Complete Reversal Of Veblen's Conspicuous Leisure Principle example essay topic

Thorstein Veblen published his work 'The Theory of the Leisure Class,' a socio-economic study of the American working classes aspiring to the leisure class, back in 1899. This study traced the origins of class distinction based on ownership and property, and how they manifested themselves, in particular, in dress. He stated, "No line of consumption affords a more apt illustration than expenditure on dress". (Veblen: 1994: 103) In this essay I aim to show how relevant Veblen's theories are over a century on, taking into consideration the huge changes in consumption and consumerism, cultural identity and the evolving structure of the class system. Veblen's theory offered three main principles in which he examined the idea of dress as an 'expression of pecuniary culture. ' The principle of 'conspicuous waste' was really identified as the key principle, "It shows the wearer can afford to consume freely and uneconomically" (Veblen: 1994: 105) and not only did Veblen suggest this, he did in fact state that "the standard of reputability requires that dress should show wasteful expenditure".

(Veblen: 1994: 108). The second principle, of Conspicuous Leisure, addressed the style in which one should set ones self apart from the working classes. "In addition to showing the wearer can afford to consume freely and uneconomically it can also be shown, in the same stroke, that he or she, is not under the necessity or earning of a livelihood, the evidence of social worth is enhanced to a considerable degree. Our dress, therefore, should not only be expensive, but it should also make plain to all observers that the wearer is not engaged in any kind of productive labour (Veblen: 1994: 105) In respect of women, he went even further to suggest that their attire should show that they are completely restricted from any form of labour whether in the home or workplace. This was best demonstrated by the wearing of high heels, which would make even the most necessary manual work extremely difficult (Veblen: 1994: 105) and that they also "enforced leisure afforded by its polish", making clear that garments should be difficult and expensive to clean.

Veblen's third and final principle was that of 'conspicuous consumption', this was closely entwined with the previous principles and is hard to define as strong individual belief, but it was loosely based around the consumption of luxuries "directed to the comfort of the the consumer himself, and was therefore the mark of the master". (Veblen: 1994: 45) In this respect the principle looked away from what wealth afforded the dependents within the leisure class and was dominated more by patriarchal consumption. Moving forward almost a century there are clear and distinct changes in leisure practices. Around the late 19th Century, when Veblen was writing, leisure practices were too evolving and becoming more sophisticated with the increased wealth that came with the industrial revolution. Veblen's theory strongly relied on the fact that simply because you were of a certain class you were preoccupied with fashion. This is a huge generalisation, as was his assumption that the lower and working classes were entirely subservient and passive as consumers.

The subsequent advent of television and ever increasing number of men's and women's magazines has brought fashion to a much wider audience, educating and informing about fashion to anyone with an interest. This was capitalised on the by the Americans during the early 1950's as a Post-war Britain could no longer look to Paris for the latest fashions as exports were still banned, they flooded the market with magazines promoting American images. These images were dominated by affluent, independently minded, young Americans, notably wearing jeans (fig. 1.) Jeans had always been a symbol of the working classes, available in one colour; they were hard wearing and allowed free movement of the limbs when working in productive labour. They were then picked up by 'rebellious bikers' and hoodlum gangs. They were being used to create new identities, to oppose the class system into which they had previously been appropriated. The subcultures in which they had existed to create an identity were gaining mainstream recognition through films and their stars such as James Dean and Marlon Brando, and so they were rejected as symbol of rebellion.

Jeans were perhaps one example that really challenges Veblen' theory. They symbolised a shift in completely the opposite direction. By the 1960's middle class boys and in particular hippies had domesticated denim. With Hippies on the uptake of denim jeans, this too symbolised a shift against what Veblen had believed. Hippies were notoriously from wealthy middle and upper class backgrounds, as they approached the 1970's, the time spent away at University allowed them to cast off their dependent wealth. Creating their own counter culture they still existed within their own class, using their power and wealth in a more political sphere.

Fashion was merely a notion that symbolised the capitalist society they were rejecting. Bricolage was evident in many new trends throughout the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Subcultures embraced the styles from different eras that were attributed to the upper classes during that time. Teddy Boys specifically, took their look from Edwardian gents, even attributing their name to a derivative of the era.

Velvet collars and slim trousers were evident in their comparison (fig. 2). The 'Mods' were also bricole urs, taking their chic suit and tie look from respectable businessmen (fig. 3). They also looked to Italy where fashion had become almost as important as Paris had been at the beginning of the 20th century. Bricolage is an interesting phenomenon of more recent leisure practices.

Young 'Teds' and 'Mods' were largely working class boys that would dress up to go out for the evening. Suits and ties were prevalent in both subcultures, something few of them would have worn to work. In direct contrast to this, middle and upper class 'white collar' workers, were choosing to dress down during their leisure time, casting off the constraints of the suit they had worn to all week. This is complete reversal of Veblen's 'conspicuous leisure' principle, where the working classes are also shunning the notion that they are involved in productive labour, by dressing socially above their class status. By now the effect of mass production, and in turn, mass consumerism had eroded the need for the lower classes to imitate or wait for styles to 'trickle down' from the higher classes.

Fashion in nineties and at the beginning of the 21st century are available on the high street within weeks of them being seen on the catwalk. Veblen would argue, "an inexpensive article of apparel is held to be inferior, under the maxim, 'cheap and nasty'. That a cheap coat makes a cheap man". (Veblen: 1994: 104) This may well have been relevant around the late 1800's but looking at the strides made in fabric technology it is unlikely that such a 'counterfeit' would "offend our sensibilities".

(Veblen: 1994: 104) Fashion of our time does not seem as concerned with social class as perhaps it was when Veblen was writing. This may now only be true in the haute couture market, but high fashion, catwalk designers of today are recognising their consumers with multi-faction ed identities that include, sexuality, gender, age, ethnicity and religion. These influences are also evident in their designs and inspiration is taken from a more diverse and culturally aware society. Designers such as John Galliano and Alexander McQueen are excellent examples of this.

Galliano is famed for his highly charged, ethnically driven collections, whilst McQueen shows a darker side that can trace its roots, sartorially to the very conformist Savile Row, but aesthetically to such subversive themes as sado-masochism. Whilst these designers recognise the diversity of their consumer they also recognise them within the confines of their income bracket, and this is where Veblen's theory still rings true. Catwalk designers still target those with a high income. Where Veblen's theory does not stand the test of time is in the preoccupation of the consumer to only wear expensive designer creations.

Its is often reported in the new breed of celebrity gossip magazines that celebrities such as Madonna and Victoria Beckham, themselves two of the richest women in the UK, are fully prepared to shop on both the high street and in designer locations. With regard to ethnicity as a concern of displaying wealth through dress, it should be made clear that Veblen did recognise this quite clearly. Veblen, whilst addressing his principle of 'conspicuous waste' within a western society, he also looked to the east where he acknowledged that there were "relatively stable styles of costume". (Veblen: 1994: 107) Veblen's explanation for the need of 'stable costumes would appear at first to be a deep thought, with its respect and origins in the great history of these homogeneous cultures by stating that "These national or popular costumes are in most cases adjudged by competent critics to be more becoming, more artistic, than the fluctuating styles of modern civilised apparel".

(Vebeln: 1994: 107), instead he chooses to view this as a localised phenomenon where "the norm of conspicuous waste asserts itself less imperatively than it does in large modern societies". (Vebeln: 1994: 108) Veblen was fundamentally implying that these cultures placed less focus on 'conspicuous leisure than on conspicuous consumption all "pointing to an antagonism between expensiveness and artistic apparel". ... ". And this antagonism offers an explanation that the restless change in fashion which neither the canon of expensiveness nor that of beauty alone can account for".

(Veblen: 1994: 108) It would appear to me that this acknowledgement of displaying wealth through dress in 'uncivilised countries' is more true to consumption in the west now. I don't think people are so entirely concerned with being dressed immaculately in the latest fashions. Any 'fashion insider' will tell, or you could read for yourself in a newspaper or magazine that there is an importance in owning 'classic pieces' or utilising second hand clothing to create a look and identity that is almost unique to yourself. If anything has changed at all since Veblen was writing it is how wealth, if at all, is displayed through dress. At the end of the 19th century this display of wealth through dress was evident in the excellence of tailoring and the superior fabrics. Whilst this is still relevant within certain areas of the fashion market, new ways of hinting at or expressing wealth have become less subtle.

Logos have allowed designers to cash in on a consumers desire to display their purchasing power. From the 'Mods' and their Fred Perry shirts in the 1960's, through to the Nike 'swoosh' of the eighties, right up to the relaunch of labels such as Burberry and Daks in the late nineties, distinctive logos, symbols and patterns have given over to a new 'label hungry' consumer. Inevitably, these are young men and women trying to create an identity that indicates they are affluent and stylish. Brands such as Ralph Lauren, Burberry and Hackett all have their roots in genuine British wealth. The Polo Horse, a symbol of the Ralph Lauren range of the same name, hints towards to affluence of the sport and its social connotations, in reality it is worn by teenagers who have taken this look to the streets and football terraces (fig. 4), a far cry from the Polo field. These ranges are intended to cash in on the 'logo generation,' such garments would never be found on the catwalk and it is extremely unlikely Ralph Lauren has taken any hand in designing them, never the less they are testament to a new generation of 'conspicuous consumers.

' It is for all these factors that it is almost impossible to state whole-heartedly that Veblen's theory, in its entirety, is still relevant today. Having taken into account the many changing factors over the years since his work, most significantly the shift towards mass production and mass consumption, the invention and development of mediums that transcend the social hierarchy, it is easy to suggest that his theory is outdated. I have shown through the use of Bricolage, labels and logos that wealth is still attempted to be shown through dress, and that in both these instances, they have been imitated by the lower classes having been previously worn by the leisure classes, exactly as Veblen wrote. Where I think Veblen's theory is less relevant is that it does not account for the individual. His theory is solely based on ones social status. Over, perhaps, the past fifty years, individuality has been hugely significant in fashion and its consumption.

Consumers want to explore other aspects of their character and culture that define them, and communicate this through dress. Wealth would feature in here to a certain extent, but with a more liberal society evolving over the past century, age, gender and sexuality have increasingly become a function of dress over and above wealth. There is no denying that a true wealth and affluence can afford you a better quality of fabric and tailoring but I feel that the importance of this has given way to the individual. It is very easy to group people by social class, age, gender, even by their involvement in a subculture but it is very important to not lose sight of the ability to be unique within all of these groups.

Its is fascinating to see how Veblen's socio-economic comment has gained and lost relevance throughout the decades and that elements of his three principles of conspicuous consumption, waste and leisure are evident at every stage of cultural, political, social and economic change. If it is not in fact wealth we are displaying through dress then it is certainly our aspirations and conformance to how we see ourselves and how we would like to see ourselves. In this regard Veblen's principle of conspicuous consumption slightly loses its way in a modern society, but examination of subcultures, counter cultures and symbolism, shows that throughout time we have all been guilty of conspicuous leisure and waste in an attempt to communicate wealth through dress in an attempt to explore and present our lifestyle. Barnard. M; Fashion as Communication. Routledge London 1996 Partington.

A; Popular Fashion and Working Class affluence, in Wilson. E & Ash. J (eds) Chic Thrills: A Fashion Reader. Pandora 1995. pg 145-161 Rouse. E; Understanding Fashion. Oxford BSP Professional Books 1989 Veblen.

T; The Theory of the Leisure Class. Dover Publications 1994.