In the light of the materialpresentedabove,therewould seemto be little doubt that Veblen was on the side of the forces that were conduciveto workmanship, not the forcesthat favoredthe survival of the archaichabitsandinstitutions associatedwith predation.Veblen's assessmentof the state of play betweenthe forces of conservatismand thosefor radical changein modern (American)societywas an undercurrentin all his major works, yet nowhere did he presenta completeand thoroughanalysisof this issue.Consequently, recourseto a variety of Veblen's writings is necessaryin order to achieve somethingto this effect. It will be recalledthat in TLC Veblen outlined his generaltheory of institutional inertia and cultural lag in relation to the survival of leisure class of which for the communitywere "of the natureof culture,the consequences an arrestedspiritual development,"which over time amountedto a "conservative trend" (1970[1899],145).Specifically,Veblenadvanceda classtheory of socialintegrationin which the authoritativepositionof the dominantclasses enabledthemto setthe standardsthat othersemulated.Although thereis not sucha well-defined leisure classin the work culture of the modernera, the samemodel of cultural lag is appliedto the persistenceof predatoryinstitutions "adaptedto the requirementsof handicraftandpetty trade"that survive into the machineage (1964a[1914], 342). This is thereforeanotherillustration of Veblen'sDarwinian axiom, "Whateveris, is wrong," to somedegree (1970 [1899], 142), and his underlying thesis that all institutions are destined to be obsoletein time, "as is true of any institution that eventually countsfor much in humanlife and culture" (1964c [1923], 102). The inherentstability of social institutions as "settled habits of thought commonto the generalityof men" was a recurrentthemein Veblen'swritings (1969a[1919],239;seealso 1969b[1919],130; 1964c [1923],432).In Veblen'sview, "social inertia" wasoftenbolsteredby cultural longevity,which tendedto enhancethe reputability of an institution, particularly when it is also associatedwith dominantratherthan subordinateclasses(1970 [1899], 133). Thesefactors facilitated the survival and ongoingcultural influenceof the leisure class well beyond its sell-by date, and the sameapplies to the captainof industry who was a product of one era (the nineteenthcentury), but survivedinto a later one (the twentiethcentury),with the result that "the businessmanis still conventionallyrated as a producerand his gains ac-

THE PROBLEM 131

ceptedas a measureof productiveefficiency" (1964a[1914], 352). Thus, in duecourse,the institutionsof the leisureclassand the businessclassoperate to "conserve,and evenrehabilitate,that archaictype of humannature [predation], and thoseelementsof the archaicculturewhich the industrial evolution of societyin its later stagesactsto eliminate" (Veblen 1970 [1899], 216). Relatedto this generaltheoryof institutionalinertiaandto the classtheory variant of cultural lag is Veblen's theory of cultural contamination.In the predatoryera distinguishedby the leisure class, the emphasiswas on the conservativeforces of social inertia and the symbolic power of upper-class reputability, but there was also referenceto the distortionof the instinct of workmanshipby leisure class culture in the sensethat "it tends more and more to shapeitself into a straining to excel others in pecuniaryachievement" (Veblen 1970 [1899],40). In Veblen'saccountof the machineera the sameprocessof cultural contaminationreceivedfar more attentionwith speof cial referenceto work and workers,but also in termsof the pervasiveness pecuniaryculture throughoutmodern society, both of which were outlined above.The importantfactor in all caseswas the cultural primacy of an institutional complex,which in the most recentinstanceinvolved the price system. Implicit in theseinterrelatedexplanationsof the stability of social institutions, and thereforeconservatism,is that the persistenceof outmodedhabits of thought, asidefrom their inherentinertia, is in part due to their longevity and in part due to their classorigins and concomitantcontaminatingeffects. In his analysisof the handicraftand machineeras,Veblen elaboratedon the issueof cultural longevity with referenceto patriotism and focusedon the incorporationof customsinto the legal framework with referenceto property. Consideredtogether,thesetwo factorstend to reinforceeachother and thereforeto augmentmarkedlythe stability of institutions,andmay be called the theory of the historical andjudicial authenticityof obsoleteideas. In the caseof patriotism, which Veblen defined as a "senseof partisan solidarity in respectof prestige,"it clearly "belongsunderthe generalcaption of sportsmanship,ratherthan of workmanship"(1964b [1917],31,33). Patriotism wasthereforean "institutional survival" that enjoyedthe "deeprootedstrengthgiven by an extremelyprotracteddiscipline of predationand servitude" (Veblen 1975 [1904], 288). In keeping with his view that "[ r]epresentativegovernmentmeans,chiefly, representationof businessinterests,"Veblen arguedthat patriotism was an exceedinglyhelpful "institutional supportof businesspolitics" (286, 290). The economicpurposeand outcomeof competitive"national prowess"is foreign trade, the profits of which "go not to the cornmonman at largebut to the traderswhosecapital is invested,"yet the "archaic senseof group solidarity" ensuresthe supportof all (Veblen 1964b [1917],72,73,75). In other words, "the commonman

132

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

pays the cost and swells with pride," which Veblen referredto as "psychic income" (Veblen 1969b [1919], 127, 137). Aggressivenationalpolicies are especiallyeffective in inciting patriotic fervor, which actsto "fortify the barbarian virtues of subordinationand prescriptiveauthority" and constitutes the "strongestdisciplinary factor that can be brought to counteractthe vulgarizationof modemlife wroughtby peacefulindustry andthe machineprocess"(Veblen 1975 (1904],393). The institution of property is "less ancient" and therefore less "out of touch with the discipline of the more recentcultural situation" than patriotism, henceit is a "less secure"elementof the "cultural heritage" (Veblen 1975 [1904],290).However,in contrastto patriotism,property rights have the addedcultural strengthof the law, and consequentlybenefits from the "prescriptiveforce" of both historical andjudicial authenticity;or as Veblen put it, "legally authenticatedimmemorialcustom"(1964b[1917],317).Thus, when businessprinciples, whoseorigin datesback to before the handicraft era,areenshrinedin law andconsidereda matterof commonsenseby everyone to a greateror lesserextent, mounting a challengeto the "rules of the game"becomesexceedinglyproblematic(1964c[1914],347; 1969b[1919], 84). Writing during a time of considerableinternal strife in America (191819), Veblennotedthat any radicalswho expresshostility toward suchhighly cherishedprinciplesas thoseinvolving propertyrights are likely to inducea moral panic amongthe "vestedinterests,"find themselvesdemonizedas an "undesirablecitizen," and experience"repressivemeasures"(1969b (1919], 178, 181). The difficulties involved in challengingthe dominantclassand its institutions was recognizedby trade unions that, through the experienceof legal defeats,ceasedto dispute the "natural-rightsinstitutions of property and free contract" and restricted their demandsto the conditions of work (1975 [1904], 301). This tendencyto "compromise"on "businessterms" suggestedto Veblenthat it was impossiblefor radical proposalsto be argued positively in relationto the "institutions at presentin force" (330, 338). As if this was not discouragingenough,there were always other "pillars of society" ready to lend their supportto the dominantbusinessinterests,such as the pressand the "pulpit" (Veblen 1964c [1923], 283, 443). In TLC Veblen concededa minor role to economicinterestsas an "explanation" of "classconservatism,"comparedto the importancehe attachedto the social respectaffordedto the leisure classby the massesand the "coercive force" of predatoryideas,notably pecuniaryemulation (1970 [1899], 137, 145). In the machineera,the centralityof profits as the organizingprinciple of the businessmeansthat the economicinterestsof the businessclass areparamount.However,this doesnot necessarilyreducethe significanceof ideasasa factor in the survival of capitalistsand the capitaliststate,in fact in

THE PROBLEM 133

democraticpolitical systems,the consentof the massesis more urgent.Considerationsof this sort led Veblento regardnationalismas an integralpart of his analysisof the ways in which the businessclassexertsideological control over the citizenry. Thus, Veblen arguedthat the ancientyet widespread "patriotic bias" encouragedpeople "to believe in a national solidarity of material interests,"and that military nationalismwas particularly effective asa predatorycultural influenceto counterthat of the machineprocess(1964c [1923],36). The notion of the mutuality of class interestswas thought by Veblen to be a myth, or "fraud" in his terminology,as he madevery clear in the contextof his chapterentitled "On the Nature and Usesof Patriotism": The substantialinterestof these(ruling) classesin the commonwelfare is of the samekind asthe interestwhich a parasitehasin the we11-beingof his host; a sufficiently substantialinterest,no doubt,but thereis in this relation nothing like a communityof interest.(Veblen 1964b[1917], 57) To paraphraseDiggins, "The ideasof the ruling classmay be as false as they are pernicious,but its power is as real as its influence is ubiquitous" (1978, 108). In other words, the economicinterestsof the dominantclass were identified successfullyas coinciding with thoseof the nation-state;according to Veblen,this was a dangerousillusion in that the persistenceof the price systemwas an obstacleto the achievementofthe full potentialof technology and, as such,was certainly not in the interestsof the all. of the "two prime movers Veblen'sanalysisof the cultural consequences in modemsociety" suggestedthat, althoughthe businessenterprisewas dependenton the machineprocess,which affectsmore peopleand "cuts away the spiritual foundationsof businessenterprise,"all the other social institutions are rangedagainstthe unrestricteddevelopmentof the machineprocessand its potentially corrosivecultural impact (1975 [1904],375).It is as if, oncethe "institutional furniture" had beenput in place,nothwithstanding its increasingmaladjustment,it is very difficult to shift, let alone remove from the building owned by the businessclass(337). The main reasonadducedby Veblen for the survival of this inherently flawed systemwas "the solidarity of the systemof institutions of any given culture or of any given peoplestrengthensthe instinctive resistanceoffered to any changein men's habits of thought" (1970 [1899], 140). In concreteterms, in the modemera the forces of conservatismincludedthe dominantbusinessclassand its economic, social, and cultural powers; the stateand its rules; the government and its policies; history and its traditions; religion and its ceremonialcustoms; educationand its socializationagencies;and the pressand its propagandaand competitive advertising-alloperatingin terms of the "logic of

134

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

pecuniarythinking" (1975 [1904],319).Little wonderthat the responseby the moral entrepreneursrepresentingthe dominantinstitutions to "any proposeddeparturefrom the acceptedmethodsof life" is to claim that change would "'shake the social structureto its base,' 'reduce society to chaos,' 'subvertthe foundationsof morality,' make life intolerable,''confoundthe order of nature,'etc.'" (Veblen 1970 [1899],139-40;seealso 1969b[1917], 156). This is a familiar refrain and it suggeststhat changeis more apparent than real and that the vestedinterestsare all singing from the samehymn ~a change,plus c 'est la memechose." sheet: "Plus betweeQ Conversely,Veblenhighlightedthe economicinstability of industrialcapitalism in eventhe mostprodigiouslyproductivesociety,and the "rising tide of hostility and mistrust" that it engendered(1964c [1923],402). For Veblen an economiccrisis was a self-inflicted wound, famously termed "business sabotage"and of suchroutine typicalitythat "Superficially it hasthe appearanceof conspiracy"(223). However, thesenonaccidentalinjuries were unlikely to prove fatal because,"the margin of error, that is to say for wasteful strategyand obstructiveignorance,has beenvery wide; so wide that it has savedthe life of the VestedInterests"(1963 [1921], 119). Hence,not only do the workerstendto adoptrelativelypassivetacticswell within the rulesof businessfriendly laws andcustoms,but they areusedto lessthanmaximumoutput, althoughthe margin is "being continually narrowedby the further advanceof the industrialarts" (120). In the shortterm at least,the "parallelogramofforces" was set in the "conservativedirection" that aided the survival of the business enterprisenot the emancipationof workmanship(1964c [1923],430,445). Veblen'sview on the likely outcome,in the longer term, of the conflict betweenthe "contendingforces" lined up in supportof predationand workmanshipwassomewhatequivocal(1964c[1923],414).In this respectVeblen was more Darwinian than Darwin, sincehe detectedcorrectly that "[it] may be an openquestionwhetherthe Darwinian conceptionof evolution is in no way contaminatedwith teleologicalfancies" (1964a[1914], 328). It is possible that he had in mind that Darwin had suggestedthat in the "struggle betweenour higher [group-regarding]and lower [self-regarding]impulses... virtue will be triumphant"; Veblen was not so sure (1874, 121). More specifically, Veblen'sassessment of the fate of the machineage seemedto be informed by his analysis of the handicraft era in Europe, which ended in "collapse" on the Continentfollowed by reversionto a more predatoryregime, and "decay" in England with the adventof the machineage (1964a [1914],274).By the sametoken, "with a free growth of the machinesystem businessprincipleswould presentlyfall into abeyance";in otherwords they decayto be replacedby collective ownershipand organization,namely, socialism (Veblen 1975 [1904],375).Alternatively, if the cultural trend favor-

THE PROBLEM 135

ing an excessof conservatismprevailed,the "spiritual furniture of the ancient regime," including "status,fealty, prerogativeand arbitrary command,"would be "reinstated":namely, a fonn of militaristic dictatorship(399). In thesecircumstances, Veblen arguedthat the "businessenterpriseis necessarilya transitory dominion" since it is "incompatiblewith the ascendancyof either (399). Veblen'sspeculativecommentson the future "drift of circumstances"seemed to place great weight on technologicalimperativesovercomingthe forces of conservatism,andassuchwerepossiblyexpressedin hoperatherthanexpectation sincehis Darwinismprecludedthe ideaof inevitability (1964c[1923],435).

Concluding Remarks Veblen'sanalysisof the rise and persistenceof predatoryhabits and institutions hasbeencomparedwith the contributionof Marx more frequentlythan any other social theoristof modemcapitalismfor the obvious reasonthat it resemblesMarx's theory morethanany other.This comparisonhasled some commentatorsto claim that Veblen'stheoryof capitalistdevelopmentis more Marxian than Darwinian (e.g., Davis 1945; 1957). Notwithstandingcertain superficial similarities, such as an emphasison the contribution of productive forces and conflict to the downfall of industrial capitalism,this line of argumenttendsto underplayMarx's and Veblen'scontrastingpoints of departureand arrival, both of which are relatedto the issuesof teleology and agency,which consideredtogether,locate Veblen finnly in the Darwinian tradition (Edgell and Townshend1993). Veblen'sDarwinian analysisof the survival powerof predatoryinstitutionsandthe balanceof institutionalforces cautionedhim againstpredictingthat changefor the good was inevitable. In substantivetenns, the main point of divergencebetweenMarx and Veblenis that the thrustof Veblen'sanalysisof modemcapitalismconcerned its survival ratherthanits imminentdemise,which he attributedto the pervasivenessof businessinstitutions,"which are by ancienthabit deeplyembedded in the popularcommonsenseas well as in the commonlaw," or in other words cultural hegemony(l964c [1923], 431). Hence, Veblen's contribution to our understandingof contemporarycapitalismrelatesto its stability ratherthan its transfonnation,to the cohesiveness of classrelationsratherthan to classconflict (Diggins 1978). The contrastbetweenMarx and Veblen arguably reflectsthe vastly different worlds of time and spacethey inhabited;Marx in Europeduring a period of classdivision and revolutionaryupheaval,Veblen in America at a time of triumphantindividualism,nationalism,and relative social integration.It would seemthat history in the fonn of capitalistsuccessand socialistfailure hasvindicatedVeblen, not Marx, thus far. A more promising point of comparisonmay be betweenVeblen and

136

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

Hobson,acqaintanceswho cited eachother extensively(Edgell and Tilman 1994). They both adoptedan evolutionary approachto capitalist development and were part of an emergingcritical tradition of Anglo-Americanhetof modem erodox economics.Unsurprisingly,their respectiveassessments capitalismwere not dissimilar; for example,it hasbeenshownthat they both focusedon the "interplay betweenbig business,the state and the people," and "assertedthat the first had subvertedthe secondand dupedthe thirdwith potentially disastrousresults" (Smith 1990, 96). Veblen was more influencedby Darwin than by Hobsonand wasarguablythe more radical,as is evidentfrom their accountsof imperialism, whichHobsonthoughtwasmore "susceptibleto reform" thanVeblen(Edgell andTownshend1992,417).What relatively little scholarshiphasbeenundertakenoflate, otherthanthe above, on the convergenciesanddivergenciesin their views on capitalism,suggests that further researchwould be instructiveand would add significantly to the relatively underestimatedEuropeandimension of Veblen's contribution (Hodgson1999; Neale and Mayhew 1994; Rutherford 1994). Veblen'saccountof the evolutionof capitalism,from the handicrafterato what he called the "post-modemera" of the machineregime,showedthat in America in the 1920sthe businessclassand its predatoryinstitutionsmight be obsoletefrom the standpointof changesin the stateof the industrial arts, or workmanship,but they were still in control at the cost of the community. The urgentquestionfor Veblenwas, is thereany escapefrom the ideological cagein which "the businessinterestscoalescewith nationalintegrity" to the detriment of the fullest developmentof technology?(1964c [1923], 429). Veblen'sanswerto this questionhascreatedmorecontroversythanany other single aspectof his work and is the subjectof chapter7.

Notes I. I havealwaysbeenintriguedby Veblen'soccasionalquotingof RudyardKipling (e.g., 1964a[1914], 75; 1964c[1923],46),given their contrastingviews on imperialism. WhenI lookedbeyondKipling's political reputationI discoveredthat he too was a nonbelieverandsharedwith Veblen what hasbeencalleda "post-Darwiniandoubt" (Davie 1987, 52). It seemsthat Veblen'sadmirationfor Kipling may go deeperthan his recognition of his wordsmanshipskiIIs, yet this admittedly detailed aspectof Veblen'swork hasreceivedzero attentionfrom commentators. 2. The differencesbetweenVeblen and Sombartregardingthe rise of capitalism widenedconsiderablywith the publicationof Sombart's LuxuryandCapitalism(1967 [1913]). In this short book Sombartattributed the historical transformationto the revolutionaryrole of the seriouslyrich. Needlessto say, this view contradictsboth Veblen(1970[1899]) andWeber(1976[1905]), aswell as,of course,Marx and Engels (n.d. [1848]).

7 The Solution: Workmanship Institutions

Since the late 1890sVeblen had beenconcernedwith the economicand political significanceof technicalexperts,whom he regardedas the contemporaryembodimentof the instinct of workmanshipand thereforeas a potential solutionto the problemof the regularsabotageof industryperpetratedby the businessclassin their routinepreoccupationwith the "pecuniaryside" of economicprocesses(Veblen 1969a[1919]: 294). Specifically, Veblen'sinterest in this occupationalgroup was indicatedin his first book, where he notedthatthe "engineerandthemechanician"tendto a "proclivity to undevout scepticism"(1970 [1899], 215). He expandedon this issue in his famous article on the distinction betweenpecuniaryand industrial employmentsin 1900,in which he outlinedhis theory of the cultural impact of working with "subjective"valuessuchas moneyand "objective" valuessuchas materials (1969a[1919], 311). He arguedthat workers,especially"highly trainedtechnological expertsand engineers,"were more likely to stop thinking in terms of "the great institution of ownership,with its ramificationsof custom,prerogative,and legal right" and to developthe habit of taking into account"the conditionsimpersonallyimposedby the natureof material things" (Veblen 1969a[1919], 317). Veblen concludedthat in due coursethis would leadthe technologistsand engineersto adoptsocialism,which he defined as a "subversion of the economicfoundationsof modernculture," notably property ownership (1969a [1919], 321). Veblen returnedto this theme in his later publications,and it becamean integral part of his theory of the disciplining effect of different occupationalculturesin moderncapitalism(1975 [1904]; 1964a[1914]). In 1919Veblenjoined the faculty of the recentlyfoundedNew Schoolfor SocialResearch,where he was involved in discussionswith someprogres137

138

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

sive engineersabout their role in society (Akin 1977; Dorfman 1934). This was not the first time Veblen had been in contact with radical engineers (Dorfman 1973),but it was arguablya deeperand wider exchangeof views than in the past(Knoedlerand Mayhew 1999; Stabile 1984).ThesecircumstancesaffordedVeblen the opportunityto focus on the modem-daytechnical expertswho had "displaced"the "handicraftsmenof the older culture" (1969a[1919], 318), and this he did in a seriesof articles in the journal the Dial, which were publishedsubsequentlyin book form under the title The EngineersandthePrice System(1963 [1921]; henceforthreferredto asEPS). Over the next eighty years,EPS was criticized heavily by conservative,liberal, and radical social scientists(Tilman 1992). While this may be a pleasing outcomefor an iconoclastlike Veblen, it was also a frustrating one, it seems,for an admirer who stated,"Veblen scholarsoften wish Veblen had not written The Engineersand the Price System"(Tilman 1992, 139; see also Tilman 1996, 177). During this period EPS has becomewidely perceivedas the sceneof Veblen's major intellectualand political crimes,notably during the 1960sin America (e.g., Bell 1963; Layton 1962; Perrucciand Gerstl 1969), in Britain (e.g., Bottomore 1964; Child 1969), and in France (e.g., Meynaud1968).The two main chargesagainstVeblen are that he "imputed to engineersa revolutionary potential which they did not possess" (Layton 1962,71), and that he "must berankedon the side of the elitists" by virtue of the likeness"betweenVeblenianismand technocracy"(Bell 1963, 4, 34). In brief, it is allegedthat Veblen compoundedhis faulty theorizing of technologistsby seemingto endorsewhat about the classconsciousness most liberal social scientistswould regardas a politically unacceptableelitist technocraticvision.

A Review of the CaseagainstVeblen: I. RevolutionaryEngineers? The strongestversion of the claim that Veblen regardedthe engineersas a revolutionaryclasscanbe found in the writings of Layton (1956; 1962; 1971). Layton openedhis casefor the prosecutionby asserting,"One of the strangest predictionsin the history of social theory was that of ThorsteinVeblen who concludedthat the engineerswould constitutethe revolutionaryclassin America" (1962,64). LaytontracedVeblen'sinterestin engineersto his theory of conflict betweenthe instinctsof workmanshipand predation,therebyimplying that EPSwasnot out of stepwith his earlierwritings, althoughhe also opined,quite incorrectly, "Prior to 1919 Veblen placedno specialemphasis on engineers"(1962, 65). Layton starts his key article with a conclusion, namely, that Veblen had predictedthat the engineers"would constitutethe

THE SOLUTION 139

revolutionaryclassin America," and with a quotationfrom EPS in support of this interpretation(1963, 64). Layton further noted that the engineering professionhad expandeddramaticallyin America between1880 and 1920, and that from about 1915 onward Veblen had been in contact with some prominentengineers.HenceVeblenwas awareof both the conservatismand the radicalismof the mechanicalengineers,but he misunderstoodtheir class consciousness by focusing on their growing radicalism. In Layton'sjudgment, this was because: Veblenviewedthe engineersthroughthe spectaclesof his instinct psychology. He assumedthat they were being led to reject businessculture by the conditioningof the machineprocess;becausethey personified the instinct of workmanshipthey would constitutethe spearhead of the revolution. (Veblen 1962, 70) According to Layton, Veblen misjudgedboth their radicalism, since it "betokenedless a rejection of the traditional culture than an affirmation of it," and their conservatism,which was no mere hangover"from previous modesof thought, indicating that the conditioning of the machinewas not yet complete"but constituted"the fundamentalsuponwhich they basedtheir thought"(1962,70-71).Thus,the key to Veblen'sfaulty theorizingfor Layton was his "theoreticalbias," which "led him to confusemeanswith ends"-in other words to confuse the society of engineerswith the "engineeringof society"-with the result that he "imputed to engineersa revolutionarypotential which they did not possess"(71). Layton also arguedthat the other factor that contributedtoVeblen'stotal misunderstanding was that he "based his generalizationsconcerningengineersalmostwholly on theAmericanSociety of MechanicalEngineers,"whereasthe conservatismof engineerswas more readily apparentbeyondthis professionalgroup (72). As a guide to the history of the engineeringprofessionin America in its formative years,Layton'saccountno doubt hasits virtues,but as an account of Veblen's views on the classconsciousness of engineersduring this erait is less than reliable. The main reasonsfor this are Layton's brief and highly selectivereferencesto Veblen's writings, especiallythe key text EPS, and his (mis)understandingof Veblen'stheory of evolutionarychange. In all, Layton quotesfive times from EPS;threetimesfrom chapter3, and once each from chapters5 and 6. Putting aside his neglectingto refer to Veblen's earlier writings, in which the technical experts are an enduring, though less fully discussed,concern,and to chapter4 of EPS--whichemphasizedthat "commercializedAmerica is not the samething as SovietRussia" andthereforethe "[v JestedInterestsaresecurein their continued usufruct

140

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

of the country'sindustry,justyet" (Veblen 1963 (1921), 103, 106, seealso 96, 98)-hislimited selectionof quotationsfrom threeotherchaptersin EPS is out of context.Layton'sfirst citation from EPS,concerningthe prospects of establishinga "Soviet of Technicians"in America, is the first sentencein a two-sentenceparagraphthat ends by concluding that this "is at most a remotecontingency,"but this part is not quoted(128). His briefestquote,the ubiquitous'just yet," appearsin a discussionof Veblen's awarenessof the conservatismof engineers(Layton 1962,70). SinceVeblenmakesthis point many times and usually in a much strongermanner(seebelow), the quote selectedby Layton considerablyunderstatesVeblen'sposition.Anotherquotation involves Veblen's referenceto the engineersas the "indispensable GeneralStaff of the industrial system,"which Layton interpretsas further evidenceof Veblen's tendencyto exaggeratethe importanceof engineers both to the industrial systemand to revolutionarychange(1962,71). Further considerationby Layton of the contextof this quotationwould haverevealed that Veblen was indeed concernedto stressthe crucial productive role of engineers,but for the whole community,in contrastto the misdirectedcontrol of the "absenteeowners" for their own interests(Veblen 1963 [1921), 83). Layton's other two quotationsalso concernthe growing radical "class of engineers(1962, 65), yet he overlookedthe more numerconsciousness" ous passagesin EPS that emphasizedthe unevenand limited natureof their radicalism.For example,Veblen distinguishedthe "young" engineers"who seeindustryin any otherlight thanits commercializedvalue" from the "pretty commercialized... older generation"(1963 [1921),85).Moreover,Veblen observedthat the "younger generation"tend to "defer" to the older engineers"with sucha degreeof filial piety as shouldgo far to reassureall good citizens" (130). Elsewhere,Veblen reiteratesthis view: By settledhabit the technicians,the engineersandindustrial experts,are a hannlessand docile lot, well fed on the whole, and somewhatplacidly contentwith the "full dinner-pail" which the lieutenantsof the VestedInterestshabituallyallow them.(Veblen 1963 [1921), 128; seealso 106, 132, 139, 140) In addition to effectively discountingthe radical potential of engineers,despite their pivotal role and flickering radicalism,Veblen nevertired of stating that revolution in America was most unlikely, not just in chapter4, as noted above,but also in chapters5 and 6, as the following quotationsillustrate: But the rights of ownershipare still embeddedin the sentimentsof the underlyingpopulation... and the assertionis still quite safethat anything

THE SOLUTION 141

like a Sovietof Techniciansis not a presentmenaceto the VestedInterests in America. (Veblen 1963 [1921], 128; seealso 110) Theeconomic-moralsenseof theAmericancommunitytodayrunsunequivocally to the effect that absenteeownershipis fundamentallyand eternally right andgood; andit shouldseemreasonableto believethat it will continue to run to that effect for some timeyet. (Veblen 1963, 146; seealso 151) Thesequotations,from the many availablewith a similar thrust in EPS, show that Veblen viewed the prospectof technologists'startinga revolution as "quite chimerical" (1963 [1921], 133). To claim otherwiseinvolves a distortion of Veblen'sanalysis. As far as Layton'sotherreferencesto Veblen'swritings are concerned,he concedesthat they conveythe impressionthat the idea of workmanshipand the key role of engineersexpressedin EPS are "deeply embedded"in his earlier works, yet they too tend to be perfunctory(1962, 64). For example, The Theorya/the BusinessEnterpriseis cited onceby Layton in relation to the cultural conditioning of the machineprocess,from which Layton concludesthat the engineers"were the revolutionarygroup in America" (1962, 65). Considerationof the earlierpart of this long chapter,which wascited by Layton, revealsthat Veblen qualified his view by noting: ... that the dominationof the machineprocessin modemindustry is not so potenta factor for the inculcationof socialisticnotions--itdoesnot so irresistibly shapemen's habitof mind in the socialistic sense--asthe first surveyof the facts would suggest.(Veblen 1975 [1904],353) This is not quite the messagethat Layton is endeavoringto convey,namely, that involvementin the machineprocessleads inexorably to revolutionary classconsciousness and action. Layton also cites Veblen'streatiseon workmanshipto enhancehis argumentthat beforeEPSVeblen "placedno special emphasison engineers"(1962, 65), seeminglyoverlookingthe themeof the final chapterof this key theoreticalvolume, which could be describedusing a quotefrom his next book: "[In] the third quarterof the [nineteenth]century the primacy among the habits of thought that made up the technological sciencemay be saidto havepassedfrom workmanshipto engineering"(1966 [1915], 117). While Veblen may not have written exclusively on the engineersprior to 1919, he did so severaltimes and at length on one occasion, always with referenceto the distinction betweenpecuniaryand industrial occupationsand in the contextof the evolution of modemcapitalism. There is anotherreasonfor being somewhatscepticalaboutLayton'sinterpretationthat Veblen thought it was inevitable that the engineerswould

142

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

becomea revolutionary class. This reasonis related to Veblen's theory of evolutionary change. Layton uses the word "predictions" and refers to Veblen's"instinct psychology"in an attemptto infer that he subscribedto a teleologicaltheory of change(1962,64). This argumentimplies thatVeblen's "theoreticalbias," namely, his "instinct psychology" with its deterministic connotations,misled him into suggestingthat in time the inherent "workmanship"of engineerswould becomemore prominentvia the "conditioning processof the machine" and would lead them "to reject businessculture" (Layton 1962,70,71). It is on this basisthat LaytonjudgesVeblen's"speculative interest"(1963,142;seealso 120, 147) in the chancesof technologists being in the vanguardof revolutionarychangein Americato be "[one] of the strangestpredictionsin the history of social theory" (1962, 64). Notwithstandingthelegionof criticismsthatVeblen'spreferencefor theproblematicconceptinstinct hasattractedandhis culpability in this regarddueto his unconventionaldefinition, from the earlier analysisit is equally clear that for Veblenthe crucial issuewas that "[all] instinctive behaviouris subjectto development and hencemodification by habit" (Veblen 1964a [1914], 38). It will further be recalledthat whenthis elementof Veblen's socialtheory is combined with his Darwin-informedoppositionto teleology,it is difficult to construethat he was concernedto predictthe future, sincehe arguedthat the outcomeof the "processof cumulativechange"was"somethingof a blind guess"(1975 [1904], 370, 400). This point has beenexpressedneatly by Shannon:"Veblen's embrace of organicismdoes not suggesta biological determinismso much as a biological indeterminism"(1996, 4). Thus, as Veblen arguedin his critique of Marx, evolutionarychangeis "essentiallya cumulativesequenceof causation, opaqueand unteleological,"with no "fmal term" or "goal to which all lines of the processshouldconverge"(1969a[1919], 416). It would seemthat Layton's interpretationof the radicalismdimensionof Veblen'saccountof the current and future role of engineersin societyis lessthan convincing,due largely to his selectivereadingof Veblen and his misunderstandingof Veblen'sanalysis. Veblen was under no illusions about the extent of the contaminationof workmanshipas far as the engineerswere concerned,as he emphasizedin EPS and in his subsequentlengthy discussionof this matter,thoughhe may well haveharboredregret regardingthe stateof play in the ongoingconflict betweenthe forces of conservatismand the forces for radical change,with the engineersin the vanguardof the latter (Veblen 1964c [1923D.

A Review of the CaseagainstVeblen: II. Elitist Technocracy? The strongestversion of the oft-made allegation that Veblen advocatedan elitist technocracyhasbeenadvancedby Bell (1963).1 Bell assertsthat EPS

THE SOLUTION

143

"can serveas a simplified introductionto his ideas,"which suggeststhat its alleged elitist dimensionwas not unique to this book (1963, 27), Accordingly, Bell claims that EPS developsa themeoutlined in his earlier works, notably in The Theoryofthe BusinessEnterprise(1975 [1904]). This theme is that the investmentbanker restricts output for self-interestedpecuniary reasons,whereas"if the engineerswere to take over the direction of American society,"a greaterutilization of resourceswould prevail (Bell 1963,28). Bell further claims wrongly, echoing Layton whom he cites, that Veblen's concernwith engineersin 1919"representeda radical departure"in that "he had neverbefore tied thesethemesto the engineer"(5). Bell locatesEPS within the tradition of "the elitist sociology of Mosca, Michels, and Pareto"on the groundsthat Veblen had identified a new industrial class"that must inevitably dominateany future society" (1963,4). In other words, accordingto Bell, Veblen "must be rankedon the side of the elitists" becausehe arguedthat the engineerswere the "indispensableGeneral Staffof the industrial system"and as suchhad the potentialto makethe revolution, establisha "Soviet of Technicians,"and "reshapesociety" (4, 6). As if to reinforce his thesis, Bell also consideredVeblen to be part of the French utopian socialist tradition of Fourier and Saint-Simon,and in particular refersto Saint-Simon'sviews on the emergenceofa "naturalelite" of the "men of science"with the developmentof industrialism (32). On the basisof this intellectualpedigree,towardthe endof his introductionto a new edition of EPS, Bell concludedthat Veblen was a technocraticutopian: Central to all this ... is the elitist image, which was given its most mechanicalshapein the doctrinesof technocracy.Most of Veblen'sadmirers have soughtto discreditthe similarities, but the resemblanceis clear, and while Veblen'sdoctrinescannotbe held accountablefor the later phaseof technocrac-whichflared again briefly in 1940 as a quasi-fascistmovement, replete with gray uniforms ... -the 'elective affinity' between Veblenianismand technocracyis evidentnot only in the formal contentof the ideas but in the temperamentalderivatives:the qualities of inhuman scientismand formal rationalism.(Bell 1963,33-34) Bell's hostility toward socialistutopianismin generaland toward what he considersto be the "central motif' of technocracyin EPS, namely, the routine restrictionof production(1963,28), is confirmedby his claim that"Veblen sharedthe illusion of that earlier technocrat,Henri de Saint-Simon"of a vision of the indispensableengineersin chargeof the increasinglycomplex industrial society (Bell 1976, 360). Bell partially redeemshimself at this point by noting, with perhapsa senseof relief, that Veblen was highly sceptical about the prospectof revolutionarychangein America.

144

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

In his attemptto contextualizeEPS,Bell opinedthat Veblen'sanalysisof businesssabotageis tongue-in-cheek,yet he takes the view that Veblen's equally subversiveand related idea that the engineersare thosebest qualified to organizeproductionis a worryingly seriousproposal(1963,27). There would seemto be more than a hint of a contradictionhere; it is difficult to fathom on what basisBell claims that, in the caseof two sidesof the same theoreticalcoin, Veblen wasjoking in one casebut not the other. Bell's caseagainstVeblenseemsto rely more on guilt by associationwith both past and future theoreticaland practical political models he regards, from the viewpoint of a defenderof postindustrialliberal democracy,asideologically unacceptable, thanon a detailedconsiderationof whatVeblenwrote. Bell links EPS with the technocraticversion of utopiansocialism,reinforcing his thesisvia negativerhetoric-forexample,"quasi-fascistmovement... inhuman scientism" (1963, 34). This focus on the potential downside of utopianismrevealsBell's liberal preconceptionsthat technocracyis inherently elitist as well as inhuman.Thus, in one sentenceBell conjuresup the twin fears of fascism and Frankenstein,attachesthem to utopianism,and dismissesVeblen accordingly.Suchfears are misplacedsincethey overstate onepossible,but not inevitable,outcomeof total change,and understatethe samepossibilitieswithin capitalistdemocracies(Goodwin 1980). Critiques of utopianismbasedon these imagined fears are therefore"unwarranted" and unduly pessimistic(Kumar 1991b,91; seealso Kateb 1963). More specifically, Bell is awarethat originally the term technocracy"implied the rule of the peoplemadeeffective through the agencyof their servants, the scientistsand technicians,"but that it came to mean "rule by techniciansresponsibleto no one," yet he suggeststhat it is the later meaning that resemblesVeblenianism(Bell 1976, 349). Notwithstandinghis caveat that "Veblen cannot be held responsiblefor the later phase of technocracy,"Bell arrived at this conclusionafter noting that Veblen had workedwith Scottbeforehe becameleaderof the militaristic andauthoritarian American technocracymovementin the 1930s (1963, 33-34). Veblen may well havebeeninfluencedby Scott,plus many otherprofessionalengineers,and vice versa,but this doesnot the meanthat he can be held responsible for whatever elitism is thought to have issued from the American technocracymovementafter his death(Akin 1977). Aside from Bell's problematicand un-Veblenianassumptionthat an industrial capitalistsocietysuchasAmericais essentiallydemocratic,Veblen's distastefor militarism, self-interest,andauthoritarianismis readily apparent, not just in EPS but throughouthis other writing. For example,Veblen emphasizedthe importanceof "co-operation,""consultation,"and"teamwork," in the unlikely event of establishmentof a "Soviet of Technicians"in

THE SOLUTION 145

America, and the necessityfor drawing upon the "tolerant consentof the population at large, backed by the aggressivesupport of the trained workforce," while working for the benefit of all rather than the pecuniary interestof the few (1963 [1921], 132, 135, 140,150; seealso 1969b [1919], 16,53; 1964c [1923],273).Veblen certainly regardedthe engineersas the best-qualifiedgroup to initiate and direct changeif the opportunity arose, but not necessarilyin an elitist manner,since his conceptionof a "practicable working organizationon a new footing" was unambiguouslydemocraticratherthanelitist in any sense(1963 [1921], 150; seealso 1964c[1923], 275-78).This is alsoevidentin his longstandingdisquietregardingthe "common good" when "industry is managedby businessmenfor businessends, not by technologicalexpertsor for the material advantageof the community" (1964a [1914], 350, 351; see also 1975 [1904]; 1964c [1923]). The normativedimensionof Veblen'scontributionis nowherebetterexemplified than in his discussionsof the dispensabilityof pecuniaryoccupationsand the indispensabliityof workmanshipoccupations,where the alliterative phrase,"irrelevant, incompetent,and impertinent" is repeatedto describe the control of productionby the businessclass (1963 [1921], 105; 1964c [1923],274). Veblen consistentlyarguedthat what was in the "best" interestsof the community,was that production"should" be managedby those technicallyqualified, not the technologicallyilliterate (1975 [1904], 78; see also 1963 [1921],82; and 1964c [1923],276-77).Bell was not wholly dismissive of Veblen'sanalysisof technologicalknowledgeand its purveyors, sincehe notedthat "much in The Engineersand the Price Systemis surprisingly accurateand relevantto the present-dayAmerican economy,"but he did not shareVeblen'scollectivist solution, which was basedon the assumption that technicalknowledgewas a social asset,the potentialof which could not be fully achievedunderprivate ownership(1963,28).Veblenviewedthe current role of the technical expertswith dismay and their possiblefuture role as an ideal, and in this respectEby is correct in describingVeblen as holding a "collectivist vision of technology"in terms of both its production and consumption,ratherthan an elitist one (1998a,690). In the light of Veblen'sbroadlyfavorableaccountof revolutionarychange in Russiain EPSand elsewhere,it is pertinentto recountthe historicalmeaning of the term "soviet," in the mannerof Veblen's discussionof the word "bolshevism"-whichhe notedmeantdemocracyin the non-Americaneconomic sense(Ardzrooni 1964 [1934],174--79).The first workers' council, or soviet, was createdin the TechnologicalInstitute in St. Petersburgduring the uprising of 1905. According to Trotsky, a participant in this event, the Sovietwas an "authenticdemocracy... without a professionalbureaucracy, but with the voters' right to recall their deputies[directly electedmembers]

146

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

at any moment" (Trotsky 1973 [1922], 268). It is quite likely that Veblen's conceptionof a soviet of technicianswas basedon this historical model, since it was the one availableat the time he was writing EPS and since his admirationfor the Bolshevik Revolution is a matter of public record,however misguided(Diggins 1978). Another problematicfeature of EPS is that it is unclearwhetheror not critics such as Bell "believe that he [Veblen] advocatedpolitical elitism or economicelitism or both" (Tilman 1972, 310). First, it can be shown that Veblen'sreferencesin EPSto the engineers'responsibilityfor what he called the industrial "order" or "admininstration,"or "economicaffairs," suggests strongly that he was concernedsolely with the organizationof the economy (1963 [1921], 134, 135, 149). Second,since Veblen'sanalysisof industrial capitalismlacked a "theory of politics or power" (Diggins 1978, 205), it is not surprisingthat he failed to mention"political institutions" as suchin EPS (Rutherford 1992, 142). Hence,the most plausible interpretationis that he consideredthe Soviet of Techniciansin purely economicterms: As a matterof course,the powersand duties of the incoming directorate will be of a technologicalnature... inasmuchasthe purposeof its coming into control is the care of the community'smaterial welfare by a more competentmanagementof the country'sindustrial system.(Veblen 1963 [1921], 134) Thus,Veblenarguedthat the mismanagement of the present"businesslike control" of industry should be reorganizedunder the managementof those mostqualified to achieve"productiveefficiency,economicaluseof resources, and an equitabledistribution of the consumableoutput" (1963 [1921], 140, 141). Therefore,it is clear that his focus is the transferof economiccontrol from the dysfunctionaldominationof industry by the businessclass,to the "engineers,who alone are competentto manage"an industrial system"to serve human needs,without fear or favour or respectof persons,prerogatives, or politics" (83, 126). Veblen'sideal schemefor the organizationof a complex industrial economywould be thereforewithin the "logic of workmanship"(1966 [1915], 113). Whereasthe existing "industrial dictatorship of the captainof finance" in which the "businesslikedeputiesof the absentee ownerssagaciouslyexercisea running veto power over the techniciansand their productiveindustry," on the basisof an "outworn and footless vested right" (Veblen 1963 [1921],91,143,148),operateswithin the "logic of ownership" (Veblen 1964c [1923], 405). The analysisthus far suggeststhat evidenceshowingthat Veblen considered the engineersto be a revolutionaryclassand that he was an elitist is at

THE SOLUTION

147

best circumstantial,in both cases,although there are passagesin EPS, for example,"the engineersare in a position to make the next move" and "a regime of workmanshipgovernedby the country'stechnicians,"that could have been used in evidence against Veblen (1963 [1921], 98, 147). Unsurprisingly,passagesin this vein have beenseizedon by liberal critics, reflectingperhapsthe specterof totalitarianismthat hauntedAmericaduring the Cold War era (Levitas 1990; Tilman 1992). Veblen's critics from this period, such as Layton and Bell, have either resortedto a selectivereading and questionableinterpretationof Veblen and/orhave tendedto presenthis ideasnegativelyby linking them to elitist social theoristsand the assumed elitism of utopian socialism.2 Whereasthe bulk of the evidencefrom EPS, and from Veblen'sother works (1975 [1904]; 1964c [1923]), show that he was consistentlyscepticalabout revolutionary engineersand ideologically quite opposedto elitism of any kind. Hence,it would seemto be difficult to prove, beyond a shadowof doubt, as it were, that Veblen was convinced either about the revolutionarypotential of engineersor that they would establish an elitist regime if successful. Admirable Defendersof Veblen'sEPS It is not just amongVeblen'scritics that the thesisadvancedmost clearly in EPS has beenthe sourceof ongoing debate.In the processof rebutting the theoretical and political chargesdirected at EPS, Veblen's admirers have becomedivided among themselvesas to the most appropriateway of defending this controversialbook. On the one hand,there are thosewho argue that EPS is inconsistentwith Veblen'sother works, notably Tilman (1972; 1973; 1988; 1992; 1996), and on the other hand there are those whoargue that it is consistentwith his otherwritings, notablyStabile(1984; 1986; 1987; 1988). This controversywithin a controversywas hinted at by both Layton andBell, wherethey notedthat EPScombinesnewandold Veblenianthemes. In a long andprolific careerasa Veblenscholar,Tilman hasbeenpromulgating the argumentthat EPS is an "atypical exampleof his work," in an attempt to qualify the sincerity of EPS and thereby reducethe impact of critics such as Bell who have focusedon the elitist allegation (1972, 313; 1996, 172). During the 1980sand 1990sTilman reiteratedhis view andadded, "It is difficult to know how seriouslyto takeVeblen'sproposalsin TheEngineers and the Price System" 897). This was in tum transposedinto viewing EPS "as an expository device expressingsatirical intent, not as a seriousplan for economic reconstruction."Tilman addedthat, "given his tongue-in-cheekstyle of presentationand convolutedrhetoric who can be sure of Veblen's intent?" (1988, 1248; seealso 1996, 175, 176). This is an

(198~,

148

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

interestingreversalof Bell's argument,in that, whereashe invoked thesame phrase"tongue-in-cheek"to dismissVeblen'saccountof one of the causes of the inadequacyof the price system,businesssabotage,Tilman is usingthe sameline of argumentto play down the significanceof Veblen'saccountof onepossiblesolution to this problem,the future role of engineersin capitalist society.As noted above with regardto Bell, the suggestionthat Veblen was joking in one casebut not the other is not without its difficulties.3 In developinghis atypicality thesisin this way, Tilman drew upon an interpretation of Veblenby Starr(1983),but the gist andthe languageof this line of argumentcan be tracedback to the 1950s,when Hill noted that: "Veblen's soviet of techniciansidea may have beenessentiallya clever expositorydevice" (1958, 16), or evento the 1940s,whenLernerreferredto the "tonguein-cheek" style ofEPS (1972 [1948], 16). The other strandin Tilman's valiant attemptto defendEPS involves the argumentthat it "bears,at bestan oblique relationshipto the restof Veblen's writing" (1996, 176). Although Tilman has not waveredfrom the thrust of his "aberration"thesis,a softeningof his position is discerniblein his most recentrendition,to the extentthat he usesthe words "largely," "probably," and "perhaps"in his analysisof EPS (1996, 177, 203, 226). The pivotal point for Tilman remainsthat EPS "is deviant in the sensethat it greatly accentuates tendenciesthat, at best, are in germ form in Veblen's other writings" (1996, 176), which overlookshis chapteron this topic in AOBE (1964c [1923]). In due course, thedebateaboutthe atypicality of EPSwasjoined by Stabile, who initially saton the fencein that he detectedhints of the main theme of EPS in Veblen's "earlier" works, notably The Instinct of Workmanship and the Stateofthe Industrial Arts (1984,214), and expressedsomesupport for Tilman where he perceiveda "slight shift from his earlier position of revolution by the collective industrial working class" (1984, 217). Stabile's balancingact was maintainedwhen he veeredin the direction of Tilman's view of EPSby statingthat it "has long posedan enigma"(1986,41), yet he seemedto contradict Tilmanwhenhe observedthat Veblen'sappreciationof the potentialradicalismof engineers"can be seensoonerthan in The Engineersand the Price System,"onceagaintracingthe EPSthemebackto 1914 (1987,41).In the end, though, StabilerejectedTilman's atypicality-of-EPS thesisby concludingthat Veblen'sfocus on the engineers"was not an aberration," since "his analysisof them was consistentwith his views on other radical social movements(1988, 224). Stabile'sinterpretationof Veblen's focus on the role of engineersis more nuancedthan Tilman's and is backed up with evidencefrom Veblen'sreadinglist for his lecturesat theNew School for Social Research,which show that by this time Veblen was especially well informed aboutthe progressiveideasof someof the more radical engi-

THE SOLUTION 149

neers(1984; 1987). The nub of Stabile'sposition is that Veblen had been interestedin engineersfor a long while but that it was not until after World War I that this issue"moved to the forefront of his analysis"(1987,42). The typicality-of-EPSthesis,advancedsomewhathesitatinglyby Stabile, has an even longer ancestrythan Tilman's atypicality thesis; this does not improve its chancesof being correctbut does enhanceits respectability,at leastpotentially.As far I am aware,the first commentatorto perceivea continuity betweenVeblen'searlierworks and EPSwas Homan,who notedin a footnote that Veblen's views on economic institutions "are extendedor amended"in his last three books, which includes EPS (1927, 250). This point hasbeenreiteratedseveraltimes overthe years(e.g.,Akin 1977;Anderson 1933; Dente 1977; Edgell 1975). In the more recentpast,the Tilman-Stabiledebatehas beenassessed by Rutherford (1992) and by Knoedler and Mayhew (1999). Rutherford'sdetailed reexaminationof the continuity issue involved quoting from a wide rangeof Veblen'searlier writings to show that, in terms of both theory (the evolution of the conflict betweenworkmanshipand predation)and values (democratic),"Veblen displayeda considerabledegreeof consistency"(1992, 144). Rutherfordalso commentedthat the liguistic devicecontention"is difficult to reconcilewith Veblen'sclearattemptsto promotea group of radical engineersandacademics"and withVeblen's"consistentuseof the argument that the industrial systemwas suchto requirecontrol by competenttechnical men" (147). Somewhatsurprisingly, given the depth and breadth of Rutherford'sanalysisof the typicality-of-EPSthesis,Tilman (1996)responded in a brief, albeit flattering, manner,rather than engagingwith the specific pointsraisedby Rutherford,which enabledhim to maintainthat as far as this particularcontroversywasconcerned,thejury is still out. Thus,Tilman came to the conclusionregardingEPSthat it is still the casethat "[it] hasnot been shownthroughtextualexegesisthat [EPS] is ideologicallyor programatically typical or representativeof his largerposition" (176). It is arguablewhether this is entirely the casefor either Stabileor Rutherfordsincethey both refer extensivelyto Veblen'spre-and post-EPSbooks,especiallythe latter. Knoedlerand Mayhew have addressedthe points raisedby all the major contributorsto the controversysurroundingEPS (1999). They concluded that Rutherford and Stabile were correct to emphasizethe continuity in Veblen'sappreciationof the role of engineers,but that Stabilewas "wrong in sayingit was latent" beforehe wrote EPS,and they rejectedTilman's "aberration" thesis(269). Their groundsfor theseconclusionswere that Veblen's of pecuniary analysisin EPS is virtually the sameas his earlier discussions andindustrial employmentsat the beginningof the century,and that "[f]rom the 1880sthroughthe 1920smanyengineerspresentedargumentsthat closely

150

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

paralleledthosethat Veblen used" (Knoedler and Mayhew 1999,255-56). This latestcontributionto the EPS debateprovidessomehelpful additional backgroundinformation regarding the rapid growth of the engineersin America during Veblen'sacademiclife and their political attitudes.On the other hand, Knoedler and Mayhew's conclusionregarding Stabile'sargument could be construedas hair splitting since his position on the consistency debateis essentiallyidentical to the one they and Rutherfordadvance. Continuingin this minutiousspirit, Knoedlerand Mayhewrefer to the study of wastein industryby the FederatedAmericanEngineeringSocieties,which waspublishedin 1921,andstatethat the findings "angeredthatorganization's more conservativeeditorial board" and "were castasideby dominantbusinessinterests,"although they "did bring once more to the fore issuesthat someengineersand Veblen had beenwriting about for years" (1999, 266). Somewhatsurprisingly,Knoedlerand Mayhewrefer to Dorfmanratherthan directly to Veblen'sfavorable reactionto this, and other reports,in his last book, where he cited thesefindings in supportof his businesssabotagethesis (1964c [1923],277-79).This is an oversightin the sensethat Veblen's analysisof the current and future role of engineersin capitalistAmerica in this volume confirms that to the end of his career,he was exceedinglywell informed aboutthe latestresearch,and also in the sensethat Veblen'sviews were consistentin his long and short, early and later, discussionsof this topic. Moreover,Veblen'sfmal words on the subjectof engineers,in which he cites EPS,also underminesthe relatedclaim that his accountsof sabotageand engineerswere not meantto be takenseriously(1964c[1923],103,251--83). Arguably,this controversywithin a controversyis lessclear-cutthanmany of the sidesin it haveallowed for to date,sincethereare aspectsofEPSthat aretypical Veblen,suchasthe businessversusindustrydichotomy,andsome that are atypical, notably the prospectof a soviet of technicians.It is also possibleto selectquotationsto supporteachof the various interpretations. Perhapsit is a matter of new wine (radical engineers)in old bottles (the institutional framework) at a time when Veblen was in contact with, and thereforesensitiveto, the growing numbersand classconsciousness of engineersin America. In this case,a questionarisesaboutthe significanceof the continuitiesanddiscontinuitiesmanifestin EPSvis-ii-vis the restof his writings, a point that hasbeenwell madeby Shannonwith referenceto Veblen's technocratictendency,although Shannon'sattemptto rewrite what he defines as Veblen's "many incriminating passages"is not only questionable but quite possiblyunnecessary, oncethe broaderpicturehasbeenconsidered (1996, 19). The discussionthus far showsthat, in the caseof EPS, not only is there considerabledisagreementbetweenVeblen's critics and thosewho seekto

THE SOLUTION 151

protect his reputationfrom the twin chargesregardingrevolutionaryengineersandtechnocraticelitism, but thereis alsosomediscordamongVeblen's defendersas to how bestto do so. This suggeststhat Veblen'sessayson the role of engineersand the future of capitalismare somewhatambiguous,are certainly complex,and are deemedby all to be problematic.In the light of this, the key issueis the theoreticalcharacterof Veblen'sanalysisof techno1ogy and technologists.Having been somewhatcritical of Tilman's aberration thesis,I want to pick up and developone of his insights regardingthe interpretationof Veblen'scorpusthat he expressedfirst in one of his early articles (1972, 315), and reiteratedin his most recent book, namely, that throughoutVeblen'swork, "we are able to glimpsefor a momenthis utopian vision of the industrial republic" (1996, 168).

Utopianismand the Riddle of EPS One feature of EPS upon which virtually all Veblen's critics and admirers seemto agreeis its utopianism.This is explicit in the contributionsof Bell, Stabile,andTilman, and is implied by Layton, wherehe denigratedVeblen's writings on engineersas "speculative" (1962, 72). That Veblen was well informedaboututopianismand relatedsubjectsis evidentfrom the bookshe left with William Caup(Dorfman 1973, 193-94),and thosein his Washington IslandLibrary, which includedworks from the classicaleraof utopianism (Plato,Plutarch,andHomer);the Renaissance era(ThomasMore andNiccolo Machiavelli); and the early and late modemera (RobertOwen, JohnLocke, JonathanSwift, William Morris, and OscarWilde).4 It is also indicatedby Veblen'sPhD dissertationon ImmanuelKant and his book reviewsof AnneRobertTurgot and Paul Lafargue(Dorfman 1934; 1973);his familiarity with the ideasofIgnatiusDonnelly5;andhis interestin the works of Morris (Edgell 1996), which culminatedin his traveling to London to meetMorris in 1896 (Dorfman 1934). Above all, though, Veblen's utopianismis confirmed by the continuitiesbetweennineteenth-century Europeanandtwentieth-century American technologicalutopianismand Veblenianism,and the convergencies betweenVeblen'sutopianismand Bellamy's (Bell 1963, 1976; Edgell and Tilman 1989; Segal 1985; Stabile 1984; Tilman 1985). Veblen'swritings reflect his extensiveknowledgeof utopianismin that many of them are imbued with it. Tilman has helpfully provided examples from Veblen'spublicationsthat containa "strongervein of utopianism,"notably his study of higher education(1965 [1918]), plus a list that reveals "glimpsesof Veblen'sutopia," significantly perhapsboth in footnotes(1973, 168; seealso 1996, 195-96).Specifically,Tilman hassuggestedthat Veblen's utopianismis evident,to a greateror lesserextent,in threeof his nine books,

152

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

and in two of his articles, including one publishedas early as 1892. His utopianismis mostnoticeablein EPS,but it is also apparentin his first study of capitalism(1975 [1904]) andin his Kant-inspiredvolumeon peace(l964b [1917]). The latter work is rarely cited nowadays,yet it is possiblythe most underratedVeblenmonograph;it is alsoof singularcontemporaryrelevance, given the continuedworldwide "recourseto force" betweenand within nation-states(1964b,366). Although the utopiancharacterof Veblen'sthought was noted from the beginning of Veblenian scholarship(Dorfman 1934), and has been more frequently mentionedin the recent past (e.g., Dugger 1984; Eby 1998a;Fontanaand Tilman 1988; Hodgson 1999; Saram1999; Shannon1996; Tilman 1972, 1996), to date, it has not attractedconsideration commensuratewith its prominencein someof his writings. Theremay be severalreasonsfor this. First, utopianismis fiction; hence, it tendsto be equatedwith dreamingandseenthereforeasunrealistic(Kumar 1991b). It is but a short stepfrom assertingthat utopianismis "impractical" to suggestingthat EPSis an "easytargetbecauseof its utopianandvisionary nature" (Tilman 1992, 52, 66). Second,attemptsto implement a utopian scheme,whetherby small-scalesecularor religiouscommunitiesin America, or on a large scaleas in Russiaor China, have tendedto degenerateand/or expire, often at massivehumancost (Kumar 1991b). In the view of those hostile to modemutopianism,such endeavorstarnish the "ideal of Utopia" (Bell 1976). Third, and most pertinently, with the exceptionof Hodgson (1999),Veblen'sutopianismhasprovedto be a sourceof uneaseto virtually all commentatorssince the chargesof total changeand totalitarianism,the very issuesat the centerof the EPS controversyabout revolutionarytechnologistsandtechnocracy,apply to "practically the whole utopiantradition" (Kumar 1991a,161). Indeed,the well-documentedinfluenceof Bellamy on Veblenmay well havecontributedto, or evenexacerbated, anxietiesregarding Veblen'sutopianismby virtue of the militaristic and centralizingimplicationsof the former's utopia, notwithstandingtheir sharedcommitmentto democracy(Stabile 1984; Tilman 1985, 1996). As "utopianism"becamesynonymouswith futility, failure, and fascism, it cameto be usedpejoratively acrossthe political spectrum.For instance, Veblen'sfoes and friends alike usethe lessthanneutralword "illusion" with referenceto utopianismwhendiscussingEPS(e.g.,Bell 1976;Tilman 1996). Veblen'sMarxist critics are also disparagingin that they refer dismissively to EPSas "pre-Marxian"and considerits "utopiancharacter"to be its major flaw (Davis 1957,80).When utopianismis not being dismissed,its critics fear that, if implemented,it would relapseinto tyranny, therebyconfirming the antiutopians'worst dystopiannightmare.Sincethe DeclarationofIndependencein 1776,which wasessentiallyconcernedto provethatKing George

THE SOLUTION 153

was a tyrant, America has beensomewhatsensitiveabout tyranny, real or imagined. The demonizingof SaddamHusseinis but a contemporaryexample. DespiteVeblen being hugely persuadedby utopiar.ism,its negative imagein general,andthe tendencyfor it to be associatedwith totalitarianism in particular,seemsto haveinhibited a fuller considerationof its relevanceto an understandingof Veblen'swritings, especiallyEPS. Perhapsutopiaphobia afflicts, to somedegree,Veblen'sadmirersas well as his critics. This is simultaneouslya paradox and regrettable.A paradoxbecause: "EverythingaboutAmericahasinspired,andcontinuesto inspire,utopianism" (Kumar 1991a,69). From the LockeanDeclarationofIndependence to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dreamof brotherhood,Americaandutopiandesiresare inextricably entwined. For example,the mid-nineteenth-centuryScandinavian "America books" spoke of a land-rich country unboundedby the traditionsof Europe,which awakensa "new spirit" in immigrants"of independenceand freedom" (Blegen 1969 [1931], 246). Before America was settledby Europeans,it wasconceivedin utopiantermsaspart of the ancient heliotropic myth that "civilization proceededfrom the East,where it began, to the West,whereeventuallyit would reachcompletion"(SchulteNordholt 1995, 1). America was the land of legendand hope, the location of Plato's Atlantis, More's ideal society, innumerablesmall-scaleutopian communities, and an American(Bellamy) was the authorof "the first comprehensive socialistutopia" (Kumar 1991a, 140). Even today, utopianism,in the sense of "America's special destiny," is still an essentialelementin the national ideology and as suchinforms foreign policy and much elsebesides,including art and literature (Kumar 1991a,77). Utopianism,it could be argued,is fundamentalto an understandingof the history of America. The relative neglect of Veblen's utopianismis regrettablebecauseif it is looked at more positively it opensup the possibility of clarifYing the controversysurrounding EPS.A considerationof proutopiantomesshowsthat, when it is viewed as a legitimateway of thinking aboutsociety,it is an enduringand valuable featureof social theory (Hodgson1999; Kateb 1963; Kumar 1991a,1991b; Levitas 1990; Wallerstein 1986). More specifically, utopianism involves imagining a better future, a capacity that is arguably intrinsic to Western culture,as this familiar quotefrom Wilde indicates:"A mapof the world that does not include Utopia is not worth glancing at, for it leavesout the one country at which Humanity is always landing" (quotedin Levitas 1990,5). Aside from the escapistpotentialof utopias,they can also be instructiveand promotechange.The social constructionof a good society,howeverabstract and unrealizable,is invariably contrastedwith the presentsociety. In the processof comparingthe latterunfavorablywith the former, utopianismcriticizes the statusquo and stimulatesaspirationsfor change.Criticism often

154

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

takesthe form of satire,which can createuncertaintyregardingthe author's intention.Aspirationsoftentakethe form of action,which canradicallychange society.In sum, without utopias,we would "lose" our "will to shapehistory and ... ability to understandit" (Mannheim1960 [1936],236). Consideredfrom this perspective,Veblen'sanalysisof engineersin EPS and elsewhereis clearly utopian,sinceit involves a withering critique of the existing price system. He developedit by conveying the idea of a better society,onethat gavefree reignto the instinct of workmanship,andby speculating on the problemof agency.For Veblenthe moversand shakerswere the craft workers of the handicraftera and their successorsin the machineera, the technicalworkers.In Veblen'swritings theseoccupationalgroupsachieve heroic stature;they are specialin Veblen'sanalysisof the rise and developmentof capitalism.The craft workeris the "creative"and"serviceablemember of the community," who has"a merit of a peculiarly substantialand definitive kind ... the type andembodimentof efficiencyandserviceability"(1964a [1914], 243). Similarly, the "technicianis an active or creativefactor in the caseonly in the sensethat he is the keeperof the logic which govern the forcesat work" (1964c[1923],262).Moreover,technicalworkersare"highly trained and specially gifted expertsof divers and various kinds . . . born, bred, and trained at the cost of the communityat large, and they draw their requisiteknowledge"(1963 [1921], 82). In Veblen'sview, they areboth concernedprimarily with industrialefficiencybut arethwartedby working within a capitalistsystem,whereasthe large-scaleand technicallycomplexstateof industry in 1920sAmerica: ... shouldcall for themostintelligentandmostscrupulouslydispasssionate exerciseof technical insight and deliberation.Technologicallyspeaking, this is the apexof the industrial system.The work shouldlogically devolve on a technicalGeneralStaff. (Veblen 1964c[1923], 274) To Veblen'senduringchagrin,the technologicalsystemwasstill controlled by "laymenworking at cross-purposes"; hence,his analysisof what "should" happen"describesthe possibilitiesof the caseratherthan the actual run of things" (1964c [1923],274,279). Given Veblen'semphasison the productiveimperativefor, and therefore desirability of, cooperationand collectivism throughouthis writings, it is mostunlikely that, hadhe lived, he would haveendorsedAmericantechnocracy, but he almost certainly stimulatedthe emergenceof this movement. For example,in his last book, Veblen noted, "The mechanisticsystemof industry is of a collective and co-operativenature,essentiallyand of necessity a joint enterpriseof all civilized peoples"(1964c [1923],440; seealso

THE SOLUTION 155

1975 [1904],41; 1964a[1914], 274; 1964b [1915], 39; 1963 [1921], 13233). The samecan be said of Veblen'sstrongpreferencefor egalitariandemocracy,indicatedby his deprecationof individual gain at the expenseof the rest of the communityin all his works, andthe importancehe attachedto "consultation,""consent,"and"local councils,"in the eventof the engineers becomingthe "industrial directorate"(1963 [1921], 135, 150). Thesetwo aspectsof Veblen'sutopianismhave been summedup neatly by Eby: "He holds a collectivist vision of technology,believing its fruit shouldbe shared by all humanity" (1998a, 690). Thus, Veblenianismshareswith modem utopianisma focus on the centrality and democratizationof work and in the sensethat both theseconcernsare epitomizedin workmanship.By the same token, Veblen'sutopianvision also privileged work or, as he put it, the machineprocess,not in a narrowtechnocraticway, but in a "broaderand more humanistic" mannerin which people liberate themselvesfrom the restrictions of the pecuniarycontrol of industryand createa new society(Shannon 1996, 18). For example,asidefrom Veblen'sjudgmentallanguage,suchas "parasite"and "imbecile," one of the best summariesof his utopian ideals was expressedin the context of a discussionof the abusesof patriotism, where henotedthat amongthe ideals often incorporated"to lend a color of rationality to patriotic aspiration"was "a prospectiveliberation of mankind from servitudeto obnoxiousmastersand outworn institutions; or, again, it may be the increaseof peaceand material well-being amongmen" (1964b [1915],35).Finally, it will be recalledfrom the earlieranalysisthat the whole of Veblen'sdiagnosisand prognosiswas expressedin a satirical style. Here it is pertinentto addthat satirehasbeenintegralto the utopiantradition since ThomasMore inventedthe conceptand the genreby conflating two Greek words: eutoposmeaninggoodplace,and outoposmeaningno place(Kumar 1991a,24). In the place of the static and timelessqualities of classicalutopianism, "nineteenthcenturyutopia was temporaland dynamic" (Kumar 1991a, 45). It is shownabovethat Veblentoo embracedthe ideaof evolutionarychange, though of coursehe did not subscribeto the view that the unfolding of history was predictable.In this respectVeblen'sopen-endedDarwinian brand of evolutionismwith its streakof radical utopianismcould be considered an early version of what has since been called the "critical utopias" of post1960sliterature(Moylan 1986). In contrastto conventionalmodemutopias, which "foreclosethe agendafor the future in termsof a homogeneous revolutionary plan," critical utopias"hold open the act of negatingthe present" and "imagine any of severalpossiblemodes of adaptationto society and nature basedgenerally upon the principles of autonomy,mutual aid, and equality" (Moylan 1986, 27). Thus, the certainty of one alternative is re-

156

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

placedby the uncertaintyof many, both utopiasand dystopiasare possible, in a word "heterotopia" (Moylan 1986, 160). The unpredictability of the critical utopia is pure Veblen. It is reminiscentof his ambiguity concerning whetheror not a societycharacterizedby predation(dystopia)or workmanship (utopia) would prevail in the "calculablefuture" (1975 [1904],400). Veblen'sutopianismcould also be regardedas an early exampleof the fragmentedcharacterof its twentieth-centurymanifestations,particularly in feminist and ecological utopias. More specifically, Veblen's concernwith the emancipationof women(1970 [1899]) and with the environmentalcosts of the price system(1964c [1923]) predatethe growth of thesesubgenres, althoughtheir roots can be tracedback to William Morris's Newsfrom Nowhere (published in 1890) and Charlotte Gilman's Herland (publishedin 1915), bothwritten in largepart as a responseto EdwardBellamy'sLooking Backward(publishedin 1888) (Kumar 1991a). Given Veblen's familiarity with theseauthors,it is entirely likely that he was awareof thesepioneering contributionsto utopianism,which during his lifetime was enjoying some6 thing of a renaissance. In sum,Veblen'sutopianismis readily apparentin termsof: content,ideal commonwealthbasedon workmanship;Jorm,political vision of a new order in which full productionis sharedby all and limited only by the stateof the industrial arts, knowledgeof which is also available freely;Junctionofconstructivecriticism, directedat supportfor the price system,which is increasingly "incompatiblewith the commongood"; andcatalystforchange,skilled workersled by the engineerswho are"experiencedin the waysandmeansof technology" and are therefore"entrusted"to take control of the industrial system(Veblen 1969b [1919], 89, 90). In Veblen'sideal of an industrial republic, there is no placefor competition;it is all about"team-workbetween the constituentprocesses"since, without this, "the systemwill not work" (1964c [1923],289). ConcludingRemarks As an alternativeto the interminabledebateaboutwhetheror not Veblenwas guilty of faulty social theorizing (revolutionary engineers)and flawed socialism (technocraticelitism), this analysishassuggestedthat it is helpful to consider EPS from the relatively neglectedperspectiveof Veblen's utopianism.7 This is not to denythe possiblerelevanceof otheraspectsof his writings, especiallyinextricablyrelatedonessuchas socialismand syndicalism, merelyto submitthat a threadof utopianismrunsthroughVeblen'swork. It is sometimesa thin threadand on occasiona thick one, that it is not perceivedasan unbrokenoneis duelargely to stigmatizingpreconceptionsabout

THE SOLUTION 157

utopianism-utopiaphobia.When this affliction is acute it can causefear andpanic,notablyamongVeblen'sconservativecritics, in a mild form it can result in anxiety and defensiveness,even amongVeblen's admirers.Yet in what Veblenreferredto as the "post-modemera" (1969b [1919], 11), one in which the ascendencyof internationalcapitalismis virtually unchallenged, utopianismof the critical kind Veblen exemplifies is an essentialantidote lest we start acceptingthe frightening thoughtthat there is no alternativeto the wasteand conflict wrought by competitivecapitalism. Veblen's solution to the dysfunctionalrule of predatoryinstitutions was to proposea transformationinvolving the primacy of workmanship.For this he has beenassailedfrom all sides,typically from the standpointof failed grandsocial experimentsthat occurredafter his death.Ratherthan focus on eventsthat Veblen cannotbe held responsiblefor and certainly would not have endorsed,it is time to acknowledgethat he had the courage,during a virulent antisocialistperiod in Americanhistory, to outline his conceptionof a betterfuture and, in the process,to revealhis normativepreferences. In addition to utopianism,there is the distinct possibility that Veblen's analysisof technicalexpertsowessomethingto guild socialismandanarchosyndicalism,although it has beenarguedthat it differs from both (Tilman 1996). Aside from Bellamy, Tilman doesnot refer to any writers by name, insteadhe mentionsVeblen'ssympathyfor the "I.W.W.'s anarchosyndicalist doctrinesand program" (1996, 29). As far as guild socialism,which overlaps with syndicalism,is concerned,the work of the British socialistG.D.H. Cole (1889-1959)may be of relevance.In particular,Cole'sbook Self-Governmenton Industry was publishedin 1917 and a copy was found in Veblen's personallibrary.8 At this early stagein his career,Cole was inspiredby the work of Morris (MacCarthy1994) and was an anti-imperialist.More to the point, his analysisof the future role of tradeunions emphasizedthe importanceof the evolution of the democraticcontrol of industryand the "election of works experts"who act in an "advisory capacity"and are membersof an "EngineeringGuild" (1917,266).It may well be that Veblen had Cole's analysisin mind when he wrote EPS, given the comparabilityof his views on the democraticreorganizationof industry, althougha more detailedtextual exegesisis neededto confirm the extentof the similarity of their proposals. A third and even strongerpossibleinfluence on this aspectof Veblen's writings, similarly neglectedby intellectualhistorians,is English Fabiansorespeccialism via Sydneyand BeatriceWebb (1859-1947and tively) andtheir bookIndustrial Democracy(1897).Thereareseveralreasons for thinking this: first, Veblen possesseda copy of this book and cited it approvinglyin The Theoryo/theBusinessEnterprise.9 Second,like Veblen, the Webbswere Darwinian evolutionists(Hawkins 1997).Third, Veblen and

185~1943,

158

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

the Webbssharedan admirationfor the works of Morris (MacCarthy1994). Fourth, and most tellingly, there are somesignificant parallelsbetweenthe Webbs and Veblen, notably an emphasison the need to "devolve" the responsibilitiesof the "capitalist entrepreneur"to a "specially selectedand speciallytrainedclassof professionalexperts"(Webb andWebb 1897,843). The Webbs'list of specialistsincluded "inventors, designers,chemistsand engineers,"which is virtually identical to Veblen'soccupationaltitles in his variouspublications,especiallythe list in chapter10 of his last book (1897, 843). Moreover,like Veblen, the Webbswere against"VestedInterests"and arguedthat, in the interestsof the "community," no classshouldbe allowed to resist or obstruct "improvementsto industrial processes"(1897, 809). Regardingthe future, professionalexpertswould operatein a consultative role in the newly createdindustrial democracy,which is not dissimilar to Veblen'sview. This doesnot exhaustthe convergenciesbetweenthe Webbs andVeblen,which suggeststhat this neglectedline of researchmerits further attentionandmay proveto be yet anotherexampleof Anglo-Europeaninfluenceon Veblen'swritings.IO An optimistic postscript,it is interestingthat some recent researchhas shown that lawyers are bad for economicgrowth, whereasengineersenhanceeconomicgrowth, evenundera price system(Murphy et al. 1991).11

Notes 1. See also Bell's (1976) well-known exercisein futurology, in which he discussesthe different kinds of elites, including the scientific, academic,business,and military. 2. It is somewhatironic that having criticized Veblen so harshly, Bell awarded primacy to theoreticalknowledgein his deterministicaccountof the inegalitarian future direction of postindustrialsociety(1976). 3. For a general discussionof this problem in the history of ideasseeSkinner (1969). 4. WashingtonIsland Library ofThorsteinVeblen (CCA). 5. Andrew Veblen, letter to JosephDorfman,April 12, 1930(CUL). 6. The links betweenVeblen and Morris, Gilman, and Bellamy were discussed earlier, but seealso Dorfman (1934), For an analysisof the revival of utopianismat this time, seeKumar (1991b).For a comparisonof Veblen'sand Gilman'srhetorical styles,seeLewis and Sebberson(1997). 7. The foregroundingof Veblen's utopianismdetractsfrom his "uniquenessand eclecticoriginality" (Tilman 1996,227),much in the mannerof Shannon's thesisthat Veblen can be located"in termsof the intellectualiconoclasmof professionalsocial science"(1996, 2). This had previouslybeencalled the "social trusteeprofessionalism" of ProgressiveEra intellectualslike Veblen and Dewey (Brint 1994,37). 8. WashingtonIsland Libary ofThorsteinVeblen (CCA). 9. Ibid.

THE SOLUTION 159

10. Another exampleof the similarity betweenVeblen and the Webbsis that they were equallycritical of Marshallian economics. II. Regardingthe issueof Veblen'soptimism or pessimism(Dente 1977;Tilman 1996),to the extentthat EPSandhis otherwritings containboth optimistic andpessimistic passages, perhapsthis reflects,to paraphraseGramsci,who in tum was paraphrasingRomain Rolland, the Frenchnovelist, his "pessimismof the intelligence" andhis "optimism of the will" (HoareandNowell-Smith 1971,175).In short,Veblen's views did not vary, only the way he felt aboutthe prospectsfor radical changedid.

8 Conclusions The pathologicalthrust of Dorfman'saccountof Veblen'slife and work has beenshown to be a false trail that many othershave followed uncritically. Yet, Dorfman's focus on Veblen's Nordic heritage was not so much misplacedas misunderstood.Among the contradictionsand the mistakeninterpretations,highlightedforcibly by Andrew Veblen in the first instance,there was the core of an importantidea, namely,that Veblen'sintellectualcontribution was not unconnectedto his cultural baggage.Veblen'searly life was stimulatedand sustainedby a supportivekinship and friendship network that suppliedthe precociouslyable young Thorsteinwith a surfeit of economic, social, cultural, linguistic, and symbolic capital that provided the springboardfor a long and fruitful academiccareer.Veblen'ssenseof belonging to the Old World in general,and the northlandsin particular, was sustainedthroughouthis life via severalvisits to and extensivecontactwith northwesternEuropeanplacesandpeoples.Veblen'sNordic heritageis readily apparentfrom his love of knowledge,preferencefor useful goods andservices, and concernfor the commongood. Thesepreoccupationsand values were enduringfeaturesof Veblen'slife andwork, andmay be summedup by his conceptof workmanship.In the face of considerablepersonalandpolitical adversity,Veblenexpressedhis radicalviews with a faultlessconsistency that belies their controversialcharacter.Dorfman'sungenerouspreconceptions regardingVeblen'sethnic origins seemto haveled him to miss a singularly propitiousopportunity to write a tour deforce ratherthan perpetratea grandfaux pas. The multiplicity of influenceson Veblen'slife andthoughtarewell known and havebeenreviewedwith referenceto evolutionismand socialism,specifically Veblen'spositive responseto Darwin and Bellamy and his negative reactionto SpencerandMarx (Edgell andTilman 1989).This studyhassuggestedthatVeblenwas a Darwinianpar excellenceandthat, somewhatironi160

CONCLUSIONS 161

cally, his social Darwinism was far less taintedby teleologythan Darwin's commentson human societies,although the normative dimensionis more prominentin Veblen'stheory of evolution. The radicalismof Veblen'sDarwinian evolutionismwould be easyto underestimatewith the hindsightborn of over acenturyof researchthathasconfirmedthe essentialtruth of Darwin's insights. By adoptingDarwinism, Veblen challengedestablishedcreationist doctrine,and by attackingconservativesocial Darwinism, Veblenhelpedto underminethe myth of capitalistprogress.During Veblen'slifetime, certain statelegislaturesattemptedto passbills banningthe teachingof evolution in public schoolsand colleges,while capitalistswere celebratedas cultural heroes (Tindall and Shi 1992). SinceVeblen'stime, religious fundamentalism in America seemsto have declined,but respectfor capitalistsand their values seemsto have increased. Veblen'suseof the term "logic" in discussingthe evolution of pecuniary and industrial habitsof thought,and his claim that the pecuniaryinstitutions were dependentupon industrial ones,whereasthe latter could not just survive but prosperonce the former had been abolishedor simply decayed throughlack of use,hints of anunderlyingdeterminismthat in the final analysis Veblen rejected. However, a minority of critics have labeled Veblen a "technologicaldeterminist" (MacIver and Page 1964, 566), at the expense of his overall Darwinian argumentconcerning"blindly cumulative causation" (Veblen 1969a[1919], 436). The idea that industrializationinvolves a "logic" or imperativesthat constraineconomicdevelopmentand inducecertain convergent"tendencies"was developedby Kerr et al. (1960), with Veblen'stheory of evolutionarychange,but not his conclusions,very much in mind. Moreover,the emphasison the "characterof scienceand technology" and the "requirementsinherent"in modemcapitalismwere not seenas contradictoryin this study; hence,its Vebleniansourcewas betrayedby its un-Vebleniananalysisand conclusions(Kerr et al. 1960,33).This is a neglectedaspectof the Veblenian legacy, althoughVeblen's focus on the increasinglyimportant role of technologicalknowledgein economicchange continuesto be recognized,particularly among evolutionary economists (Saviotti and Nooteboom2000). BeyondVeblen'sethnicity and pervasive Darwinism,and asidefrom his critical appreciationof HerbertSpencerandKarl Marx, the Anglo-European influenceson Veblen'slife and thoughtare perhapsmore extensivethan has beenappreciatedup until now, but discussedfar less than American influenceson Veblen. This is not to deny the significanceof Veblen'sexperiences in America,especiallyhis debtto the utopiansocialistEdwardBellamy, radical political movements,and progressiveintellectualdevelopments;rather,it is merely to broadenthe social context and to acknowledgethat Veblen was

162

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

singularly cosmopolitan, evenby today'sstandards.In part Veblen'scosmopolitanismwas facilitated by his multilingual skills, which were an integral elementof his ethnic capital, and a manifestationof his Europeanorigins and perspective.Thus, in addition to arguing that Darwin's influence on Veblen was greaterthan haspreviouslybeenshown,and confirming that the impact of certain Europeansocial scientists--HerbertSpencer(Eff 1989), EdwardTylor (Dawson1993),JohnHobson(Edgell andTilman 1994;Edgell and Townshend1992), Werner Sombart(Loader et al. 1991), plus Henrik Ibsen and William Morris (Edgell 1996}-on Veblen are all somewhatunderrated,this study suggeststhat the British non-Marxist radical tradition, which includesSydneyand BeatriceWebb and D.H. Cole, is worthy of further investigationwith specialbut not exclusivereferenceto engineersand industrialreorganization.It may well proveto be a caseof a minor influence, but until the researchhasbeenundertaken,the natureand extentof this factor will remain a matter of conjecture.I hastento add that the pattern of influenceswasnot oneway. Veblen's"intellectualaffinity" to Europeanthinkers may have been rooted in his ethnicity and evolutionism,yet Veblen's impact on his Europeancontemporaries,though rarely studied, was quite marked,especiallyin France(Wasser1996, 10). In a more substantivevein, it hasbeenarguedthat the core of Veblen'scontribution, which may be called sociologicaleconomicsto indicate Veblen's lack of respectfor disciplinaryboundaries,concernshis theory of evolutionary change.The "conceptualfurniture" introducedby Veblen to analyzethe cumulativecharacterof incessantchangeincluded his distinction between predationandworkmanship,instincts,habitsand institutions(1969a[1919], 279). The ambition of Veblen'sproject can be seenin his attemptto bridge the nature-culturedivide by making his assumptionsabout human nature explicit and linking them to the growth of habits and institutions, such was his debt to Darwin. The axis around which Veblen developedhis dynamic accountof the evolutionof societieswas of coursethe interplaybetweenthe instincts of workmanshipand predation.In the most recent historical era, termedthe machineageby Veblen, predatoryinstitutionsare seenas enjoying the upperhand,despitetheir dysfunctionalityfrom the standpointof the fullest expressionof workmanshipand thereforethe optimum benefit to society as a whole. The crux of the situation for Veblen was to explain how such uselessinstitutions not only survive but appearto prosperat the expenseof the majority, who seemfor the most part to tolerate this arrangement. Diggins has correctly and neatly summedup this central feature of Veblen'swork as "the cultural hegemonyof capitalismand the social stigma of labor" (1978, 105). The originality of Veblen'scontribution could therefore be said to residein his concernto theorizethe persistenceof a flawed

CONCLUSIONS 163

system,whereasotherswho regardedit in a similarly, yet differently, critical manner,spokeonly of its demise,while thosefor whom it representedtheir idea and ideal of progressthoughtthings could only get better,not worse.In the processof advancinghis lessthan flattering analysisof modem(American) capitalism,Veblen achievedthe statusof captainof demystificationin that he revealedthe flimsy foundationsof the widely cherishednotionsthat competitionwas natural and that capitalistprogresswas inevitable. Veblen'sexplanationof the persistenceof modemcapitalismwas informed by his Darwinism in the sensethat he consideredit to be a "case of aimless survival, on the whole, due partly to the inertia of habit and tradition, partly to the solicitousadvocacyof theseassumednationalinterestsby thoseclasses... who standto gain somethingby the pursuitof themat the costof the community" (1969b [1919], 130). Veblen placed more theoreticalweight on cultural forcesthaneconomicinterests,thoughnot in a mutually exclusiveway. It will be recalledthat Veblen arguedthat the pivotal pecuniaryinstitution, specificallythe"rights, powers,andimmunitiesof ownership... aregrounded in the principlesof law and usagewhich are by ancienthabit deeplyembedded in the popularcommonsenseas well as commonlaw" (1964c [1923], 431). In other words, what may be called Veblen's theory of institutional inertia is an early non-Marxist theory of cultural hegemonythat incorpoa generationbefore ratedthe currently fashionableidea of "embeddedness" this conceptenteredanthropologicaldiscourseand two generationsbeforeit becamepart ofthe lexicon of history, political science,andeconomicsociology (Granovetter1985,481).NotwithstandingGranovetter'sfailure to cite any of Veblen'swritings, this article could be consideredseminalin the sense hasbecomeso cothat since it was publishedthe conceptof embeddedness pious that I hesitateto list any references,with threeexceptions.First, there is a collection of articles on the sociologyof economiclife, someof which draw upon the conceptof embeddedness, while othersrecognizeVeblen's continuedrelevanceto this areaof research(Granovetterand Swedberg1992). Second,a more critical discussionof embeddedness in the samespecialist field is provided byCalIon, who also makesthe problematicclaim that this conceptwas "first put forward by Polanyi" in 1975 (1998,252).Third, an authoritativereview of the major contributionsto the "new economicsociology" suggeststhat it is mainly an "American initiative" that "in some respectsis not particularlynew," althoughit promisesto enhancethe "relation betweensociologyand economicsin the analysisof economiclife" (Ingham 1996,550,563).While Veblen'simportantrole in the emergenceofinstitutional economicsis well documented(Hodgson1994;Neale 1987),his contribution to economicsociology has beenacknowledgedwith referenceto consumption(Martinelli and Smelser1990),but remainsless than fully ex-

164

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

amined in other tenns (Swedberg1987). Veblen did not so much wish to widen the scopeof economics(Copeland 1958) as to transfonnit via an integration with other disciplines, including anthropology,sociology, and psychology. Part of Veblen'sanalysisof the survival of outmodedinstitutionsand associatedeconomicactionsis that theywereembeddedin contemporary"structures of social relations" (Granovetter1985, 481). Veblen was also alive to the argumentthat "Actors do not behaveor decideas atomsoutsidea social context," although his analysisof modem capitalism in general,and consumptionin particular, arguably tendedtoward an oversocializedconception of human action (Granovetter1985, 487). Hence, for Veblen, the present was understandableonly with referenceto the "barbarianpast," which oppressedthe contemporaryworking classeslike an ideologicalmedievalyoke (1969b[1919], 132). Helping to breakfree from the pastby undenniningthe conservativeforcesthat supportestablishedinstitutionsandthereforeinhibit progressivechangewas Veblen'spolitical goal. In this regard,to the extent to which the marginality myth portrays Veblen as politically detached,it needsto be qualified to take into accounthis role as an intellectual with a nonnativeagendaof a socialist utopian hue, his radical political involvementsand sympathies,and his view that "remedialmeasures"to ameliorate the more damagingeffectsof the price systemwere "besidethe point" since they only treated"symptoms"and left the fundamentalcauseof the problem untouchedat best,and at worst reinforcedthe statusquo (1975 [1904],378). Veblen may well havebeencomfortablewith a semidetachedstrangerrole, but it undoubtedlytook considerableiron in the soul to stand up and be counted,given the political climate of his writings, especiallyduring the repressive"red scare"of 1919--20,andhis prominenceas a subversiveintellectual opposedto the free market fundamentalistsand what they perceived to be a hugely successfulcapitalistsociety. The relevanceof Veblen'scritical analysisof advancedcapitalismto economic eventsand the analysisof them in the era of global capitalismhas beenwidely appreciatedover the pastdecade(e.g., Gimble 1991; Hodgson 1994; Levy 1994; Vidich 1992; Wasser1994),whereas,apartfrom the sociology of consumption(Edgell 1999), the samecannotbe said for sociology in general.This is regrettableto the extentthat manycurrenteconomicproblems-suchasthe inherentwastefulness of so-calledcapitalistprogress(Jakie and Wilson 1992), the physical violence experiencedby the employeesof profit-orientedcompaniesasa resultof everydaybusiness(mis)conduct(Hills 1987); and the democraticimplications of the increasingcorporatecontrol of public serviceslike healthand education(Manbiot 2000)-werefirst explored by Veblen within his predatoryand workmanshipinstitutional di-

CONCLUSIONS 165

chotomy,a frameworkthat studiesof this radical kind could adoptwith advantage.For example,Manbiot'sexcessof data over theory in the nameof preservingliberal democracyarguably could have been improved analytically by a more Veblenianappreciationof the historical depth and inherent tensionbetweenthe pecuniaryand industrial dimensionsof the problemof the "corporatetakeover"of the British state(331). An instructive and very recentexampleof the interdisciplinaryvalue of Veblen'scontributionis affordedby cultural studies,particularlyAmerican literatureand cultural criticism. Eby (1998b)is not the first personto seethe parallelsbetweenVeblen'swritings and contemporaryliterature.This tradition could be said to have beeninspired by Howells (1899), but Eby's examinationof the writings of Dreiserand Veblen, with referenceto content and style, is arguablythe most thoroughand powerful analysisof how sociology and literature can be used togetherto advancecultural criticism. A similar exercisehas been undertakenin relation to the American novelist Kurt Vonnegut,whoseutopianand dystopianconcernsare thoughtto parallel the issuesraisedby Veblen'sanalysisofindustrial capitalism(Van Sickle 1999).As Van Sickle hasnoted,"with the assistanceof contemporaryfiction writers such as Kurt Vonnegut,many of Veblen'smost astuteobservations will continueto live into the 21 st century" (32). This possibility is neithera randomnor an isolatedexample;Van Sickleprovidesevidencethat Vonnegut was familiar with Veblen'swritings and had drawn upon someof his ideas for his novels; similarly, Upton Sinclair also indicated that he was influencedby the works of Veblen.I The normative aspectof Veblen'spredation-workmanshipdualism suggeststhat he consideredcooperationpreferableto, as well as more fundamentalfor the advancement of, well-beingthancompetition.AlthoughVeblen did acknowledgethat competitivebehaviorwaspresentfrom the beginning, as it were, and concededa limited positive role for competition, namely, during the formative developmentof the handicraft era, he was generally critical of suchbehavioron the groundsthat it fostereda self-seekingorientation that inhibited the free exchangeof knowledgeand thereforetendedto limit productivepotentialand encourageconflict. In his most acerbicstudy, he statedthat "learningis not a competitiveenterprise"(1965 [1918],233),a point that hasnot goneunnoticedby present-dayAmericanacademics(e.g., Renshaw1999;Vidich 1994).As hasbeenshownearlier,the convergenceof Veblen'sideologicalinclinationandhis theoreticalpositionin favor of groupseekingratherthanself-seekinginstincts,habits,andinstitutionscanbe traced to Darwin, while other social scientistsinvoked Darwinian evolutionismto supportthe oppositeconclusion,namely, that humanbeingsare essentially competitiveanimals.Recruiting the authority of Darwinism to bolster dia-

166

VEBLEN IN PERSPECTIVE

metrically opposedpolitical views led to a historical division betweenconservativesocial Darwinists such as Herbert Spencerand William Sumner, and "reform Darwinists" like Enrico Ferri and Sydneyand BeatriceWebb (Hawkins 1997, 151).2This debateabout competitiveand cooperativehuat the boundarybeman nature is enjoying somethingof a recrudescence tweenthe naturalandthe socialsciences.Thus,the contemporaryequivalents of the conservativesocial Darwinists and the reform social Darwinists are MaryanskiandTurner(1992) andBookchin(1982; 1989),respectively,with Veblen closerto the latter categorythan to the former one. The most up-todatereview of researchon this enduringissueclaims that to arguean either/ or position doesnot do justiceto the complexityof the relationshipbetween humannatureand humansocieties(Dickens 2000). According to Dickens, this researchindicatesthat "modemhumanbeingscould be individualistic and egalitarian,solitary and sociable,"and suggestsin a quotefrom Boehm (1997), "It is far more likely that our natureis many facetedand internally contradictory,andthat political behaviouroften involvesa trade-offbetween dispositionsthat work in opposition in certain contexts" (2000, 94). This possibility is in keeping with Veblen's analysis,in that he too emphasized that humannaturewas complex,that it was guidedby intelligenceand purpose,and that a lot dependedupon the opportunity to expressdifferent aspects of human potential. Hence, some situations that encouragegroupseekingpropensitiesanddiscourageself-seekingpropensities;othersencourage the opposite;while still otherscall forth the expressionof both, all to varying degrees.Thus,the categories"predation"and "workmanship"arein effect an attemptto comprehend,in a summativemanner,the complexity of humannature,the diversity of social conditions,and the wide rangeof possible outcomesthat their interactioninduces.To Veblen'scredit, his contribution managedto tread the fine line between oversocializedand undersocializedconceptionsof social action that few social scientistshave achievedbeforeor since. It is indicative of the breadth,depth, and originality of Veblen'scritical social thought that it continuesto be regardedas relevant, and therefore influencial, albeit unevenly,amongso many intellectual disciplinesand beyond academia.His utopianvision of a peacefulworld in which technological knowledgeis sharedby all for the benefitof all is arguablymoreapplicable than ever given the continuedsurvival of "imbecile institutions" (Veblen 1964a[1914], 25). Veblen'slife and work hasan epic quality comparableto that of the hero, Per Hansa,in Rolvaag'sfictional accountof nineteenth-century Norwegian immigrantpioneers,Giants in the Earth (1955 [1927]). WhereasPerHansa was born in Norway and (with the supportof his family and not a little cul-

CONCLUSIONS 167

tural capital) sunnountedthe challengeof a new country and hostile open prairie, ThorsteinVeblenwasborn in the United Statesand,with equalifnot greaterethnic capital, used his considerablewordsmanshipto contestvaliantly the legitimacy of old institutionsthat were defendedby hostile closed minds.Above all, Veblen was: bien danssa peau ("happy in his skin"), and the social sciencesare more humaneand vibrant as a result.

Notes 1. "I havetremendousadmirationfor his work. You will find considerablereferenceto that in 'Love's Pilgrimage,'" Upton Sinclair, letter to JosephDorfman, September7,1932(CUL). 2. Veblen gave a favorable review to Ferri's Darwinian defenseof socialism (Dorfman 1973}-yetanotherfine exampleof Veblenthe Europhileandradical evolutionist.

This page intentionally left blank

References Abrams, Philip. 1972. "The Senseof the Pastand the Origins of Sociology." Past and Present 55: 18-32. Adorno, TheodorW. 1967 [1941]. Prisms.London: NevilleSpearman. Akin, William E. 1977. TechnocracyandtheAmericanDream.Berkeley:University of California Press. Anderson,Karl L. 1933."The Unity of Veblen's TheoreticalSystem."QuarterlyJournal o/Economics47: 598-626. Ardzrooni,Leon,ed. 1964[1934]. Essaysin Our ChangingOrder by ThorsteinVeblen. New York: AugustusM. Kelley. Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution o/Cooperation.New York: Basic Books. Ayres, ClarenceE. 1958."Veblen'sTheory ofInstinctsReconsidered."In Thorstein Veblen: A Critical Reappraisal,ed. DouglasDowd, 25-37. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Banks,J.A. 1969."ThorsteinVeblen."In The FoundingFatherso/SocialScience,ed. Timothy Raison,119-27.London: Penguin. Banks,Marcus. 1996.Ethnicity: AnthropologicalConstructions.London:Routledge. Barnard,Malcom. 1996.FashionAs Communication.London: Routledge. BooksDonatedto CarletonCollegeby the Bartley, Russell.1994.Veblen-Associated Descendants ofKari andSigurlineBjarnsonof WashingtonIslandWisconsin.Fort Bragg, CA: Noya Hill House. Bartley, Russell,and Bartley, Sylvia. 1999. "In the companyofT.B. Veblen: A Narrative of BiographicalRecovery."International Journal 0/Politics, Culture and Society 13: 273-332. - - - . 2000. "Stigmatizing ThorsteinVeblen: The Defacementof a NorwegianAmericanCultural Icon." Paperpresentedat Vandringer:Norwegiansin theAmerican Mosaic, 1825-2000,sponsoredby the Norwegian-AmericanHistorical Associationand the MinnesotaHistorical Society,St. Paul, MN, April. Bartley, Russell,andYoneda,Sylvia. 1994."ThorsteinVeblenon WashingtonIsland: Of Books,Intellect andPersonality."Paperpresentedat the InauguralConference of the InternationalThorsteinVeblenAssociation,New Schoolfor SocialResearch, New York, February. Bartley, Sylvia. 1996."Intellect Surveilled:ThorsteinVeblenandthe Organsof State Security." Paperpresentedat the SecondInternationalThorsteinVeblenAssociation Conference,CarletonCollege,Northfield, MN, May. 169

170

REFERENCES

Baudrillard, Jean. 1981. Towards a Critique 0/ the Political Economy0/ the Sign. St. Louis, MO: Telos. Bell, Daniel. 1963. Introductionto ThorsteinVeblen'sThe Engineersand the Price System,2-35. New York: Harcourt,BraceandWorld. ---.1976.The Comingo/Post-industrialSociety:A Venturein SocialForecasting. London: Penguin. Bell, Quentin. 1992. On Human Finery. London:Allison and Busby. Bellamy, Edward,n.d. [1888]. LookingBackward.London: William Reeves. Berger, Peter. 1963. Invitation to Sociology:A HumanisticPerspective.New York: Doubleday. Berger, Peter,Berger, Brigitte, and Kellner, Hansfried. 1974. The HomelessMind: Modernizationand Consciousness. London: Penguin. Bierstedt,Robert.1981.AmericanSociologicalTheory:A Critical History. NewYork: Academic. Bjork, Kenneth.1949."ThorsteinVeblenandSt. OlafCollege:A Groupof Lettersby Thorbjorn N. Mohn." Norwegian-AmericanHistorical Association,Studiesand Records15: 122-30. Blegen,TheodoreC. 1917. "Ole Rynning'sTrue Account of America." Minnesota Historical Bulletin 2: 221-9. ---.1969[1931]. NorwegianMigration toAmericaI82!rI860. NewYork:Amo. Bloom, Harold, ed. 1987.RudyardKipling. New York: ChelseaHouse. Bock, Kenneth.1978."Theoriesof Progress,Development,Evolution." In A History o/SociologicalAnalysis,eds.T. BottomoreandR. Nisbet, 39-79.New York: Basic Books. Bocock,Robert. 1993. Consumption.London: Routledge. Boehm, Christopher. 1997. "Egalitarianism and Political Intelligence." In Machiavellian Intelligence II: Evaluations and Extensions,eds. A. Whitten and R. Byrne, 341-4. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Bookchin, M. 1982. TheEcology0/Freedom.PaloAlto, CA: Cheshire. - - - . 1989.RemakingSociety.Montreal: Black Rose. Bottomore,Tom B. 1964.Elites and Society.London: C.A. Watts. - - - . 1975.SociologyAs Social Criticism. London:Allen and Unwin. Bourdieu,Pierre.1984.Distinction: A SocialCritique o/theJudgemento/Taste.London: Routledgeand KeganPaul. - - - . 1991.LanguageandSymbolicPower. Cambridge,England:Polity. Bramson,Leon. 1974. The Political Contexto/Sociology.Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press. Brint, Steven.1994.In an Age0/Experts: The ChangingRole0/Expertsin Politics andPublic Life. Princeton,NJ: Princeton UniversityPress. Brooks, John. 1981. ShowingOffin America: From ConspicuousConsumptionto ParodyDisplay. Boston:Little, Brown. Brown, Doug, ed. 1998. Thorstein Veblenin the Twenty-FirstCentury:A Commemoration ofTheTheoryof theLeisureClass(I 899-I 999). Cheltenham:EdwardElgar. Bryant, Christopher.1995.Practical Sociology:Post-empiricismandtheReconstruction o/TheoryandApplication. Cambridge,England:Polity. Buchholz,Todd G. 1989.NewIdeas/romDeadEconomists.New York: Plume. Bulmer, Martin. 1982. The Useso/SocialResearch.London: Allen and Unwin. - - - . 1984.TheChicagoSchoolo/Sociology.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

REFERENCES 171 Burrow, J.W. 1966.Evolution and Society:A Studyin Victorian SocialTheory.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Bush, Paul D. 1987. "TheTheory ofInstitutional Change."Journal ofEconomicIssues21: 1075-116. - - - . 1999."Veblen'sOlympianDetachmentReconsidered." History ofEconomic Ideas7: 127-51. Calion, Michel, ed. 1998. The Lawsofthe Markets. Oxford: Blackwell/Sociological Review. Carnic, Charles. 1986. "The Matter of Habit." AmericanJournal of Sociology91: 1039--87. Campbell,Colin. 1992."The Desireof the New." In ConsumingTechnologies:Media andInformation in DomesticSpaces,eds.RogerSilverstoneandEric Hirsch, 4864. London: Routledge. - - - . 1995a."ConspicuousConfusion:A Critique of Veblen's TheoryofConspicuous Consumption."SociologicalTheory 13: 37-47. - - - . 1995b."The Sociologyof Consumption."In AcknowledgingConsumption: A ReviewofNewStudies,ed. Daniel Miller, 96-126.London: Routledge. - - - . 1996."Veblen'sTheoryof ConspicuousConsumption:A Critical Appraisal." In SosiologistArbok, eds.Otnes,Strandbuand Thomassen,61-81. Oslo. Carpenter,Juliet, and Lees,Loretta. 1995."Gentrificationin New York, London and Paris:An InternationalComparison."InternationalJournal ofUrban andRegional Research19: 286-303. Child, John. 1969. The BusinessEnterprisein Modern Industrial Societies.London: Collier-Macmillan. Christianson,J.R. 1995. "Thorstein Veblen: Ethnic Roots and Social Criticism ofa 'Folk Savant.'" Norwegian-AmericanStudies34: 3-32. Cole, G.D.H. 1917.Self-government in Industry. London: G. Bell and Sons. Colloredo-Mansfield,Rudolf. 1994. "Architectural ConspicuousConsumptionand EconomicChangein the Andes."AmericanAnthropologist96: 845-65. Commager,Henry Steele.1950.TheAmericanMind. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Copeland,Morris A. 1958. "On the Scope and Method of Economics." In Thorstein Veblen: A Critical Reappraisal,ed. Douglas F. Dowd, 57-75. Westport,CT: Greenwood. Corrigan,Peter.1997.TheSociologyofConsumption:An Introduction.London: Sage. Coser,Lewis A. 1977 [1971]. MastersofSociologicalThought: Ideas in Historical andSocial Context.New York: Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovitch. - - - . 1978. "American Trends." In A History of SociologicalAnalysis, eds. T. Bottomoreand R. Nisbet, 287-320.New York: Basic Books. Cott, Nancy F. 1987. The Grounding ofModern Feminism.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Crossley-Holland,Kevin. 1980. The NorseMyths: Godsofthe Vikings. London: Penguin. Cummings,John. 1899.Reviewof The TheoryoftheLeisureClass.Journal ofPolitical Economy7: 425-55. Daniels,W.M. 1905.Reviewof The Theoryofthe BusinessEnterprise,by Thorstein Veblen.Atlantic Monthly 95: 557-59. Darwin, Charles.1874.TheDescentofMan andSelectionin Relationto Sex,rev. ed. New York: RandMcNally.

172

REFERENCES

Davie,Donald. 1987."The Puritan'sEmpire:TheCaseof Kipling." In RudyardKipling, ed. Harold Bloom, 45-56. New York: ChelseaHouse. Davis,Arthur K. 1945."SociologicalElementsin Veblen'sEconomicTheory."JournalofPolitical Economy53: 13&-45. ---.1957."ThorsteinVeblen Reconsidered."Scienceand Society21: 52-85. Davis, Fred. 1992. Fashion, Culture and Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Davis, Howard, and Scase,Richard. 1985. WesternCapitalism and StateSocialism. Oxford: Blackwell. Dawkins, Richard. 1985. "Universal Darwinism." In Evolution from Moleculesto Men, ed. D.S. Bendall,403-25.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Dawson,Hugh J. 1993."E.B. Tylor's Theory of Survivalsand Veblen'sSocial Criticism." Journal ofthe History ofIdeas 54: 489-504. Dente,LeonardA. 1977. Veblens TheoryofSocial Change.New York: Amo. Denzin,NormanK. 1970. TheResearchAct in Sociology:A TheoreticalIntroduction to SociologicalMethods.London: Butterworths. ---.1989.InterpretiveBiography.London: Sage. Dickens, Peter. 2000. Social Darwinism: Linking Evolutionary Thought to Social Theory.Buckingham:OpenUniversity Press. Diggins, JohnPatrick. 1973. TheAmericanLeft in the TwentiethCentury.New York: Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovich. ---.1978.The Bard ofSavagery:Thorstein Veblen and Modern Social Theory. Sussex:Harvester. - - - . 1992. The Riseand Fall o/theAmericanLeft. New York: W.W. Norton. Dominguez,Joe,and Robin, Vicki. 1992. Your Moneyor Your Life. New York: Penguin. Dorfman, Joseph.1932. "The 'Satire'of Thorstein Veblen's Theory o/the Leisure Class."Political ScienceQuarterly 47: 363-409. - - - . 1934. Thorstein VeblenandHis America.New York: Viking. (The most recentrevisededition was publishedin 1966.) - - - . 1949. The EconomicMind in AmericanCivilization, vol. 3. New York: Viking. - - - . 1958a. "Veblen CentenaryRound Table: Sourceand Impact of Veblen." AmericanEconomicReview(Supplement)48: 1-10. - - - . 1958b."The Sourceand Impactof Veblen'sThought."In Thorstein Veblen: A Critical Reappraisal,ed. DouglasF. Dowd, 1-12. Westport,CT: Greenwood. - - - . 1968."Backgroundof Veblen'sThought."In ThorsteinVeblen: The Carleton College Veblen SeminarEssays,ed. Carlton C. Qualey, 106-30.New York: Columbia University Press. Dorfinan,Joseph,ed. 1973.Thorstein Veblen:EssaysReviewsandReports.New York: AugustusM. Kelley. Dos Passos,John. 1961 [1936]. The Big Money.New York: WashingtonSquare. Dowd, DouglasF., ed. 1958.ThorsteinVeblen:A Critical Reappraisal.Westport,CT: Greenwood. ---.1964.Thorstein Veblen.New York: WashingtonSquare. - - - . 1974. TwistedDream: Capitalist Developmentin the United Statessince 1776. Cambridge,MA: Winthrop. Duffus, RobertL. 1944. TheInnocentsofCredo: A Memoir ofThorstein Veblenand SomeOthers.New York: Macmillan.

REFERENCES 173

Dugger,William, M. 1979."The Origins of ThorsteinVeblen'sThought."SocialScienceQuarterly 60: 424-31. ---.1984."Veblen and Kropotkin on Human Evolution." Journal ofEconomic Issues28: 972-85. Eby, Clare. 1992. "Veblen'sAnti-Anti-Feminism." Canadian ReviewofAmerican Studies,SpecialIssue2: 215-38. - - - . 1998a."Veblen'sAssaulton Time." Journal ofEconomicIssues32: 689-707. - - - . 1998b.Dreiserand Veblen,Saboteursofthe StatusQuo. Columbia:University of Missouri Press. Edgell, Stephen.1975."ThorsteinVeblen'sTheoryof EvolutionaryChange."American Journal ofEconomicsandSociology34: 267-80. ---.1980.Middle Class Couples:A StudyofSegregation, Domination and Inequalityin Marriage. London:Allen and Unwin. - - - . 1987."Veblen: Social Theoristand Social Critic." SalfordPapersin Sociology andAnthropology,no. 3. Salford,England:University of Salford. - - - . 1992. "ThorsteinVeblen and Post-VeblenianStudiesof ConspicuousConsumption."RevueInternationalede Sociologie,Nouvelle Serie3: 205-27. ---.1993.Class.London: Routledge. - - - . 1994."ThorsteinVeblen:The MistakenMarginality ofthe Man from Mars." Paperpresentedat the InauguralConferenceof the InternationalThorsteinVeblen Association,New Schoolfor Social Research,New York, February. - - - . 1996. "RescuingVeblen from Valhalla: A Deconstructionand Reconstruction of a SociologicalLegend."British Journal ofSociology47: 627-42. - - - . 1999."Veblen'sTheoryof ConspicuousConsumptionafter I 00 Years."History ofEconomicIdeas7: 99-125. Edgell, Stephen,and Duke, Vic. 1991. A Measureof Thatcherism:A Sociologyof Britain. London: HarperCollins. Edgell, Stephen,andTilman, Rick. 1989."The IntellectualAntecedentsof Thorstein Veblen."Journal ofEconomicIssues23: 1003-26. - - - . 1991. "John Rae and Thorstein Veblen on ConspicuousConsumption:A NeglectedIntellectualRelationship."History ofPolitical Economy23: 731-44. - - - . 1994. "John Hobson:Admirer and Critic of ThorsteinVeblen." In Hobson after 50 Years:Free Thoughtin the SocialSciences,ed. JohnPheby,211-24.London: Macmillan. Edgell, Stephen,andTownshend,Jules. 1992."John Hobson,ThorsteinVeblen and the Phenomenon ofImperialism:FinanceCapital,PatriotismandWar." American Journal ofEconomicsand Sociology51: 401-20. ---.1993."Marx andVeblenon HumanNature,History andCapitalism:Vive la Difference!"Journal ofEconomicIssues27: 721-39. Edgell, Stephen,Hetherington,Kevin, and Warde, Alan, eds. 1996. Consumption Matters: TheProductionandExperienceofConsumption.Oxford: Blackwell/Sociological Review. Edgell, Stephen,Walklate, Sandra,and Williams, Gareth,eds. 1995. Debatingthe Future of the Public Sphere: Transformingthe Public and Private Domains in Free Market Societies.Aldershot,England:Avebury. Eff, E. Anton. 1989."History ofThoughtAsCeremonialGeneology:The Neglected Influence of Herbert Spencer on ThorsteinVeblen." Journal ofEconomicIssues 23: 689-716. Elliott, Larry. 1999."Rise andRise of the SuperRich." Guardian 14 (July): 2-3.

174

REFERENCES

Evans, Mary. 1993. "ReadingLives: How the PersonalMight Be Social." Sociology 27: 5-13. Evans,S.M. 1989.Born to Liberty: A History ofWomenin America.New York: Free Press. Faris, R.E.L. 1967. ChicagoSociology1920-1932.Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Feuer,Lewis S. 1953. "ThorsteinVeblen: The Metaphysicsof the InternedIIrunigrant." AmericanQuarterly 5: 99-112. Fine, Gary. 1994. "The Social Constructionof Style: ThorsteinVeblen'sTheory of the LeisureClassAs ContestedText." SociologicalQuarterly 35: 457-72. Finkelstein,Joanne.1991. TheFashionedSelf. Cambridge,England:Polity. Fletcher,Ronald. 1971. The Making ofSociology:A StudyofSOciologicalTheory, vol. 1. London: Maxwell Joseph.Vol. 2. London: Nelson. Fontana,Andrea,andTilman, Rick. 1988. "Utopia in Vilfredo Paretoand Thorstein Veblen." RevueEuropeanneDes SciencesSociales26: 43-57. Fredrickson,GeorgeM. 1953."ThorsteinVeblen:TheLastViking." AmericanQuarterly 11: 403-15. Friday, CharlesB. 1968."Veblen on the FutureofAmericanCapitalism."In Thorstein Veblen: The Carleton CollegeVeblenSeminarEssays,ed. Carlton C. Qualey, 1646. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press. Galbraith,JohnK.1962. TheAjJluentSociety.London: Penguin. - - - . 1973."A New Theory of ThorsteinVeblen."AmericanHeritage 24: 32-40. Gallman,R.E. 1973."GrossNational Productin the United States,1834-1909." In New EconomicHistory: SelectedReadings,ed. PeterTemin, 19-31. London: Penguin. Genov,Nikolai. 1989."National SociologicalTraditionsandthe Internationalization of Sociology."In National TraditionsofSociology,ed. Nikolai Genov,1-17.London: Sage. Giddens,Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. - - - . 1976. Introduction to Max Weber'sThe ProtestantEthic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1-12. London:Allen and Unwin. Gimble, Daniel E. 1991. "Institutionalist Labour Market Theory and the Veblenian Dichotomy."Journal ofEconomic1ssues25: 625-48. Glaser,Barney,andStrauss,Anselm. 1968.TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory.London: Weidenfeldand Nicolson. Goffinan, Erving. 1969. ThePresentationofSelfin EverydayLife. London:Penguin. Goodwin, Barbara.1980."Utopia Defendedagainstthe Liberals." Political Studies 28: 384-400. Goodwyn,Lawrence.1976.DemocraticPromise:ThePopulistMovement.NewYork: Oxford University Press. Gould, Stephen.1980.Ever SinceDarwin: Reflectionsin Natural History. London: Penguin. Gramsci,Antonio. 1971. Selectionsfrom the Prison Notebooks.eds. Quintin Hoare and GeoffreyNowell Smith. London: LawrenceandWishart. Granovetter,Mark. 1985. "EconomicAction and Social Structure:The Problemof Embeddedness." AmericanJournal ofSociology91: 481-510. Granovetter,Mark, and Swedberg,Richard, eds. 1992. The SociologyofEconomic Life. Boulder, CO: Westview.

REFERENCES 175 Gunnerson,EstherV. 1963. "WashingtonIsland'sThorsteinVeblen." Unpublished researchpaper,OshkoshStateCollege,CarletonCollegeArchive. Northfield, MN. Gusfield,J.R. 1990."Sociology'sCritical Irony." In Sociologyin America,ed.Herbert J. Gans,31-40.London: Sage. Haines,Valerie. 1988."Is Spencer'sTheoryan EvolutionaryTheory?"AmericanJournal ofSociology93: 1200-23. Harris,Abram L. 1934." EconomicEvolution: Dialectical andDarwinian."Journal ofPolitical Economy42: 34-79. - - - . 1951."Veblen and the Social Phenomenonof Capitalism."AmericanEconomic Review41: 66-77. Hartley,David. 1995."The McDonaldizationof HigherEducation:Foodfor Thought." OxfordReviewofEducation21: 409-23. Hawkins,Mike. 1997.SocialDarwinism in EuropeanandAmericanThought,18601945: NatureAsModel andNatureAs Threat. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Heilbroner,RobertL. 1955.The GreatEconomists.London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. - - - . 1986. The Worldly Philosophers.New York: Touchstone. Herskovits,Melville J. 1965 [1940]. EconomicAnthropology:TheEconomicLife of Primitive Peoples.New York: W.W. Norton. Hicks, John. 1931. The Populist Revolt: A History ofthe Farmers'Alliance and the PeoplesParty. Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress. Hill, ForestG. 1958."Veblenand Marx." In ThorsteinVeblen:A Critical Reappraisal, ed. DouglasF. Dowd, 129-50.Westport,CT: Greenwood. Hills, StuartL., ed. 1987. Corporate Violence: Injury and Deathfor Profit. Totowa, NJ: RowmanandLittlefield. Hinkle, RoscoeC. 1980.FoundingTheoryofAmericanSociology1881-1915.London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul. Hinkle RoscoeC., and Hinkle, GiselaJ. 1954. The DevelopmentofModern Sociology. New York: Doubleday. Hoare,Quintin, and Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey, eds. 1971. Selectionsfrom the Prison NotebooksofAntonio Gramsci.London: Lawrenceand Wishart. Hobson,JohnA. 1929."ThorsteinVeblen."SociologicalReview21: 342-45. - - - . 1936. Veblen.London: ChapmanandHall. Hodder,H.J. 1956."Political Ideasof ThorsteinVeblen." CanadianJournal ofEconomicsand Political Science22: 347-57. Hodgson,Geoffrey M. 1992. "Thorstein Veblen and Post-DarwinianEconomics." CambridgeJournal ofEconomics16: 285-301. - - - . 1994. Economicsand Evolution: Bringing Life Back to Economics.Cambridge,England:Polity. - - - . 1999.Economicsand Utopia: Why the LearningEconomyIs Not the End of History. London: Routledge. Hofstadter,Richard.1945.SocialDarwinismin AmericanThought1860-1915.Philadelphia:University of PennsylvaniaPress. - - - . 1955. TheAge ofReform:From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Vintage. Homan,PaulT. 1927."ThorsteinVeblen."In AmericanMastersofSocialScience:An Approachto the Studyofthe SocialSciencesthrough a NeglectedField ofBiography, ed. Howard Odum,231-70.New York: Holt. Howells, William D. 1899.Reviewof The Theoryofthe LeisureClass.Literature 16: 361-62.

176

REFERENCES

Hraba,Joseph.1994.AmericanEthnicity.ltasca,IL: Peacock. Hunt, E.K. 1979.History ofEconomicThought.Belmont,CA: Wadsworth. Hutchinson,Frances,and Burkitt, Brian. n.d. "Of Cabbagesand Guns: Towards an EcofeministPolitical Economy."Mimeo. Bradford,England:Universityof Bradford. Huxley, J.S.,and Haddon,A.C. 1935. We Europeans:A SurveyofRacial Problems. London: Cape. Ibsen,Henrik. 1991 [1881]. Ghosts.London: Methuen. Ingham, Geoffrey. 1996. "Review Essay:The 'New EconomicSociology.'" Work, EmploymentandSociety10: 549-64. JakIe, John A., and Wilson, David. 1992. Derelict Landscapes:The Wasting of America:SBuilt Environment.Savage,MD: Rowmanand Littlefield. Jaffe, William. 1924. Les TheoriesEconomiqueset Socialesde Thorstein Veblen. Paris: Marcel Grand. Jager,Michael. 1986."ClassDefinition andtheAestheticsof Gentrification:Victoriana in Melbourne."In Gentrification ofthe City, eds.Neil Smith andPeterWilliams, 7&-91. Boston:Allen and Unwin. James,R. Warren. 1965.John Rae: Political Economist,vol. 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Jencks,Christopher,andRiesman,David. 1968.TheAcademicRevolution.New York: Doubleday. Jennings,Ann, and Waller, William. 1994. "Evolutionary Economicsand Cultural Hermeneutics:Veblen,Cultural RelativismandBlind Drift." JournalofEconomic Issues38: 997-1030. Johnson,Edgar. 1941."Veblen: The Man from Mars." NewRepublic105: 121-23. Jones,LamarB. 1986."The Institutionalistsandthe Origin of the Species:A Caseof MistakenIdentity." SouthernEconomicJournal 52: 1043-55. Jorgensen,Elizabeth,andJorgensen,Henry. 1999. Thorstein Veblen: Victorian Firebrand,Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Junker,Louis. 1979. "Genuineor SpuriousInstitutionalism."AmericanJournal of Economicsand Sociology38: 207-23. Kaiser, Susan.1985. The Social Psychologyof Clothing and PersonalAdornment. New York: Macmillan. Kandal, Terry R. 1988. The WomanQuestionin ClassicalSociologicalTheory. Miami: Florida InternationalUniversity Press. Kapp, K. William. 1978. The Social CostsofBusinessEnterprise.Nottingham: Spokesman. Kateb, George.1963. Utopia andIts Enemies.London: Collier-Macmillan. Kerr, Clark, Dunlop, JohnT., Harbison,FrederickH., and Myers, CharlesA. 1960. Industrialism and Industrial Man: The ProblemsofLabor and Managementin EconomicGrowth. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Kivisto, Peter.1998.Key Ideasin Sociology.ThousandOaks,CA: PineForge. Knoedler,Janetand Mayhew, Anne. 1999. "ThorsteinVeblen and the Engineers:A Reinterpretation."History ofPolitical Economy31: 254-72. Knowles,Elizabeth,ed. 1999.OxfordDictionary ofQuotations,5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kumar, Krishan. 1991a. Utopia andAnti-Utopiain Modern Times.Oxford: Blackwell. - - - . 1991b. Utopianism.Milton Keynes:OpenUniversity Press. Kurtz, LesterR. 1984.EvaluatingChicagoSociology:A Guideto the Literature with an AnnotatedBibliography. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.

REFERENCES 177

Larson,JonathanA. 1992.Elegant Technology:EconomicProsperityfrom an EnvironmentalBlueprint. Westwood,MS: Riverdale. - - - . 1994. "Speculationson the Origins of Veblen's Aesthetic Criticisms: As Revealedby the Restorationof the Veblen Family Farmstead."Paperpresented with slides atthe InauguralConferenceof the InternationalThorsteinVeblenAssociation,New Schoolfor Social Research,New York, February. Lasch, Christopher.1973. The Agonyof the AmericanLeft: One HundredYears of Radicalism.London: Penguin. Laslett, John H.M., and Lipset, SeymourMartin. eds. 1974. Failure of a Dream: Essaysin the History ofAmericanSocialism.New York: Doubleday. Layton, Edwin. 1956. "The American EngineeringProfessionand the Idea of Social Responsibility."UnpublishedPhD dissertation.Los Angeles:University of California. ---.1962."Veblen andthe Engineers."AmericanQuarterly 14: 64-72. - - - . 1971. The Revoltofthe Engineers.Cleveland,OH: Pressof the CaseWestern ReserveUniversity. Leacock,EleanorBurke. 1972.Introductionto The Origin ofthe Family, Private Property and the State, Frederick Engels, 7-67. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Lears,Jackson.1989."Beyond Veblen: RethinkingConsumerCulture in America." In ConsumingVisions: Accumulationand Display of Goods in America 18801920,ed. Simon J. Bronner,73-97.New York: W.W. Norton. Leathers,CharlesG. 1986. "Bellamy and Veblen's 'Christian Morals.'" Journal of EconomicIssues29: 1107-19. Lee, David, and Newby, Howard. 1983. The Problem of Sociology. London: Hutchinson. Lee, Martyn J., ed. 2000. The ConsumerSocietyReader.Oxford: Blackwell. Liebel, HelenP. 1965."ThorsteinVeblen'sPositiveSynthesis."AmericanJournal of Economicsand Sociology24: 201-16. Lerner, Max. ed. 1972 [1948]. ThePortable Veblen.New York: Viking. Levine, DonaldN. 1977."Simmel at a Distance:On the History and Systematicsof the Sociologyof the Stranger."SociologicalFocus 10: 15-29. Levitas,Ruth. 1990.The ConceptofUtopia. HemelHempstead,Herts.:Philip Allan. Levy, GeraldE. 1994."ThorsteinVeblen and ContemporaryCivilization." International Journal ofPolitics, Culture and Society8: 5-32. Lewis, Margaret,and Sebberson, David. 1997."The Rhetoricalityof EconomicTheory: CharlottePerkinsGilman andThorsteinVeblen."Journal ofEconomicIssues31: 417-24. Lipset, SeymourMartin. 1979.TheFirst NewNation: The United Statesin Historical and ComparativePerspective.New York: W.W. Norton. Loader, Colin, Waddoups,Jeffrey, and Tilman, Rick. 1991. "Thorstein Veblen and Werner Sombartand the Periodizationof History." Journal ofEconomicIssues 25: 421-29. Lovoll,O.S. 1999. The PromiseofAmerica: A History ofthe Norwegian-American People.Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress. Lower, Milton. 1980."The Evolution of theInstitutionalistTheoryof Consumption." In InternationalEconomics:Essaysin Honor ofAllan G. Gruchy,ed.JohnAdams, 82-104.Boston:MartinusNijhoff. Lubin, Isador. 1968. "Recollectionsof Veblen." In Thorstein Veblen: The Carleton

178

REFERENCES

College Veblen SeminarEssays,ed. Carlton C. Qualey, 131-47.New York: Columbia University Press. Lynd, Robert,and Lynd, Helen. 1929.Middletown.New York: Harcourt,Brace. - - - . 1937.Middletown in Transition. New York: Harcourt,Brace. MacCarthy,Fiona. 1994. William Morris: A Lifefor Our Time. London: Faberand Faber. MacDonald,Keith. 1989."Building Respectability."Sociology23: 55-80. MacIver, R.M., and Page,CharlesH. 1964. Society:An IntroductoryAnalysis.Lopdon: Macmillan. MacKenna,Stephen.1899. Review of The Theory of the Leisure Class. Criterion 479: 26-27. McMath, Robert. 1993.AmericanPopulism:A SocialHistory 1877-1898. New York: Hill and Wang. McMurry, Donald. 1970[1929]. CoxeysArmy:A StudyoftheIndustrialArmy Movementof1894. New York: AMS Press. Mair, Douglas.1990."JohnRae:Ugly Duckling or Black Swan?"ScottishJournalof Poitical Economy37: 275-87. Malik, K. 1996. TheMeaningofRace:Race,History andCulture in WesternSociety. London: Macmillan. Manbiot, George.2000. CaptiveState: The CorporateTakeoverofBritain. London: Macmillan. Mann, Michael. 1983. The Macmillan StudentEncyclopediaofSociology.London: Macmillan. Mannheim,Karl. 1960[1936]. Ideologyand Utopia. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul. Martindale, Don. 1961. The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. London: Routledgeand KeganPaul. Martinelli, Alberto, andSmelser,Neil J., eds. 1990.EconomyandSociety:Overviews in EconomicSociology.London: Sage. Marx, Karl, and Engels,Frederick.n.d. [1848]. Manifestoofthe CommunistParty. Moscow: ForeignLanguagesPublishingHouse. Maryanski,A., andTurner,J. 1992. The SocialCage: HumanNature and the Evolution ofSociety.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversity Press. Mason,Roger. 1981. ConspicuousConsumption:A StudyofExceptionalConsumer Behaviour.Hampshire:Gower. - - - . 1984."ConspicuousConsumption:A LiteratureReview."EuropeanJournal ofMarketing 18: 26-39. - - - . 1989. "ConspicuousConsumption."Inaugural Lecture. Salford, England: University of Salford. Matthews,Fred H. 1977. Questfor an AmericanSOciology:RobertE. Park and the ChicagoSchoo!.Montreal: McGill-QueensUniversity Press. Mattson,Vernon,andTilman, Rick. 1986."ThorsteinVeblen,FrederickJacksonTurner and the AmericanExperience."Journal ofEconomicIssues20: 219-35. May, Henry F. 1949.ProtestantChurchesandIndustrialAmerica.New York: Harper and Row. Mayhew, Anne. 1987. "The Beginningsof Institutionalism."Journal ofEconomic Issues21: 587-603. Merton, Robert. 1958.Social Theoryand SocialStructure.New York: FreePress. Meyer,Michael. 1991.Introductionto Henrik Ibsen'sGhosts,10-25.London:Methuen.

REFERENCES 179

Meynaud,Jean.1968. Technocracy.London: FaberandFaber. Miles, Steven.1998.ConsumerismAs a Way ofLife. London: Sage. Miller, Daniel. 1987.Material Culture andMassConsumption.Oxford: Blackwell. Miller, EdytheS. 1972."Veblen andWomen'sLib: A Parallel."Journal ofEconomic Issues6: 75-86. Mills, C. Wright. 1956[1951]. White Collar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ---.1959[1956]. ThePowerElite. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - - - . 1967[1959]. TheSocioiogicallmagination.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. - - - . 1970. Introduction to ThorsteinVeblen'sThe Theoryofthe Leisure Class, vi-xix. London: Unwin. Mitchell, Wesley C. 1930. "Researchin the Social Sciences."In The New Social Science,ed. LeonardD. White, 4-15. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. - - - . 1964 [1936]. Introduction to What Veblen Taught, vii-xlix. New York: AugustusM. Kelley. Morgan,Lewis Henry. 1967 [1877]. AncientSociety.New York: World. Moylan, Tom. 1986.DemandtheImpossible:ScienceFiction andthe Utopian Imagination. London: Methuen. Murphey, Murray G. 1990. Introductionto ThorsteinVeblen'sThe Instinct ofWorkmanshipandthe Stateofthe Industrial Arts, vii-xlv. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction. Murphree, Idus. 1959. "Darwinism in ThorsteinVeblen'sEconomics."Social Research26: 311-24. Murphy, Kevin M., Shleifer,Andre, andVishny, RobertW. 1991."The Allocation of Talent: Implicationsfor Growth." QuarterlyJournal ofEconomics106: 503-30. Neale,Walter C. 1987."Institutions."Journal ofEconomicIssues21: 1177-206. Neale,Walter C., and Mayhew,Anne. 1994."Hobson,Veblen andAmericanInstitutionalism."In .l.A. HobsonafterFifty Years:FreethinkeroftheSocialSciences,ed. JohnPheby,225-37.London: Macmillan. Nisbet,Robert. 1970. The SociologicalTradition. London: Heinemann. - - - . 1971. TheDegradationoftheAcademicDogma: The Universityin America 1945-1970. London:Heinemann. Oberschall,Anthony. 1972."The InstitutionalizationofAmericanSociology."In The Establishmentof Empirical Sociology,ed. A. Oberschall,187-251.New York: HarperandRow. O'Hara, Philip. 1995. "Veblen's Critique of Marx's Preconceptionsof Political Economy." Paperpresentedat the WesternSocial ScienceAssociationConference,Oakland,CA, April. - - - . 1999."ThorsteinVeblen'sTheory of Collective Social Wealth." History of EconomicIdeas7: 153-79. Olson, Paulette.1998."My Dam Is Bigger thanYours: Emulationin Global Capitalism." In Thorstein Veblenin the Twenty-FirstCentury: A CommemorationofThe Theory of the Leisure Class,ed. Doug Brown, 189-207.Cheltenham:Edward Elgar. Packard,Vance. 1965. The StatusSeekers:An Exploration of Class Behaviourin America.London: Penguin. Park,RobertE. 1928."Human Migration andthe Marginal Man." AmericanJournal ofSociology33: 881-93. Parsons,Talcott. 1969. Introductionto Max Weber'sThe TheoryofSocialand Economic Organization,3-86. New York: FreePress.

180

REFERENCES

Perlman,JaniceE. 1979.TheMyth ofMarginality. Berkeley:Universityof California Press. Perrucci,Robert,andGerst!,JoelE., eds. 1969.TheEngineersandtheSocialSystem. London: Wiley. Peterson,Janice.1998."Veblen andFeministEconomics:Valuing Women'sWork in the Twenty-First Century." In Thorstein Veblen in the Twenty-First Century: A CommemorationofThe Theory of the Leisure Class,ed. Doug Brown, 117-28. Cheltenham:EdwardElgar. the Second Peukert,Helge. 1996."T. Veblen'sHabit of Thought."Paperpresented at International Thorstein Veblen Association Conference,Carleton College, Northfield, MN. May. Plummer,Kenneth. 1983. DocumentsofLife: An Introduction to the Problemsand Literature ofa HumanisticMethod. London:Sage. Qualey,CarltonC. 1968.Introductionto ThorsteinVeblen:TheCarletonCollegeSeminar Essays,ed. Carlton C. Qualey, 1-15. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press. Rasmussen, CharlesT., andTilman, Rick. 1992."MechanisticPhysiologyandlnstitutional Economics:JacquesLoeb and ThorsteinVeblen." InternationalJournal ofSocialEconomics19: 235-47. Ratner, Sidney, Soltow, JamesH., and Sylla, Richard. 1979. The Evolution of the AmericanEconomy.New York: Basic Books. Renshaw,RobertH. 1999."Veblen's'HigherLearningin America'Revisited."Paper presentedat theThird InternationalThorsteinVeblenAssociationConference,New Schoolfor Social Research,New York, April. Rex, John, 1986.RaceandEthnicity, Milton Keynes:OpenUniversity Press. Riesman,David. 1954.Individualism Reconsidered.Glencoe:FreePress. - - - . 1960[ 1953]. ThorsteinVeblen:A Critical Interpretation.New York: Seabury. Ritzer, George.1992. ClassicalSociologicalTheory.New York: McGraw-Hill. Robertson,RossM., and Walton, Gray, M. 1979.History oftheAmericanEconomy. New York: Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovitch. Rolvaag,O.E. 1955 [1927]. Giants in the Earth. New York: Harperand Row. Rosenberg,Bernard.1953."A Clarification of SomeVeb1enianConcepts."American Journal ofEconomicsand Sociology12: 179--S7. - - - . 1956. The ValuesofVeblen:A Critical Appreciation.Washington,DC: Public Affairs. Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Rossides,Daniel W. 1990. Social Stratification: The American Class Structure in ComparativePerspective.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Russett,CynthiaEagle. 1976.Darwin in America: TheIntellectualResponse,186~ 1912.SanFrancisco:W.H. Freeman. Rutherford, Malcolm. 1984. "Thorstein Veblen and the Processesof Institutional Change."History ofPolitical Economy16: 331-48. - - - . 1992."ThorsteinVeblenandthe Problemof Engineers."RevueInternationale de Sociologie,Nouvelle Serie3: 125-50. - - - . 1994."J.A. HobsonandAmericanInstitutionalism:Under-Consumption and TechnologicalChange."In J.A. HobsonafterFifty Years:Freethinkerofthe Social Sciences,ed. JohnPheby,188-210.London: Macmillan. Ryan,BarbaraE. 1982."ThorsteinVeblen:A New Perspective."Mid-WesternReview ofSociology7: 29-47.

REFERENCES 181

Saloutos,Theodore.1974."Radicalismand the AmericanTradition." In Failure ofa Dream: Essaysin ihe History ofAmericanSocialism,eds.JohnH.M. Laslett and SeymourMartin Lipset, 134-46.New York: Anchor. Sanderson,StephenK. 1994."Evolutionary Materialism:A TheoreticalStrategyfor the Study of Social Evolution." SociologicalPerspectives37: 47-73. Saram,P.A. 1999."The VanishingSubtitle in Veblen'sLeisureClass."International Journal ofPolitics, Culture and Society13: 225-41. Saviotti, Pier Paolo,and Nooteboom, Bart,eds.2000. Technologyand Knowledge: From the Firm to InnovationSystems.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar. Scheiber,Henry N., Vatter, Harold G., and Faulkner,Harold U. 1976.AmericanEconomicHistory, 9th ed. New York: HarperandRow. Schimmer,Ralf. 1994."ThorsteinVeblen and Populism."Paperpresentedat the InauguralConferenceof the InternationalThorsteinVeblenAssociation,New School for Social Research,New York, February. Schneir,Miriam, ed. 1972.Feminism:TheEssentialHistorical Writings. New York: Vintage. SchulteNordholt, JanW. 1995. The Myth ofthe West: AmericaAs the Last Empire. GrandRapids,MI: W.B. Freedman. Schwartz,JonathanM. 1990."TrackingDown theNordic Spirit in ThorsteinVeblen's Sociology."Acta Sociologica33: 115-24. Schwendinger,Julia, and Schwendinger,Hennan.1971."Sociology'sFoundingFathers: Sexiststo a Man." Journal ofMarriage and the Family 33: 783-99. Schwendinger,Hennan,andSchwendinger,Julia. 1974.TheSociologistsofthe Chair: A RadicalAnalysisof the Formative YearsofNorth AmericanSociology,18831922.New York: Basic Books. Seckler,David. 1975. Thorstein Veblenand the Institutionalists:A Studyin the PhilosophyofEconomics.London: Macmillan. Segal,Howard P. 1985. TechnologicalUtopianism in American Culture. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Seim,David, L. 1996."The Morgian Revolution."UnpublishedMA dissertation.Fort Collins, ColoradoStateUniversity. Shannon,Christopher.1996. ConspicuousCriticism: Tradition, the Individual and Culture in AmericanSocial Thought,fromVeblento Mills. Baltimore,MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press. Shute,Lawrence.1994."JosephDorfman." In TheElgar Companionto Institutional andEvolutionaryEconomics,eds.GeoffreyM. Hodgson,WarrenJ. Samuels,and Marc R. Tool, 175-78.New York: EdwardElgar. Simich,Jerry,andTilman, Rick. 1985.ThorsteinVeblen:A ReferenceGuide.Boston: G.K. Hall. Simmel,Georg. 1950[1908]. "The Stranger."In TheSociologyofGeorgSimmel,ed. Kurt H. Wolfe, 402-08.New York: FreePress. Skinner,Quentin. 1969."Meaningand Understandingin the History ofideas."History and Theory8: 3-53. Skocpol,Theda.1984."Sociology'sHistorical Imagination."In Vision andMethodin Historical Sociology,ed. ThedaSkocpol, 1-21. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Slater,Don. 1997. ConsumerCulture and Modernity. Cambridge,England:Polity. Smith,Dennis. 1988.The ChicagoSchool:A Liberal Critique ofCapitalism.London: Macmillan.

182

REFERENCES

- - - . 1990. Capitalist Democracyon Trial: The Transatlantic Debatefrom Tocquevi/leto the Present.London: Routledge. Sombart,Wemer.1902.Der ModerneKapitalismus.Leipzig: DunckerandHumblot. ---.1967[1913]. Luxury and Capitalism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sowell,Thomas.1967."The 'Evolutionary'Economics of ThorsteinVeblen." Oxford EconomicPapers19: 177-98. - - - . 1969. "Veblen's Higher Learning after Fifty Years." Journal ofEconomic Issues3: 66-78. Spencer,Herbert. 1969 [1876, 1893, 1896]. Principles of Sociology,ed. Stanislav Andreski.London: Macmillan. Stabile,Donald. 1984. ProphetsofOrder: The Riseofthe New Class, Technocracy and Socialismin America.Boston: SouthEnd. - - - . 1986."VeblenandthePolitical Economyof the Engineer:TheRadicalThinker andEngineeringLeadersCameto TechnocraticIdeasat the SameTime." American Journal ofEconomicsand Sociology45: 41-52. - - - . 1987. "Veblen and the Political Economyof Technocracy:The Herald of TechnologicalRevolution Developedan Ideology of 'Scientific' Collectivism." AmericanJournal ofEconomicsand Sociology46: 35-48. - - - . 1988."Veblen'sAnalysis of Social Movements:Bellamyites,Workers,and Engineers."Journal ofEconomicIssues22: 211-26. Stanley, Liz,and Morgan, David. 1993. "Editorial Introduction:AutolBiography in Sociology."Sociology27: 1-4. Starr, Michael E. 1983."The Political Economyof AmericanInstitutionalism."UnpublishedPhD dissertation.Madison: University ofWisconsin-Madison. Stonequist,EverettV. 1961 [1937]. The Marginal Man: A Studyin Personalityand Cultural Conflict. New York: Russelland Russell. Strauss,Anselm. 1971. The ContextsofSocialMobility: Ideologyand Theory. Chicago:Aldine. Swedberg,Richard. 1987."EconomicSociology:PastandPresent."Current Sociology 35: 1-221. Temin,Peter,ed. 1973.NewEconomicHistory: SelectedReadings.London: Penguin. Thomas,w.I. 1928. The Child in America.New York: Knopf. Tilman, Rick. 1972. "Veblen's IdealPolitical Economyand Its Critics." American Journal ofEconomicsand SOCiology31: 307-17. ---.1973.''ThorsteinVeblen: IncrementalistandUtopian."AmericanJournalof EconomicsandSociology32: 155-