4-Veblen + Leisure Class

Veblen in his work heavily describes the idea of the leisure class and how it is a part of all societies. The leisure class in society is made by elite individuals, that because of their status and wealth, do not have to take part in any work that requires manual labor. The leisure class mostly have jobs that include management, and critical thinking because they have an excellent access to the means of production (marx). This allows the leisure class to look down at the working class, mail because they have to take part in hard manual labor. It is sad that this is he case, especially in the UK where the chavs are looked down upon at all times.

Leisure in definition means “to use free time for enjoyment”. The leisure class do not have to take part in hard work, therefore they have the time and and wealth to do things that they like. This ability to be in the elite class allows them to have fun, unlike people who are in the working class. People in the working class are not able to have that leisure time because they are to busy working and taking care of their kids.


2 responses to “4-Veblen + Leisure Class

  1. I agree, it is unfortunate that this does exist. It seems that the working class are not given their fair share when they are the ones that keep the business going. Instead of sharing the wealth to those that actually helped them attain it in the first place it seems that the class defined above suitably as the leisure class reep all the benefits and form an elite class. In edition instead of rewarding those below them that make less money and do more they look down on them. Society allows the elite to label those as lower and tells us it is morally ok to rip off those working under us, perhaps we should change this.

  2. That’s a pretty bleak picture you paint, J. Yes, elites have all kinds of advantages that give them vastly greater opportunities for leisure in comparison with average workers. But do you really think rich people *have more fun* than ordinary people?

    Of course, having lots of money opens up all kinds of possibilities for leisure that folks without money only dream about. But that’s the thing, when something’s so easily accessible it may actually lose its appeal; conversely, inaccessibility may fuel desire.

    Historically, lack of money doesn’t seem to have prevented the ‘unwashed masses’ from having a good time, at least periodically, during festivals and such — even if it meant going into debt. This reminds me of a passage from the book, Debt, by anthropologist David Graeber. Even during hard times, he says, ordinary Americans “have responded with a stubborn insistence on continuing to love one another. They continue to acquire houses for their families, liquor and sound systems for parties, gifts for friends; they even insist on continuing to hold weddings and funerals, regardless of whether this is likely to send them skirting default or bankruptcy–apparently figuring that, as long as everyone now has to remake themselves as miniature capitalists, why shouldn’t they be allowed to create money out of nothing too? (379)”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s