Introduction

Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class formalized a somewhat intuitive observation that patterns of consumption reflect an eagerness to display wealth to others. Good taste might artificially set a ceiling beyond which further displays of wealth become unacceptable, as was the case in men’s clothing, but displays of wealth and leisure generally coincide with perceived status. However, by the writing of Lawyerland,--exactly a century later--a paradigmatic shift has replaced the leisure class with a hardworking professional elite. Instead of displaying wealth and power through their material possessions, the characters in Lawyerland primarily emphasize their own labor as the demonstration of their power. Where necessary, they even downplay traditional elite characteristics like background and conspicuous leisure time where downplaying them gives the appearance of hard work and seriousness. Veblen’s posited goal--the improvement of an individual’s apparent social position--remains intact, as do vestiges of conspicuous consumption, but the methods for its achievement now revolve around demonstrating individual talent and importance.

Democratic Fashion

The downscale shift and democratization in fashions exemplifies the weakening of material culture. Even in 1899 Veblen recognized a ceiling beyond which any improvements in men’s fashion would be in poor taste. Indeed, Gilded Age America’s ceiling was already lower than in say 1789 France. A century later, the ceiling is still lower for men and the use of women’s clothing as a conspicuous replacement for mens’ has diminished. The scantily-clad girl in the subway is in a sense sending a signal that she does not need to work before lunch on a weekday because her clothing is completely unacceptable for work, but the more overt message is sexual. Personal characteristics matter more than does her social position.

Democratic Fashion 2

By contrast, professional women assume the lower ceiling for men’s clothing; a few vestigial signs of frivolity and decoration are adopted out of habit but robbed of demonstrative economic meaning. Tharaud is a female lawyer who recognizes the difference in the way the sexes are treated and remembers when the distinction was more extreme. Her clothing is deliberately professional, as a way of refocusing attention away from frivolity and her husband (though if she has one the text does not bother to mention him) and toward her own abilities. Her only concession is a jade brooch, that she “bought in Mexico in the fifties.” Tharaud chooses to describe it in a fashion that downplays its economic significance and removes it from all of Veblen’s pecuniary emulation categories. It is not a family heirloom, but was acquired by its wearer. Its age shows that she does not replace jewelry often--which would signify conspicuous consumption. Even its place of origin denies any effort at conspicuous consumption; few overseas locales are as uniquely unglamorous and accessible as Mexico. The connection between consumption and frivolity limits professionals’ ability to conspicuously consume, a trend that extends increasingly to women.

Inversion of desirable class background

Demonstrations of inherited status or etiquette also become less important or even undesirable because they set a higher baseline upon which an individual’s success is based. “Halley of Akron, Ohio,” a wealthy lawyer, tells stories of his impoverished Depression childhood as a sign of “strong genes.” Not to be left out, his sometime opponent Conway affects a working class Irish brogue. Both could easily downplay or ignore their backgrounds, and in Veblen’s world they probably would. Their choice to emphasize their former poverty implicitly argues for a populist background’s desirability.

Inversion of etiquette

Etiquette takes on an important social function, but it becomes a subject of conspicuous consumption ignored, and not, as Veblen suggests, when it is followed. Veblen viewed manners as a form of conspicuous consumption because those with leisure time were able to learn them. Veblen’s connection between manners and leisure time appears spurious by itself. Further, etiquette hardly strengthens the social position of a Tharaud or Cerierre. Instead, rudeness shows their indifference to the feelings of the other party and their ability to survive the resulting animus. Tharaud’s ability to label the source of the case a “pussy problem” stems from her position as a woman. Cerriere’s response, “that’s precisely what I’d call it,” is limited because gender politics prevent a more aggressive response. Tharard and Cerriere can taunt each other because they know that the other is incapable of punishing them in response. Cerriere can call the cleaner “Mopboy” without any injury to himself. Like Black’s nurses ignoring the doctor’s “idiosyncracies,” “Mopboy’s” social inferiority denies him a response.

Leisure time

The final and most critical divergence from Veblen’s leisure class lies in the completely distinct views of the social role of free time. Veblen’s “leisure class” defines itself primarily by its leisure time. The ability to play sports, acquire an education, and learn manners all depends upon escape from immediate concerns for survival. By contrast, the professionals in Lawyerland define themselves by their work and the extent to which work supplants leisure. When Tharaud disapproves of Cerrierre’s points, she glances at her watch. By demonstrating the importance of her limited time, she is asserting a superior social position.

Leisure Time 2

A demonstration of busyness also provides a justification for actions that would appear unacceptable otherwise. Judge Day can interrupt the interview to write a note to herself or leave the room for minutes on end because her importance requires it. Time constraints further necessitate giving less important functions to less important workers. Thus, Day’s time premium lets her delegate a small task, like serving a ginger ale, to her secretary. While a very wealthy person could hire retainers just for show, that behavior would seem vain. Conspicuous consumption in a business context primarily gains legitimacy from the individual’s personal importance, not the other way around.

Conclusion

We need not suggest that Veblen’s theories of conspicuous consumption and leisure never apply; a cursory look at the market for luxury goods alone shows they are still very much with us. However, the lowered ceiling for socially acceptable consumption and replacement of consumption with personal achievement limit Veblen’s application. Lawyerland’s characters still strive for social status, but they seek new methods to acquire it.

• This essay misplaces its focus. It is merely obvious to state that Veblen's leisure class was almost as complete a casualty of the twentieth century as the European aristocracy that survived the nineteenth-century aftermath of the French Revolution only to perish in the First World War. Veblen's leisure class was much the same as Digby Baltzell's WASP aristocracy, and despite the current moron scion in the White House playing out the role of the later Spanish Hapsburgs, your announcement that it no longer sets the fashion in pecuniary competition is neither ironic nor insightful.

• That's why we didn't waste any time discussing the leisure class Veblen depicted, but instead concentrated on the intellectual structure he created, which you neither make use of nor leave unmangled. To treat an evolutionary theory as not applying to the present because the present isn't the past is a really serious and fundamental mistake. Your use of Lawyerland was a way of applying lipstick to the pig: if Lawyerland is data (I think it is unnecessarily far-fetched, there being plenty closer to hand), the issue was how well the principle of pecuniary competition illuminates or explains it, not how it "tests" the "correctness" of fit between nineteenth-century observations and ones made at the beginning of the twenty-first. For that purpose, the dialogue in Something Split would, I expect, have made an appearance, but you left it out.

• The route to improvement here, I think, is simple but comprehensive. Shelve Lawyerland until it proves its necessity, and begin from Veblen's thought as it is, not as a straw man to be worked off.