Question

Explain why Veblen claims that "the leisure class is the conservative class".

Answer 1

Thorstein Veblen and American Conservatism

Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class is unquestionably a result of its era. The portrayal of the high form of the leisure class comprises of stovepipe caps, bodices and hoods, which are obsolete today. Veblen's hypothesis is as genuine today as at that point, if not more so-promoting has paid heed to what Veblen alludes to as financial copying, that is, the imitating of the class over one's own by utilization. The imitating of the class over one's own particular does not end with utilization. Class imitating takes numerous structures, all of which serve to propel the enthusiasm of the plan of social life sustained by the leisure class for its own particular finishes. No place in the present American life is the copying more perilous to those in the substandard classes than in the conservative political development.

At the point when the modern upheaval grabs hold in a general public, it changes the setup of relational connections inside the social circle. The leisure class, the class of society into which regard and riches is focused to the most noteworthy degree, has an enthusiasm for from one viewpoint empowering the development of produce, as an approach to profit in a financial or money related mold through speculation, yet then again an enthusiasm for, "[opposing] advancement since it has a personal stake of an unworthy sort, in keeping up the current conditions" (TV, Ch. 8). The "current conditions" Veblen is alluding to are not the states of produce, the states of entrepreneur industry, yet rather states of society which may leave the class more awful off once they are actualized. In this manner, in the want to keep up the current conditions which are to support them, it is evident and inescapable that, "the leisure class is the conservative class" (in the same place.).

The political development of conservatism is one which has its inceptions in the class of the individuals who are the wealthiest in the public arena, the individuals who have the most to lose by change yet are most protected against it. Change is the watchword here, the difference in condition through advancement and diverse social morays, and it is change that is opposed by the leisure class the vast majority of all, as, once more, it will have the best impact on their status and financial prevalence. The leisure class has the upside of being, if not impervious to, at any rate over the need of tolerating, change. "The individuals from the rich class don't respect the interest for advancement as promptly as other men since they are not compelled to do as such" (in the same place.), not obliged for the most part by ethicalness of their riches and the security in that.

"The conservatism of the well off class is so clear an element," says Veblen, "that it has even come to be viewed as a characteristic of respectability" (on the same page.). Those in the lesser classes see conservatism similarly as they see the prominent utilization of the well off as something they don't totally see, yet gaze upward to and imitate. This is the start of the idea of voting against one's advantage. Veblen-"since conservatism is a normal for the wealthier and in this way more respectable bit of the group, it has obtained a specific honorific or enlivening worth" (in the same place.). With conservatism having an estimation of societal worth totally superfluous to its real standards, it comes to be viewed as the most deserving of political convictions, regardless of genuine strategy, and in relationship, developments of the left to improve society are met with abhorrence.

The mission to improve society is regularly an extended fight, principally by uprightness of the conservative development's financial and traditional power. In the event that one takes a gander at any fight for rights and equity in the previous century in the United States, this is self-evident. Regardless of whether it be social liberties, hostile to war or against globalization developments, the left had dependably had a troublesome, difficult task, despite the fact that these fights are battled for the benefit of society and are conceded all things considered by society itself. Conservatism's settling into the agreeable specialty of respectability has put the developments of the left into risk for a considerable length of time, if not longer, by forming the view of the left's social advancement similar to "a lower-class marvel [and] foul" (on the same page.). Indeed, "even in situations where one perceives the generous benefits of the case for which the pioneer is representative as may effectively happen if the shades of malice which he looks to cure are adequately remote in purpose of time or space or individual contact-still one can't yet be sensible of the way that the trend-setter is a man with whom it is at any rate disagreeable to be related, and from whose social reach one should contract" (on the same page.). Truly, even in cases in which the change needs only consideration and help, the extremist moves toward becoming outcast.