veblen

Veblen

Veblen purports that class distinction is based upon the division of work based on gender and he is right to the extent that historically, and arguably to a degree today, the fundamental and most pervasive class distinction is between the class of men (upper) and the class of women (lower). In this scenario, a woman’s class may be elevated or lowered by the man with whom she chooses partnership. I say that Veblen is correct because in truth the same supposition is not valid in reverse. A man’s class or status is unlikely to be significantly altered by his choice of partner. Work is allocated generally by gender and again this is true to a degree today but was most certainly true in the time of Veblen. Women are allocated jobs that are defined by drudgery and distaste although today these are often referred to as caring and nurturing. Men’s work typically consists of jobs in which he conquers (stock markets or political foes) and provides (the man's earned dollar is still worth more than the female dollar today) and thus these have greater value to the community.

Veblen was raised on a farm in Minnesota in the 1800s and that surely influences his views with regard to women . In addition, this upbringing would have led Veblen to view these class structures with a degree of distaste rooted in the harsh realities of life as he lived it in his semi-impoverished and excessively large household. Veblen’s statement reflects more the reality of his life and the world as he experienced it than anything that could be construed as sexist in the context of his life and life in that era. Furthermore, Veblen exhibited disdain, bordering on communism, with regard to the gluttony of capitalism. He was also somewhat an enigma as he showed almost equal disdain for the working classes and held his greatest respect for those hands on workers of the middle classes of which of course – none were women, although women could belong to the gluttonous upper classes (by marriage), or to the lower working classes by fate.
Viewed at the time of writing, in context of his life and era, and in the naked truth of reality as opposed to idealism, Veblen’s point that, “origin of class distinction that raises exploit above drudgery is the division between men’s and women’s work,” is completely accurate. More difficult to ascertain is his assertion that, “The Barbarian theory of life is an ownership of the women by the man.” The latter statement being somewhat grandiose is perhaps inspired more by Veblen’s cynical view of the world than reality. It is certainly representative of an exclusively male perspective although undeniably a common view of the time.
It is important to note that classes referred to at the time of Veblen were not so much upper and lower classes as they were superior and inferior classes. Women belonged to the inferior classes along with men of color, disabled people and anyone who could not fulfill a role of warrior, conqueror or provider. Veblen looked to other cultures that were considered barbaric in those times, such as the pacific island tribes, to make his assertions but they were also to a degree based upon his personal bias.

When Veblen refers to exploit he is speaking about the male as being the stouter, more massive, better capable of a sudden and violent strain, more readily inclined to self-assertion active emulation, and aggression. He speaks about the pursuit of large game and he compliments man’s massiveness, agility, and ferocity and ends by saying that because of this it can scarcely fail to hasten and widen the differentiation of functions between the sexes. He says that the women do what other work there is to do and that the other men, those who are unfit for man’s work, are classed with women (pg. 14). He fails to acknowledge the importance of the work that women do or did back in his time. The only example that he mentions is that the women must perform baser office on the animal that has been killed by the man. I think that both jobs related to his hunting example sound like drudgery especially the killing of the animal.
One could also argue that Veblen does not give many examples to support his claims. He calls what women do women’s work but does not go into detail. He praises even male workers who undertake drudgery jobs as superior to females undertaking the same tasks. He also neglects to point out those women, even among ‘barbarian cultures’ had many important jobs, surely more significant to the well-being of the community than Veblen’s disparate comments would suggest. For Veblen to assert that women’s assiduous and uneventful shaping of materials is not to be considered productive labor, but rather an acquisition of substance by seizure (pg15) shows us that he has no respect for women.
Despite his lack of appreciation or respect for women, Veblen does make valid arguments in his assertion that historically in both barbaric and civilized communities lower status attributed to women has been defined to a degree by the types of work afforded them. While he seems to define barbarism by ownership of women with more personal view than substance there is no doubt that he makes significant, valid and interesting points about the relationships between labor and status in the community and between genders.


References