The Unwilling Leisure Class:
An observation of the cultural and economic similarities between Western teenagers and
Thorstein Veblen’s Leisure Class.
Olivia Lynch
Comp. II
Sarah Hauer
December 2, 2006
Misbehavior in adolescences has instigated a great deal of psychological research. Causes
for such teenagers' actions have been blamed on poor parenting, abusive school environment, and
more often the children’s own endocrine system. Less research, however, has been compiled
about the social sect’s historical roots, which also provides an explanation. A more unusual
suggestion is that one of the reasons teenagers are prone to deviancy is that they have become a
“leisure class,” and harbor “all the vices that have historically attended leisure
classes”(Reynolds). Teenagers do share some striking similarities with the leisure class as
described by Thorstein Veblen. The difference is that present day Western teenagers are an
unconscious, as well as unwilling leisure class.
In order to understand the relationship between teenagers and Veblen’s leisure class, one
must understand the history and concepts of the leisure class itself. The theory of the leisure class
was conceived by Thorstein Veblen, an American economist and social critic, who then wrote a
book of the same name. The theory of the leisure class has this basic thesis: “people above the
line of bare subsistence, in this age and all earlier ages, do not use the surplus, which society has
given them, primarily for useful purposes”(Veblen XIV). They do not live more wisely,
intelligently, understandingly, but to impress other people with the fact that they have this
surplus. The way the leisure class creates this impression is identified by Veblen’s “conspicuous
consumption”(68).
Before Veblen, it had always been the popular economic belief that whenever a surplus
was created, it was used to advance the society. According to Aristotle, it was only when human
beings were liberated from the necessity of hard labor that they were able to free their minds to
pursue intellectual activities (Aristotle). But, as author Lee Harris so eloquently explained in an
interview, “consider the enormous contribution to the development of civilization achieved by the
male savages who made their women do all their work while they sat around getting drunk."
Interestingly, the Greek word for leisure is scholia, which is where we get our word for school
and scholars.
Despite Veblen’s relative anonymity during his lifetime, “conspicuous consumption” has
become one of the most easily recognizable phrases in the intellectual world: it refers to the
wasting of time, effort, and most importantly money in the inflation of the ego. A demonstration
of this, though rather extreme, can be seen in practice of foot binding in Chinese noblewomen.
At an early age the mothers of Chinese aristocrats would bind the feet of their daughters tightly,
and over time would actually break the bones and cause the feet to develop small and deformed.
This practice completely incapacitated the women, making it impossible for them to do any kind
of menial work. This not only gave upper-class women a physically visible differentiation from
the lower classes, but it also made having a noble wife an expense in itself(Veblen 7). parallels
between foot binding and modern day stilletos are worth mentioning.
Conspicuous consumption is not the only defining characteristic of the leisure
class. Traditionally, the leisure class has distaste for anything to do with industry or labor, as is
illustrated above. Instead they chose “certain employments to which a degree of honor
attaches”(Veblen 1). Those employments include warfare, priestly office, sports, and education.
Whatever the occupation is, though, the upper classes are exempt from industrial occupation, and
this exemption is the economic expression of their rank. An example of this is Brahmin Indian
society. Although this culture has a large number of subclasses, the two highest classes are
composed of those men with the occupations of warrior and priest (2).
The next point in Veblen’s theory is pecuniary emulation. When the institution of private
property exists, men work towards the possession of goods. This is accepted by all economists.
The difference between this and Veblen’s theory is that while most economists believe that the
struggle for wealth is “substantially a struggle for subsistence,” Veblen states that, although this
first statement is true in the more basic societies, it has now become “a competition for an
increase [in] the comforts of life” or, more basically, status (Veblen 24-25).
Once competition for status begins, a standard for which to compete must also emerge.
The highest social and pecuniary class sets this standard. . In aristocratic societies like the
English and Japanese feudal systems the class which sets the standard is based on birth (and
descent from warriors and conquerors) whereas in modern societies class distinctions are vague
and all classes aspire to the standard set by the wealthy leisure class. This is the pecuniary
standard of living: “It is for this class to determine, in general outline, what scheme of life the
community shall accept as decent or honorific”(Veblen 102).
One subset, and example, of pecuniary canons of taste is dress as an expression of
pecuniary culture. Conspicuous waste of goods is particularly evident in clothing, and it has the
advantage that apparel is always evident and, as an indication of pecuniary standing, is apparent
to all observers as soon as they look (Veblen 167). Also, it is easy to understand that this is an
issue of stature over subsistence, because expenditures on clothing are for the sake of looking a
certain way rather than “protection of the person”(168).
So that “suitable habits of thought on certain heads” might be conserved in new
generations, a scholastic discipline, or education, is sanctioned by the common sense of the
society (Veblen 363). It is then incorporated into the scheme of life. Because of the expense,
higher learning has historically been open mostly only to the wealthier classes, and as such
became incorporated into the leisure class. Because of the principles of industrial exemption,
higher learning in itself became an example of pecuniary culture.
In the 1800’s the American idea of adolescence began to emerge. Although a period of
childhood whose only occupations are schooling and frivolity was still a luxury that relatively
few families could afford to give to their children (Hine, 95). Its emergence resulted not from
wealth and security in society, though, but from the opposite. “Successful families of the early
republic began to limit the size of their families and concentrate on their schooling and
preparation because they knew their status was in jeopardy”(96). So adolescence emerged from
the society’s insecurity (which is rather ironic since insecurity is one of the traits most people
associate with teenagers). Families believed that the only way to strengthen the advances of the
present generation was to improve the knowledge and choices available to the next one (95).
Teen and child labor, which is now a social horror, played a very big role in the
development of America (although at the time it was not seen as abuse). Boys worked farms or
apprenticed to their fathers and girls worked in the home, but this was primarily the case only in
middle to lower class families, which is where teenage culture emerged. Later, children and
teenagers began to work in the factories as the industrial revolution hit. Even so, Americans were
very slow to condemn child labor. It wasn’t until industrialists decided that child labor was
inefficient, and labor unions mobilized to keep wages up, that activists began to question it (Hine
97).
It is important to recognize that teenagers were never one single homogenous group.
They were historically segregated on the basis of class wealth and sex, and now they are
fragmented into subcultures which cut across these groupings. Youth culture is made up of a web
of subcultures, which can be broken down into four broad categories. The first is the respectable
youth. Because the level rebellion present in the individual youths is relative, most young people
pass through life without being involved in any kind of deviant teenage culture. The occasional
fight with parents doesn’t constitute delinquency, although the parents involved may disagree.
These are the conformists, the “straight kids,” and, in general, they are looked at negatively by
more deviant subcultures (Brake 23). The next category consists of delinquent youth. They tend
to be “working class, young adolescent males” who are usually involved in activities such as theft
and vandalism (23). The females in this group are usually marked by sexual misbehavior. The
next group, cultural rebels, are the “bohemians” of society. Usually they have middle class
educations and are “adherent” to the art world but are not artists themselves. And lastly, the
political militant youth are comprised of the radicals. The scope of the politics they are involved
in is vast, from “environmental politics to direct militant action”(34). Even though teenagers are
now fragmented into subcultures, the still are able to unite in being part of the same generation.
Lee Harris points out that the youth leisure class did not develop out of the dominant or
leisure class of moneyed Americans. Rather, it developed out of less privileged groups who were
not themselves a leisure class. By providing their youth with time, basic support, and life in a
capitalist culture (making it possible for them to obtain spending money) western society allowed
adolescents to evolve values similar to a leisure class (Harris, Lee).
The first public high school in America was founded in Boston in 1821 (Hine 139). High
school was resisted passively for about a century. Parents didn’t make public schooling a part of
their children’s lives and so there was not a way for it to become integrated into the culture. The
reasons for this vary, but basically it rests on the fact that, firstly, high school education meant
families would have to sacrifice the income of their children, something many families would be
,financially, completely unable to do. After all, the reason many families had large numbers of
children was for the work they could do and the income that they brought in (140). The second
reason was that people could not see how public schooling would improve their lives. By the
1930’s, however, most of what we think of as high-school-aged children were attending school.
This was because of the Great Depression (139). Jobs became unavailable, and school was
someplace the youth could go to escape. “High schools became custodial institutions for the
young.” (Reynolds) Because it became incorporated into people’s lives, high school caught on
quickly after World War II.
Before high school became popular, people thought it made more sense to send their
daughters instead of their sons. Not only did families not depend on income from their female
children, but as future mothers women were expected to be the primary educators of their young
children. Also, there was a direct career path from high school to becoming a teacher (and if a
woman had to work, a school mistress was a very respectable job). Kelly Schrum theorizes that
because girls attended high school first, they were really the first true teenagers. The school gave
girls common peers with whom to develop affiliations, and once they began to consider
themselves a group, others did too (Schrum 39).
After World War II the United States had a turn around, from depression back into a
flourishing economy. Because family incomes were growing, more money could be spent on
each child (Hine 143). Also, young people began to have money which (whether earned or
received from their parents) they were able to use toward themselves instead of reinvesting it
back the family.
With this new wave of teenage spending power, product marketers began to show a very
eager interest in them as a demographic. Not only were teenagers able to buy things for
themselves, but they also influenced the purchases of their parents. The first marketing targets
were girls, another reason they could be considered the first authentic teenagers (Schrum 42).
The invention of television was threatening both the radio and motion picture industry. To save
themselves, both industries tried to become as appealing as possible to teenage audiences through
their marketing campaigns. And this is the point at which teenagers can really be seen as their
own social class. They see themselves as a demographic, and those around them view them as
one as well.
Besides their enjoyment of vices, teenagers have a very interesting relationship with the
leisure class. “We defined maturity primarily in terms of being permitted adult vices, and then
were surprised when teen-agers drank, smoked, or had promiscuous sex" (Reynolds). On one
hand teenagers are the ultimate leisure class, on the other its antithesis. For example, the easiest
comparison to make between the leisure class and teenagers is their tendency toward conspicuous
consumption. Cell phones, I-pods, sidekicks, two-hundred-dollar pairs of jeans, and of course the
always desired, but much less often attained, automobiles. Not all teenagers are able to have
these things, but those who can are very conspicuous about it. So much of teenage culture is
based on what one owns, instead of what one is capable of, that the very phrase “conspicuous
consumption” seems tailored to describe it. Considering the role models pop culture gives
teenagers, pecuniary emulation is a definite similarity. Teenagers are taught to aspire to be movie
stars and millionaires, and to aspire to lead the same lifestyle they do.
20th century America has created the “paradox” of an oppressed leisure class. There is a
huge emphasis on education present in today’s culture. Without a high school education, one is
limited to the most menial work. Even into the 1900’s it was once the case that motivated young
people could bypass high school and move directly into making a living. Now, “to reject high
school is to reject society as a whole”(Reynolds). Teenagers are a labor force. Polling shows
nearly half of all high school juniors have part time jobs (Hine 23). But since they are not
dependent on their jobs for survival, merely for luxuries, they aren’t considered a labor force,
especially since society dictates that the “job” of teenagers is education, to build up on skills that
they will utilize later in life. “[E]ducators and social workers call for teenagers’ pay to be kept
low so that they won’t be tempted to enter the job force and become independent
prematurely”(Hine 24). So underpaying teenagers becomes a value, instead of a bad thing. This,
in turn, causes teenagers to view work not as a “[necessary] part of the human condition, but
simply as a way to buy pot and rap CDs. Thus they come to think of their earnings not as real
money, but as play money, that they can spend as they wish, while their parents look after all the
necessities of their lives” (Hine 23). This attitude creates unpleasant social and economic
situations such as debt.
The similarities between Veblen’s leisure class and the social class we call teenagers are
so apparent that one cannot help but refer to them as one. Because they are not an autonomous
social group and are in fact ruled by their parents and the exceptions society makes for them, they
cannot be called a “conscious” leisure class. If anything, teenagers are an unwilling one.
Teenage culture is a hard thing to define, even in doing so we change it. From the factories and
mines to the proms and malls, they have evolved from the apprentices and adults-in-training into
the cultural pioneers and social trend-setters of society. After the development of high school,
marketers gave them this power by molding them into the most powerful demographic in our
economy. The boom in the post-war economy is what allowed the marketing companies to
bestow this power upon teenagers. So while modern-day social critics and legislators call for
regulations to control this social group in a legal sense, in a social one the teenagers possess all
the control over every other demographic in pop culture. As a result, Western society is
unconsciously and simultaneously putting restrictions on teenagers’ legal powers, while
endowing them with more cultural controls, in an attempt to balance their power over society. So
while they are in one sense the most powerful social class, in another they are the must oppressed.
Thus, teenagers have evolved into Western society’s unwilling leisure class.
Works Cited
Aristotle. “Politics.” Book 8, Part 4.
Brake, Michael. “Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth
Cultures and Youth Subcultures in America, Britain and Canada.” London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985
Harris, Lee. Personal interview. 28 Oct. 2006.
Hine, Thomas. “The Rise and fall of the American Teenager: A new
History of the American Adolescent Experience.” New York:
HarperCollins, 2000.
Reynolds, Glenn. “Teen Sex and Media Hype” Fox News. 30 May. 2002
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53977,00.html>
Schrum, Kelly. “Some Wore Bobby Sox: The Emergence of Teenage Girl
Culture, 1920-1945.” New York: Palgrave, 2004.
Veblen, Thorstein. “The Theory of the Leisure Class.” New York:
Macmillan, 1912.