The Perversion Of Values Created The Leisure Class
Dear Fellow American, March 2005
Enclosed is an excerpt from Robert L. Heilbroner's widely acclaimed book The Wordly Philosophers. The author describes the views of a prominent philosopher of the late19th and early 20th century, Thorstein Veblen. While academia always lacked true, sensitive touch to common-sense reality since they are theoreticians by nature, the following is written verbatim his particular view on the non-productive, parasitic leisure class as expressed by Heilbroner. Veblen hit the nail on the head on this one.
[The Polynesians and the ancient Icelanders and the shogunates of feudal Japan were, in Veblen's gaze, a different kind of community in pre-industrial society: they had well-defined leisure classes.These classes, be it noted, were not idlers.On the contrary, they were among the busiest members of the community. But their "work" was all predatory; they seized their riches by force or cunning and took no part in the actual production of wealth by sweat or skill.But although the leisure classes took without rendering any productive service in return, they did so with the full approval of the community. For these societies were not only rich enough to be able to afford a nonproductive class, but aggresive enough to admire them; far from being regarded as wasters or spoilers, those who rose to the leisured ranks were looked up to as the strong and the able.
As a consequence, a fundamental change in attitudes towards work took place. The activities of the leisure class-the winning of wealth by force-came to be regarded as honorific and dignified. Hence, by contrast,pure labor became tainted with indignity.Veblen saw this as the degradation of a once honored way of life under the impact of a predatory spirit; a community that admires and elevates force and brute provess cannot beatify human toil. For modern man, in Veblen's eyes,was only a shade removed from his barbarian forebearers.In modern life prevailed the heritage of the past.The leisure class had changed its occupation, it had refined its methods, but its aim was still the same-the predatory seizure of goods without work.Instead of seeking booty or women, it sought money. In the eyes of society, the members of the leisure class were still the more warlike and more fearsome members of society, and accordingly, the underlying common sought to either submit or utilize their betters.Everyone,workman and middle-class citizen as well as capitalist,soon sought the services of the leisure class as opposed to revolting against it. The populace, which felt acutely the indignity that attached to non-predatory means of livelihood, such as work. In contrast, it was much more redeeming to demonstrate their predatory prowess]
Does the particular philosophy expounded by Thorstien Veblen sound relevant? Allow the reader bethe judge. Many honestly feels that these positions are narrow and constrictive.I believe it espouses the views most Americans hold. Many attorneys feel these sentiments as radical, and misguided(They simply do not want the public to be aware of their official misdeeds.)One needs to review all this objectively and then analyze.
Very Truly Yours,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia
Enclosed is an excerpt from Robert L. Heilbroner's widely acclaimed book The Wordly Philosophers. The author describes the views of a prominent philosopher of the late19th and early 20th century, Thorstein Veblen. While academia always lacked true, sensitive touch to common-sense reality since they are theoreticians by nature, the following is written verbatim his particular view on the non-productive, parasitic leisure class as expressed by Heilbroner. Veblen hit the nail on the head on this one.
[The Polynesians and the ancient Icelanders and the shogunates of feudal Japan were, in Veblen's gaze, a different kind of community in pre-industrial society: they had well-defined leisure classes.These classes, be it noted, were not idlers.On the contrary, they were among the busiest members of the community. But their "work" was all predatory; they seized their riches by force or cunning and took no part in the actual production of wealth by sweat or skill.But although the leisure classes took without rendering any productive service in return, they did so with the full approval of the community. For these societies were not only rich enough to be able to afford a nonproductive class, but aggresive enough to admire them; far from being regarded as wasters or spoilers, those who rose to the leisured ranks were looked up to as the strong and the able.
As a consequence, a fundamental change in attitudes towards work took place. The activities of the leisure class-the winning of wealth by force-came to be regarded as honorific and dignified. Hence, by contrast,pure labor became tainted with indignity.Veblen saw this as the degradation of a once honored way of life under the impact of a predatory spirit; a community that admires and elevates force and brute provess cannot beatify human toil. For modern man, in Veblen's eyes,was only a shade removed from his barbarian forebearers.In modern life prevailed the heritage of the past.The leisure class had changed its occupation, it had refined its methods, but its aim was still the same-the predatory seizure of goods without work.Instead of seeking booty or women, it sought money. In the eyes of society, the members of the leisure class were still the more warlike and more fearsome members of society, and accordingly, the underlying common sought to either submit or utilize their betters.Everyone,workman and middle-class citizen as well as capitalist,soon sought the services of the leisure class as opposed to revolting against it. The populace, which felt acutely the indignity that attached to non-predatory means of livelihood, such as work. In contrast, it was much more redeeming to demonstrate their predatory prowess]
Does the particular philosophy expounded by Thorstien Veblen sound relevant? Allow the reader bethe judge. Many honestly feels that these positions are narrow and constrictive.I believe it espouses the views most Americans hold. Many attorneys feel these sentiments as radical, and misguided(They simply do not want the public to be aware of their official misdeeds.)One needs to review all this objectively and then analyze.
Very Truly Yours,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia
posted by Harsha Sankar at 10:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home