summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/833-h/833-h.htm
blob: 50cb9ae2ec1c0be5af63589d65b152c8b95a0f61 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
9172
9173
9174
9175
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
9233
9234
9235
9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
9260
9261
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
9286
9287
9288
9289
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303
9304
9305
9306
9307
9308
9309
9310
9311
9312
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9400
9401
9402
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
9459
9460
9461
9462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
9487
9488
9489
9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
9513
9514
9515
9516
9517
9518
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
9544
9545
9546
9547
9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
9567
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
9602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
9626
9627
9628
9629
9630
9631
9632
9633
9634
9635
9636
9637
9638
9639
9640
9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
9687
9688
9689
9690
9691
9692
9693
9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
9714
9715
9716
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
9740
9741
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760
9761
9762
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
9770
9771
9772
9773
9774
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
9791
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
9799
9800
9801
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825
9826
9827
9828
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
9852
9853
9854
9855
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890
9891
9892
9893
9894
9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
9912
9913
9914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
9939
9940
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
9965
9966
9967
9968
9969
9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
10026
10027
10028
10029
10030
10031
10032
10033
10034
10035
10036
10037
10038
10039
10040
10041
10042
10043
10044
10045
10046
10047
10048
10049
10050
10051
10052
10053
10054
10055
10056
10057
10058
10059
10060
10061
10062
10063
10064
10065
10066
10067
10068
10069
10070
10071
10072
10073
10074
10075
10076
10077
10078
10079
10080
10081
10082
10083
10084
10085
10086
10087
10088
10089
10090
10091
10092
10093
10094
10095
10096
10097
10098
10099
10100
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10116
10117
10118
10119
10120
10121
10122
10123
10124
10125
10126
10127
10128
10129
10130
10131
10132
10133
10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
10148
10149
10150
10151
10152
10153
10154
10155
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164
10165
10166
10167
10168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173
10174
10175
10176
10177
10178
10179
10180
10181
10182
10183
10184
10185
10186
10187
10188
10189
10190
10191
10192
10193
10194
10195
10196
10197
10198
10199
10200
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
10207
10208
10209
10210
10211
10212
10213
10214
10215
10216
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
10226
10227
10228
10229
10230
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
10236
10237
10238
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10248
10249
10250
10251
10252
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
10258
10259
10260
10261
10262
10263
10264
10265
10266
10267
10268
10269
10270
10271
10272
10273
10274
10275
10276
10277
10278
10279
10280
10281
10282
10283
10284
10285
10286
10287
10288
10289
10290
10291
10292
10293
10294
10295
10296
10297
10298
10299
10300
10301
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
10307
10308
10309
10310
10311
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10326
10327
10328
10329
10330
10331
10332
10333
10334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
10343
10344
10345
10346
10347
10348
10349
10350
10351
10352
10353
10354
10355
10356
10357
10358
10359
10360
10361
10362
10363
10364
10365
10366
10367
10368
10369
10370
10371
10372
10373
10374
10375
10376
10377
10378
10379
10380
10381
10382
10383
10384
10385
10386
10387
10388
10389
10390
10391
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
10397
10398
10399
10400
10401
10402
10403
10404
10405
10406
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441
10442
10443
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
10451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10456
10457
10458
10459
10460
10461
10462
10463
10464
10465
10466
10467
10468
10469
10470
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10476
10477
10478
10479
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
10486
10487
10488
10489
10490
10491
10492
10493
10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
10514
10515
10516
10517
10518
10519
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
10528
10529
10530
10531
10532
10533
10534
10535
10536
10537
10538
10539
10540
10541
10542
10543
10544
10545
10546
10547
10548
10549
10550
10551
10552
10553
10554
10555
10556
10557
10558
10559
10560
10561
10562
10563
10564
10565
10566
10567
10568
10569
10570
10571
10572
10573
10574
10575
10576
10577
10578
10579
10580
10581
10582
10583
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589
10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
10600
10601
10602
10603
10604
10605
10606
10607
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10626
10627
10628
10629
10630
10631
10632
10633
10634
10635
10636
10637
10638
10639
10640
10641
10642
10643
10644
10645
10646
10647
10648
10649
10650
10651
10652
10653
10654
10655
10656
10657
10658
10659
10660
10661
10662
10663
10664
10665
10666
10667
10668
10669
10670
10671
10672
10673
10674
10675
10676
10677
10678
10679
10680
10681

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<!DOCTYPE html
   PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
   "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" >

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">
  <head>
    <title>
      The Theory of the Leisure Class, by Thorstein Veblen
    </title>
    <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve">

    body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify}
    P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; }
    H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; }
    hr  { width: 50%; text-align: center;}
    .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; }
    blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
    .mynote    {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;}
    .toc       { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;}
    .toc2      { margin-left: 20%;}
    div.fig    { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; }
    div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; }
    .figleft   {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;}
    .figright  {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;}
    .pagenum   {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal;
               margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%;
               text-align: right;}
    pre        { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;}

</style>
  </head>
  <body>
<pre xml:space="preserve">

Project Gutenberg's The Theory of the Leisure Class, by Thorstein Veblen

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: The Theory of the Leisure Class

Author: Thorstein Veblen

Release Date: August 6, 2008 [EBook #833]
Last Updated: February 7, 2013

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS ***




Produced by David Reed, and David Widger





</pre>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <h1>
      THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS
    </h1>
    <p>
      <br />
    </p>
    <h2>
      by Thorstein Veblen
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <h2>
      Contents
    </h2>
    <table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto">
      <tr>
        <td>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0001"> Chapter One ~~ Introductory </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0002"> Chapter Two ~~ Pecuniary Emulation </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0003"> Chapter Three ~~ Conspicuous Leisure </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0004"> Chapter Four ~~ Conspicuous Consumption
            </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0005"> Chapter Five ~~ The Pecuniary Standard of
            Living </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0006"> Chapter Six ~~ Pecuniary Canons of Taste
            </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0007"> Chapter Seven ~~ Dress as an Expression of
            the Pecuniary Culture </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0008"> Chapter Eight ~~ Industrial Exemption and
            Conservatism </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0009"> Chapter Nine ~~ The Conservation of Archaic
            Traits </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0010"> Chapter Ten ~~ Modern Survivals of Prowess
            </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0011"> Chapter Eleven ~~ The Belief in Luck </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0012"> Chapter Twelve ~~ Devout Observances </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0013"> Chapter Thirteen ~~ Survivals of the
            Non-Invidious Interests </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2HCH0014"> Chapter Fourteen ~~ The Higher Learning as
            an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture</a>
          </p>
        </td>
      </tr>
    </table>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0001" id="link2HCH0001">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <h2>
      Chapter One ~~ Introductory
    </h2>
    <p>
      The institution of a leisure class is found in its best development at the
      higher stages of the barbarian culture; as, for instance, in feudal Europe
      or feudal Japan. In such communities the distinction between classes is
      very rigorously observed; and the feature of most striking economic
      significance in these class differences is the distinction maintained
      between the employments proper to the several classes. The upper classes
      are by custom exempt or excluded from industrial occupations, and are
      reserved for certain employments to which a degree of honour attaches.
      Chief among the honourable employments in any feudal community is warfare;
      and priestly service is commonly second to warfare. If the barbarian
      community is not notably warlike, the priestly office may take the
      precedence, with that of the warrior second. But the rule holds with but
      slight exceptions that, whether warriors or priests, the upper classes are
      exempt from industrial employments, and this exemption is the economic
      expression of their superior rank. Brahmin India affords a fair
      illustration of the industrial exemption of both these classes. In the
      communities belonging to the higher barbarian culture there is a
      considerable differentiation of sub-classes within what may be
      comprehensively called the leisure class; and there is a corresponding
      differentiation of employments between these sub-classes. The leisure
      class as a whole comprises the noble and the priestly classes, together
      with much of their retinue. The occupations of the class are
      correspondingly diversified; but they have the common economic
      characteristic of being non-industrial. These non-industrial upper-class
      occupations may be roughly comprised under government, warfare, religious
      observances, and sports.
    </p>
    <p>
      At an earlier, but not the earliest, stage of barbarism, the leisure class
      is found in a less differentiated form. Neither the class distinctions nor
      the distinctions between leisure-class occupations are so minute and
      intricate. The Polynesian islanders generally show this stage of the
      development in good form, with the exception that, owing to the absence of
      large game, hunting does not hold the usual place of honour in their
      scheme of life. The Icelandic community in the time of the Sagas also
      affords a fair instance. In such a community there is a rigorous
      distinction between classes and between the occupations peculiar to each
      class. Manual labour, industry, whatever has to do directly with the
      everyday work of getting a livelihood, is the exclusive occupation of the
      inferior class. This inferior class includes slaves and other dependents,
      and ordinarily also all the women. If there are several grades of
      aristocracy, the women of high rank are commonly exempt from industrial
      employment, or at least from the more vulgar kinds of manual labour. The
      men of the upper classes are not only exempt, but by prescriptive custom
      they are debarred, from all industrial occupations. The range of
      employments open to them is rigidly defined. As on the higher plane
      already spoken of, these employments are government, warfare, religious
      observances, and sports. These four lines of activity govern the scheme of
      life of the upper classes, and for the highest rank&mdash;the kings or
      chieftains&mdash;these are the only kinds of activity that custom or the
      common sense of the community will allow. Indeed, where the scheme is well
      developed even sports are accounted doubtfully legitimate for the members
      of the highest rank. To the lower grades of the leisure class certain
      other employments are open, but they are employments that are subsidiary
      to one or another of these typical leisure-class occupations. Such are,
      for instance, the manufacture and care of arms and accoutrements and of
      war canoes, the dressing and handling of horses, dogs, and hawks, the
      preparation of sacred apparatus, etc. The lower classes are excluded from
      these secondary honourable employments, except from such as are plainly of
      an industrial character and are only remotely related to the typical
      leisure-class occupations.
    </p>
    <p>
      If we go a step back of this exemplary barbarian culture, into the lower
      stages of barbarism, we no longer find the leisure class in fully
      developed form. But this lower barbarism shows the usages, motives, and
      circumstances out of which the institution of a leisure class has arisen,
      and indicates the steps of its early growth. Nomadic hunting tribes in
      various parts of the world illustrate these more primitive phases of the
      differentiation. Any one of the North American hunting tribes may be taken
      as a convenient illustration. These tribes can scarcely be said to have a
      defined leisure class. There is a differentiation of function, and there
      is a distinction between classes on the basis of this difference of
      function, but the exemption of the superior class from work has not gone
      far enough to make the designation "leisure class" altogether applicable.
      The tribes belonging on this economic level have carried the economic
      differentiation to the point at which a marked distinction is made between
      the occupations of men and women, and this distinction is of an invidious
      character. In nearly all these tribes the women are, by prescriptive
      custom, held to those employments out of which the industrial occupations
      proper develop at the next advance. The men are exempt from these vulgar
      employments and are reserved for war, hunting, sports, and devout
      observances. A very nice discrimination is ordinarily shown in this
      matter.
    </p>
    <p>
      This division of labour coincides with the distinction between the working
      and the leisure class as it appears in the higher barbarian culture. As
      the diversification and specialisation of employments proceed, the line of
      demarcation so drawn comes to divide the industrial from the
      non-industrial employments. The man's occupation as it stands at the
      earlier barbarian stage is not the original out of which any appreciable
      portion of later industry has developed. In the later development it
      survives only in employments that are not classed as industrial,&mdash;war,
      politics, sports, learning, and the priestly office. The only notable
      exceptions are a portion of the fishery industry and certain slight
      employments that are doubtfully to be classed as industry; such as the
      manufacture of arms, toys, and sporting goods. Virtually the whole range
      of industrial employments is an outgrowth of what is classed as woman's
      work in the primitive barbarian community.
    </p>
    <p>
      The work of the men in the lower barbarian culture is no less
      indispensable to the life of the group than the work done by the women. It
      may even be that the men's work contributes as much to the food supply and
      the other necessary consumption of the group. Indeed, so obvious is this
      "productive" character of the men's work that in the conventional economic
      writings the hunter's work is taken as the type of primitive industry. But
      such is not the barbarian's sense of the matter. In his own eyes he is not
      a labourer, and he is not to be classed with the women in this respect;
      nor is his effort to be classed with the women's drudgery, as labour or
      industry, in such a sense as to admit of its being confounded with the
      latter. There is in all barbarian communities a profound sense of the
      disparity between man's and woman's work. His work may conduce to the
      maintenance of the group, but it is felt that it does so through an
      excellence and an efficacy of a kind that cannot without derogation be
      compared with the uneventful diligence of the women.
    </p>
    <p>
      At a farther step backward in the cultural scale&mdash;among savage groups&mdash;the
      differentiation of employments is still less elaborate and the invidious
      distinction between classes and employments is less consistent and less
      rigorous. Unequivocal instances of a primitive savage culture are hard to
      find. Few of these groups or communities that are classed as "savage" show
      no traces of regression from a more advanced cultural stage. But there are
      groups&mdash;some of them apparently not the result of retrogression&mdash;which
      show the traits of primitive savagery with some fidelity. Their culture
      differs from that of the barbarian communities in the absence of a leisure
      class and the absence, in great measure, of the animus or spiritual
      attitude on which the institution of a leisure class rests. These
      communities of primitive savages in which there is no hierarchy of
      economic classes make up but a small and inconspicuous fraction of the
      human race. As good an instance of this phase of culture as may be had is
      afforded by the tribes of the Andamans, or by the Todas of the Nilgiri
      Hills. The scheme of life of these groups at the time of their earliest
      contact with Europeans seems to have been nearly typical, so far as
      regards the absence of a leisure class. As a further instance might be
      cited the Ainu of Yezo, and, more doubtfully, also some Bushman and Eskimo
      groups. Some Pueblo communities are less confidently to be included in the
      same class. Most, if not all, of the communities here cited may well be
      cases of degeneration from a higher barbarism, rather than bearers of a
      culture that has never risen above its present level. If so, they are for
      the present purpose to be taken with the allowance, but they may serve
      none the less as evidence to the same effect as if they were really
      "primitive" populations.
    </p>
    <p>
      These communities that are without a defined leisure class resemble one
      another also in certain other features of their social structure and
      manner of life. They are small groups and of a simple (archaic) structure;
      they are commonly peaceable and sedentary; they are poor; and individual
      ownership is not a dominant feature of their economic system. At the same
      time it does not follow that these are the smallest of existing
      communities, or that their social structure is in all respects the least
      differentiated; nor does the class necessarily include all primitive
      communities which have no defined system of individual ownership. But it
      is to be noted that the class seems to include the most peaceable&mdash;perhaps
      all the characteristically peaceable&mdash;primitive groups of men.
      Indeed, the most notable trait common to members of such communities is a
      certain amiable inefficiency when confronted with force or fraud.
    </p>
    <p>
      The evidence afforded by the usages and cultural traits of communities at
      a low stage of development indicates that the institution of a leisure
      class has emerged gradually during the transition from primitive savagery
      to barbarism; or more precisely, during the transition from a peaceable to
      a consistently warlike habit of life. The conditions apparently necessary
      to its emergence in a consistent form are: (1) the community must be of a
      predatory habit of life (war or the hunting of large game or both); that
      is to say, the men, who constitute the inchoate leisure class in these
      cases, must be habituated to the infliction of injury by force and
      stratagem; (2) subsistence must be obtainable on sufficiently easy terms
      to admit of the exemption of a considerable portion of the community from
      steady application to a routine of labour. The institution of leisure
      class is the outgrowth of an early discrimination between employments,
      according to which some employments are worthy and others unworthy. Under
      this ancient distinction the worthy employments are those which may be
      classed as exploit; unworthy are those necessary everyday employments into
      which no appreciable element of exploit enters.
    </p>
    <p>
      This distinction has but little obvious significance in a modern
      industrial community, and it has, therefore, received but slight attention
      at the hands of economic writers. When viewed in the light of that modern
      common sense which has guided economic discussion, it seems formal and
      insubstantial. But it persists with great tenacity as a commonplace
      preconception even in modern life, as is shown, for instance, by our
      habitual aversion to menial employments. It is a distinction of a personal
      kind&mdash;of superiority and inferiority. In the earlier stages of
      culture, when the personal force of the individual counted more
      immediately and obviously in shaping the course of events, the element of
      exploit counted for more in the everyday scheme of life. Interest centred
      about this fact to a greater degree. Consequently a distinction proceeding
      on this ground seemed more imperative and more definitive then than is the
      case to-day. As a fact in the sequence of development, therefore, the
      distinction is a substantial one and rests on sufficiently valid and
      cogent grounds.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ground on which a discrimination between facts is habitually made
      changes as the interest from which the facts are habitually viewed
      changes. Those features of the facts at hand are salient and substantial
      upon which the dominant interest of the time throws its light. Any given
      ground of distinction will seem insubstantial to any one who habitually
      apprehends the facts in question from a different point of view and values
      them for a different purpose. The habit of distinguishing and classifying
      the various purposes and directions of activity prevails of necessity
      always and everywhere; for it is indispensable in reaching a working
      theory or scheme of life. The particular point of view, or the particular
      characteristic that is pitched upon as definitive in the classification of
      the facts of life depends upon the interest from which a discrimination of
      the facts is sought. The grounds of discrimination, and the norm of
      procedure in classifying the facts, therefore, progressively change as the
      growth of culture proceeds; for the end for which the facts of life are
      apprehended changes, and the point of view consequently changes also. So
      that what are recognised as the salient and decisive features of a class
      of activities or of a social class at one stage of culture will not retain
      the same relative importance for the purposes of classification at any
      subsequent stage.
    </p>
    <p>
      But the change of standards and points of view is gradual only, and it
      seldom results in the subversion or entire suppression of a standpoint
      once accepted. A distinction is still habitually made between industrial
      and non-industrial occupations; and this modern distinction is a
      transmuted form of the barbarian distinction between exploit and drudgery.
      Such employments as warfare, politics, public worship, and public
      merrymaking, are felt, in the popular apprehension, to differ
      intrinsically from the labour that has to do with elaborating the material
      means of life. The precise line of demarcation is not the same as it was
      in the early barbarian scheme, but the broad distinction has not fallen
      into disuse.
    </p>
    <p>
      The tacit, common-sense distinction to-day is, in effect, that any effort
      is to be accounted industrial only so far as its ultimate purpose is the
      utilisation of non-human things. The coercive utilisation of man by man is
      not felt to be an industrial function; but all effort directed to enhance
      human life by taking advantage of the non-human environment is classed
      together as industrial activity. By the economists who have best retained
      and adapted the classical tradition, man's "power over nature" is
      currently postulated as the characteristic fact of industrial
      productivity. This industrial power over nature is taken to include man's
      power over the life of the beasts and over all the elemental forces. A
      line is in this way drawn between mankind and brute creation.
    </p>
    <p>
      In other times and among men imbued with a different body of
      preconceptions this line is not drawn precisely as we draw it to-day. In
      the savage or the barbarian scheme of life it is drawn in a different
      place and in another way. In all communities under the barbarian culture
      there is an alert and pervading sense of antithesis between two
      comprehensive groups of phenomena, in one of which barbarian man includes
      himself, and in the other, his victual. There is a felt antithesis between
      economic and non-economic phenomena, but it is not conceived in the modern
      fashion; it lies not between man and brute creation, but between animate
      and inert things.
    </p>
    <p>
      It may be an excess of caution at this day to explain that the barbarian
      notion which it is here intended to convey by the term "animate" is not
      the same as would be conveyed by the word "living". The term does not
      cover all living things, and it does cover a great many others. Such a
      striking natural phenomenon as a storm, a disease, a waterfall, are
      recognised as "animate"; while fruits and herbs, and even inconspicuous
      animals, such as house-flies, maggots, lemmings, sheep, are not ordinarily
      apprehended as "animate" except when taken collectively. As here used the
      term does not necessarily imply an indwelling soul or spirit. The concept
      includes such things as in the apprehension of the animistic savage or
      barbarian are formidable by virtue of a real or imputed habit of
      initiating action. This category comprises a large number and range of
      natural objects and phenomena. Such a distinction between the inert and
      the active is still present in the habits of thought of unreflecting
      persons, and it still profoundly affects the prevalent theory of human
      life and of natural processes; but it does not pervade our daily life to
      the extent or with the far-reaching practical consequences that are
      apparent at earlier stages of culture and belief.
    </p>
    <p>
      To the mind of the barbarian, the elaboration and utilisation of what is
      afforded by inert nature is activity on quite a different plane from his
      dealings with "animate" things and forces. The line of demarcation may be
      vague and shifting, but the broad distinction is sufficiently real and
      cogent to influence the barbarian scheme of life. To the class of things
      apprehended as animate, the barbarian fancy imputes an unfolding of
      activity directed to some end. It is this teleological unfolding of
      activity that constitutes any object or phenomenon an "animate" fact.
      Wherever the unsophisticated savage or barbarian meets with activity that
      is at all obtrusive, he construes it in the only terms that are ready to
      hand&mdash;the terms immediately given in his consciousness of his own
      actions. Activity is, therefore, assimilated to human action, and active
      objects are in so far assimilated to the human agent. Phenomena of this
      character&mdash;especially those whose behaviour is notably formidable or
      baffling&mdash;have to be met in a different spirit and with proficiency
      of a different kind from what is required in dealing with inert things. To
      deal successfully with such phenomena is a work of exploit rather than of
      industry. It is an assertion of prowess, not of diligence.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under the guidance of this naive discrimination between the inert and the
      animate, the activities of the primitive social group tend to fall into
      two classes, which would in modern phrase be called exploit and industry.
      Industry is effort that goes to create a new thing, with a new purpose
      given it by the fashioning hand of its maker out of passive ("brute")
      material; while exploit, so far as it results in an outcome useful to the
      agent, is the conversion to his own ends of energies previously directed
      to some other end by an other agent. We still speak of "brute matter" with
      something of the barbarian's realisation of a profound significance in the
      term.
    </p>
    <p>
      The distinction between exploit and drudgery coincides with a difference
      between the sexes. The sexes differ, not only in stature and muscular
      force, but perhaps even more decisively in temperament, and this must
      early have given rise to a corresponding division of labour. The general
      range of activities that come under the head of exploit falls to the males
      as being the stouter, more massive, better capable of a sudden and violent
      strain, and more readily inclined to self assertion, active emulation, and
      aggression. The difference in mass, in physiological character, and in
      temperament may be slight among the members of the primitive group; it
      appears, in fact, to be relatively slight and inconsequential in some of
      the more archaic communities with which we are acquainted&mdash;as for
      instance the tribes of the Andamans. But so soon as a differentiation of
      function has well begun on the lines marked out by this difference in
      physique and animus, the original difference between the sexes will itself
      widen. A cumulative process of selective adaptation to the new
      distribution of employments will set in, especially if the habitat or the
      fauna with which the group is in contact is such as to call for a
      considerable exercise of the sturdier virtues. The habitual pursuit of
      large game requires more of the manly qualities of massiveness, agility,
      and ferocity, and it can therefore scarcely fail to hasten and widen the
      differentiation of functions between the sexes. And so soon as the group
      comes into hostile contact with other groups, the divergence of function
      will take on the developed form of a distinction between exploit and
      industry.
    </p>
    <p>
      In such a predatory group of hunters it comes to be the able-bodied men's
      office to fight and hunt. The women do what other work there is to do&mdash;other
      members who are unfit for man's work being for this purpose classed with
      women. But the men's hunting and fighting are both of the same general
      character. Both are of a predatory nature; the warrior and the hunter
      alike reap where they have not strewn. Their aggressive assertion of force
      and sagacity differs obviously from the women's assiduous and uneventful
      shaping of materials; it is not to be accounted productive labour but
      rather an acquisition of substance by seizure. Such being the barbarian
      man's work, in its best development and widest divergence from women's
      work, any effort that does not involve an assertion of prowess comes to be
      unworthy of the man. As the tradition gains consistency, the common sense
      of the community erects it into a canon of conduct; so that no employment
      and no acquisition is morally possible to the self respecting man at this
      cultural stage, except such as proceeds on the basis of prowess&mdash;force
      or fraud. When the predatory habit of life has been settled upon the group
      by long habituation, it becomes the able-bodied man's accredited office in
      the social economy to kill, to destroy such competitors in the struggle
      for existence as attempt to resist or elude him, to overcome and reduce to
      subservience those alien forces that assert themselves refractorily in the
      environment. So tenaciously and with such nicety is this theoretical
      distinction between exploit and drudgery adhered to that in many hunting
      tribes the man must not bring home the game which he has killed, but must
      send his woman to perform that baser office.
    </p>
    <p>
      As has already been indicated, the distinction between exploit and
      drudgery is an invidious distinction between employments. Those
      employments which are to be classed as exploit are worthy, honourable,
      noble; other employments, which do not contain this element of exploit,
      and especially those which imply subservience or submission, are unworthy,
      debasing, ignoble. The concept of dignity, worth, or honour, as applied
      either to persons or conduct, is of first-rate consequence in the
      development of classes and of class distinctions, and it is therefore
      necessary to say something of its derivation and meaning. Its
      psychological ground may be indicated in outline as follows.
    </p>
    <p>
      As a matter of selective necessity, man is an agent. He is, in his own
      apprehension, a centre of unfolding impulsive activity&mdash;"teleological"
      activity. He is an agent seeking in every act the accomplishment of some
      concrete, objective, impersonal end. By force of his being such an agent
      he is possessed of a taste for effective work, and a distaste for futile
      effort. He has a sense of the merit of serviceability or efficiency and of
      the demerit of futility, waste, or incapacity. This aptitude or propensity
      may be called the instinct of workmanship. Wherever the circumstances or
      traditions of life lead to an habitual comparison of one person with
      another in point of efficiency, the instinct of workmanship works out in
      an emulative or invidious comparison of persons. The extent to which this
      result follows depends in some considerable degree on the temperament of
      the population. In any community where such an invidious comparison of
      persons is habitually made, visible success becomes an end sought for its
      own utility as a basis of esteem. Esteem is gained and dispraise is
      avoided by putting one's efficiency in evidence. The result is that the
      instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative demonstration of force.
    </p>
    <p>
      During that primitive phase of social development, when the community is
      still habitually peaceable, perhaps sedentary, and without a developed
      system of individual ownership, the efficiency of the individual can be
      shown chiefly and most consistently in some employment that goes to
      further the life of the group. What emulation of an economic kind there is
      between the members of such a group will be chiefly emulation in
      industrial serviceability. At the same time the incentive to emulation is
      not strong, nor is the scope for emulation large.
    </p>
    <p>
      When the community passes from peaceable savagery to a predatory phase of
      life, the conditions of emulation change. The opportunity and the
      incentive to emulate increase greatly in scope and urgency. The activity
      of the men more and more takes on the character of exploit; and an
      invidious comparison of one hunter or warrior with another grows
      continually easier and more habitual. Tangible evidences of prowess&mdash;trophies&mdash;find
      a place in men's habits of thought as an essential feature of the
      paraphernalia of life. Booty, trophies of the chase or of the raid, come
      to be prized as evidence of pre-eminent force. Aggression becomes the
      accredited form of action, and booty serves as prima facie evidence of
      successful aggression. As accepted at this cultural stage, the accredited,
      worthy form of self-assertion is contest; and useful articles or services
      obtained by seizure or compulsion, serve as a conventional evidence of
      successful contest. Therefore, by contrast, the obtaining of goods by
      other methods than seizure comes to be accounted unworthy of man in his
      best estate. The performance of productive work, or employment in personal
      service, falls under the same odium for the same reason. An invidious
      distinction in this way arises between exploit and acquisition on the
      other hand. Labour acquires a character of irksomeness by virtue of the
      indignity imputed to it.
    </p>
    <p>
      With the primitive barbarian, before the simple content of the notion has
      been obscured by its own ramifications and by a secondary growth of
      cognate ideas, "honourable" seems to connote nothing else than assertion
      of superior force. "Honourable" is "formidable"; "worthy" is "prepotent".
      A honorific act is in the last analysis little if anything else than a
      recognised successful act of aggression; and where aggression means
      conflict with men and beasts, the activity which comes to be especially
      and primarily honourable is the assertion of the strong hand. The naive,
      archaic habit of construing all manifestations of force in terms of
      personality or "will power" greatly fortifies this conventional exaltation
      of the strong hand. Honorific epithets, in vogue among barbarian tribes as
      well as among peoples of a more advance culture, commonly bear the stamp
      of this unsophisticated sense of honour. Epithets and titles used in
      addressing chieftains, and in the propitiation of kings and gods, very
      commonly impute a propensity for overbearing violence and an irresistible
      devastating force to the person who is to be propitiated. This holds true
      to an extent also in the more civilised communities of the present day.
      The predilection shown in heraldic devices for the more rapacious beasts
      and birds of prey goes to enforce the same view.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under this common-sense barbarian appreciation of worth or honour, the
      taking of life&mdash;the killing of formidable competitors, whether brute
      or human&mdash;is honourable in the highest degree. And this high office
      of slaughter, as an expression of the slayer's prepotence, casts a glamour
      of worth over every act of slaughter and over all the tools and
      accessories of the act. Arms are honourable, and the use of them, even in
      seeking the life of the meanest creatures of the fields, becomes a
      honorific employment. At the same time, employment in industry becomes
      correspondingly odious, and, in the common-sense apprehension, the
      handling of the tools and implements of industry falls beneath the dignity
      of able-bodied men. Labour becomes irksome.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is here assumed that in the sequence of cultural evolution primitive
      groups of men have passed from an initial peaceable stage to a subsequent
      stage at which fighting is the avowed and characteristic employment of the
      group. But it is not implied that there has been an abrupt transition from
      unbroken peace and good-will to a later or higher phase of life in which
      the fact of combat occurs for the first time. Neither is it implied that
      all peaceful industry disappears on the transition to the predatory phase
      of culture. Some fighting, it is safe to say, would be met with at any
      early stage of social development. Fights would occur with more or less
      frequency through sexual competition. The known habits of primitive
      groups, as well as the habits of the anthropoid apes, argue to that
      effect, and the evidence from the well-known promptings of human nature
      enforces the same view.
    </p>
    <p>
      It may therefore be objected that there can have been no such initial
      stage of peaceable life as is here assumed. There is no point in cultural
      evolution prior to which fighting does not occur. But the point in
      question is not as to the occurrence of combat, occasional or sporadic, or
      even more or less frequent and habitual; it is a question as to the
      occurrence of an habitual; it is a question as to the occurrence of an
      habitual bellicose frame of mind&mdash;a prevalent habit of judging facts
      and events from the point of view of the fight. The predatory phase of
      culture is attained only when the predatory attitude has become the
      habitual and accredited spiritual attitude for the members of the group;
      when the fight has become the dominant note in the current theory of life;
      when the common-sense appreciation of men and things has come to be an
      appreciation with a view to combat.
    </p>
    <p>
      The substantial difference between the peaceable and the predatory phase
      of culture, therefore, is a spiritual difference, not a mechanical one.
      The change in spiritual attitude is the outgrowth of a change in the
      material facts of the life of the group, and it comes on gradually as the
      material circumstances favourable to a predatory attitude supervene. The
      inferior limit of the predatory culture is an industrial limit. Predation
      can not become the habitual, conventional resource of any group or any
      class until industrial methods have been developed to such a degree of
      efficiency as to leave a margin worth fighting for, above the subsistence
      of those engaged in getting a living. The transition from peace to
      predation therefore depends on the growth of technical knowledge and the
      use of tools. A predatory culture is similarly impracticable in early
      times, until weapons have been developed to such a point as to make man a
      formidable animal. The early development of tools and of weapons is of
      course the same fact seen from two different points of view.
    </p>
    <p>
      The life of a given group would be characterised as peaceable so long as
      habitual recourse to combat has not brought the fight into the foreground
      in men's every day thoughts, as a dominant feature of the life of man. A
      group may evidently attain such a predatory attitude with a greater or
      less degree of completeness, so that its scheme of life and canons of
      conduct may be controlled to a greater or less extent by the predatory
      animus. The predatory phase of culture is therefore conceived to come on
      gradually, through a cumulative growth of predatory aptitudes habits, and
      traditions this growth being due to a change in the circumstances of the
      group's life, of such a kind as to develop and conserve those traits of
      human nature and those traditions and norms of conduct that make for a
      predatory rather than a peaceable life.
    </p>
    <p>
      The evidence for the hypothesis that there has been such a peaceable stage
      of primitive culture is in great part drawn from psychology rather than
      from ethnology, and cannot be detailed here. It will be recited in part in
      a later chapter, in discussing the survival of archaic traits of human
      nature under the modern culture.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0002" id="link2HCH0002">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Two ~~ Pecuniary Emulation
    </h2>
    <p>
      In the sequence of cultural evolution the emergence of a leisure class
      coincides with the beginning of ownership. This is necessarily the case,
      for these two institutions result from the same set of economic forces. In
      the inchoate phase of their development they are but different aspects of
      the same general facts of social structure.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is as elements of social structure&mdash;conventional facts&mdash;that
      leisure and ownership are matters of interest for the purpose in hand. An
      habitual neglect of work does not constitute a leisure class; neither does
      the mechanical fact of use and consumption constitute ownership. The
      present inquiry, therefore, is not concerned with the beginning of
      indolence, nor with the beginning of the appropriation of useful articles
      to individual consumption. The point in question is the origin and nature
      of a conventional leisure class on the one hand and the beginnings of
      individual ownership as a conventional right or equitable claim on the
      other hand.
    </p>
    <p>
      The early differentiation out of which the distinction between a leisure
      and a working class arises is a division maintained between men's and
      women's work in the lower stages of barbarism. Likewise the earliest form
      of ownership is an ownership of the women by the able bodied men of the
      community. The facts may be expressed in more general terms, and truer to
      the import of the barbarian theory of life, by saying that it is an
      ownership of the woman by the man.
    </p>
    <p>
      There was undoubtedly some appropriation of useful articles before the
      custom of appropriating women arose. The usages of existing archaic
      communities in which there is no ownership of women is warrant for such a
      view. In all communities the members, both male and female, habitually
      appropriate to their individual use a variety of useful things; but these
      useful things are not thought of as owned by the person who appropriates
      and consumes them. The habitual appropriation and consumption of certain
      slight personal effects goes on without raising the question of ownership;
      that is to say, the question of a conventional, equitable claim to
      extraneous things.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ownership of women begins in the lower barbarian stages of culture,
      apparently with the seizure of female captives. The original reason for
      the seizure and appropriation of women seems to have been their usefulness
      as trophies. The practice of seizing women from the enemy as trophies,
      gave rise to a form of ownership-marriage, resulting in a household with a
      male head. This was followed by an extension of slavery to other captives
      and inferiors, besides women, and by an extension of ownership-marriage to
      other women than those seized from the enemy. The outcome of emulation
      under the circumstances of a predatory life, therefore, has been on the
      one hand a form of marriage resting on coercion, and on the other hand the
      custom of ownership. The two institutions are not distinguishable in the
      initial phase of their development; both arise from the desire of the
      successful men to put their prowess in evidence by exhibiting some durable
      result of their exploits. Both also minister to that propensity for
      mastery which pervades all predatory communities. From the ownership of
      women the concept of ownership extends itself to include the products of
      their industry, and so there arises the ownership of things as well as of
      persons.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this way a consistent system of property in goods is gradually
      installed. And although in the latest stages of the development, the
      serviceability of goods for consumption has come to be the most obtrusive
      element of their value, still, wealth has by no means yet lost its utility
      as a honorific evidence of the owner's prepotence.
    </p>
    <p>
      Wherever the institution of private property is found, even in a slightly
      developed form, the economic process bears the character of a struggle
      between men for the possession of goods. It has been customary in economic
      theory, and especially among those economists who adhere with least
      faltering to the body of modernised classical doctrines, to construe this
      struggle for wealth as being substantially a struggle for subsistence.
      Such is, no doubt, its character in large part during the earlier and less
      efficient phases of industry. Such is also its character in all cases
      where the "niggardliness of nature" is so strict as to afford but a scanty
      livelihood to the community in return for strenuous and unremitting
      application to the business of getting the means of subsistence. But in
      all progressing communities an advance is presently made beyond this early
      stage of technological development. Industrial efficiency is presently
      carried to such a pitch as to afford something appreciably more than a
      bare livelihood to those engaged in the industrial process. It has not
      been unusual for economic theory to speak of the further struggle for
      wealth on this new industrial basis as a competition for an increase of
      the comforts of life,&mdash;primarily for an increase of the physical
      comforts which the consumption of goods affords.
    </p>
    <p>
      The end of acquisition and accumulation is conventionally held to be the
      consumption of the goods accumulated&mdash;whether it is consumption
      directly by the owner of the goods or by the household attached to him and
      for this purpose identified with him in theory. This is at least felt to
      be the economically legitimate end of acquisition, which alone it is
      incumbent on the theory to take account of. Such consumption may of course
      be conceived to serve the consumer's physical wants&mdash;his physical
      comfort&mdash;or his so-called higher wants&mdash;spiritual, aesthetic,
      intellectual, or what not; the latter class of wants being served
      indirectly by an expenditure of goods, after the fashion familiar to all
      economic readers.
    </p>
    <p>
      But it is only when taken in a sense far removed from its naive meaning
      that consumption of goods can be said to afford the incentive from which
      accumulation invariably proceeds. The motive that lies at the root of
      ownership is emulation; and the same motive of emulation continues active
      in the further development of the institution to which it has given rise
      and in the development of all those features of the social structure which
      this institution of ownership touches. The possession of wealth confers
      honour; it is an invidious distinction. Nothing equally cogent can be said
      for the consumption of goods, nor for any other conceivable incentive to
      acquisition, and especially not for any incentive to accumulation of
      wealth.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is of course not to be overlooked that in a community where nearly all
      goods are private property the necessity of earning a livelihood is a
      powerful and ever present incentive for the poorer members of the
      community. The need of subsistence and of an increase of physical comfort
      may for a time be the dominant motive of acquisition for those classes who
      are habitually employed at manual labour, whose subsistence is on a
      precarious footing, who possess little and ordinarily accumulate little;
      but it will appear in the course of the discussion that even in the case
      of these impecunious classes the predominance of the motive of physical
      want is not so decided as has sometimes been assumed. On the other hand,
      so far as regards those members and classes of the community who are
      chiefly concerned in the accumulation of wealth, the incentive of
      subsistence or of physical comfort never plays a considerable part.
      Ownership began and grew into a human institution on grounds unrelated to
      the subsistence minimum. The dominant incentive was from the outset the
      invidious distinction attaching to wealth, and, save temporarily and by
      exception, no other motive has usurped the primacy at any later stage of
      the development.
    </p>
    <p>
      Property set out with being booty held as trophies of the successful raid.
      So long as the group had departed and so long as it still stood in close
      contact with other hostile groups, the utility of things or persons owned
      lay chiefly in an invidious comparison between their possessor and the
      enemy from whom they were taken. The habit of distinguishing between the
      interests of the individual and those of the group to which he belongs is
      apparently a later growth. Invidious comparison between the possessor of
      the honorific booty and his less successful neighbours within the group
      was no doubt present early as an element of the utility of the things
      possessed, though this was not at the outset the chief element of their
      value. The man's prowess was still primarily the group's prowess, and the
      possessor of the booty felt himself to be primarily the keeper of the
      honour of his group. This appreciation of exploit from the communal point
      of view is met with also at later stages of social growth, especially as
      regards the laurels of war.
    </p>
    <p>
      But as soon as the custom of individual ownership begins to gain
      consistency, the point of view taken in making the invidious comparison on
      which private property rests will begin to change. Indeed, the one change
      is but the reflex of the other. The initial phase of ownership, the phase
      of acquisition by naive seizure and conversion, begins to pass into the
      subsequent stage of an incipient organization of industry on the basis of
      private property (in slaves); the horde develops into a more or less
      self-sufficing industrial community; possessions then come to be valued
      not so much as evidence of successful foray, but rather as evidence of the
      prepotence of the possessor of these goods over other individuals within
      the community. The invidious comparison now becomes primarily a comparison
      of the owner with the other members of the group. Property is still of the
      nature of trophy, but, with the cultural advance, it becomes more and more
      a trophy of successes scored in the game of ownership carried on between
      the members of the group under the quasi-peaceable methods of nomadic
      life.
    </p>
    <p>
      Gradually, as industrial activity further displaced predatory activity in
      the community's everyday life and in men's habits of thought, accumulated
      property more and more replaces trophies of predatory exploit as the
      conventional exponent of prepotence and success. With the growth of
      settled industry, therefore, the possession of wealth gains in relative
      importance and effectiveness as a customary basis of repute and esteem.
      Not that esteem ceases to be awarded on the basis of other, more direct
      evidence of prowess; not that successful predatory aggression or warlike
      exploit ceases to call out the approval and admiration of the crowd, or to
      stir the envy of the less successful competitors; but the opportunities
      for gaining distinction by means of this direct manifestation of superior
      force grow less available both in scope and frequency. At the same time
      opportunities for industrial aggression, and for the accumulation of
      property, increase in scope and availability. And it is even more to the
      point that property now becomes the most easily recognised evidence of a
      reputable degree of success as distinguished from heroic or signal
      achievement. It therefore becomes the conventional basis of esteem. Its
      possession in some amount becomes necessary in order to any reputable
      standing in the community. It becomes indispensable to accumulate, to
      acquire property, in order to retain one's good name. When accumulated
      goods have in this way once become the accepted badge of efficiency, the
      possession of wealth presently assumes the character of an independent and
      definitive basis of esteem. The possession of goods, whether acquired
      aggressively by one's own exertion or passively by transmission through
      inheritance from others, becomes a conventional basis of reputability. The
      possession of wealth, which was at the outset valued simply as an evidence
      of efficiency, becomes, in popular apprehension, itself a meritorious act.
      Wealth is now itself intrinsically honourable and confers honour on its
      possessor. By a further refinement, wealth acquired passively by
      transmission from ancestors or other antecedents presently becomes even
      more honorific than wealth acquired by the possessor's own effort; but
      this distinction belongs at a later stage in the evolution of the
      pecuniary culture and will be spoken of in its place.
    </p>
    <p>
      Prowess and exploit may still remain the basis of award of the highest
      popular esteem, although the possession of wealth has become the basis of
      common place reputability and of a blameless social standing. The
      predatory instinct and the consequent approbation of predatory efficiency
      are deeply ingrained in the habits of thought of those peoples who have
      passed under the discipline of a protracted predatory culture. According
      to popular award, the highest honours within human reach may, even yet, be
      those gained by an unfolding of extraordinary predatory efficiency in war,
      or by a quasi-predatory efficiency in statecraft; but for the purposes of
      a commonplace decent standing in the community these means of repute have
      been replaced by the acquisition and accumulation of goods. In order to
      stand well in the eyes of the community, it is necessary to come up to a
      certain, somewhat indefinite, conventional standard of wealth; just as in
      the earlier predatory stage it is necessary for the barbarian man to come
      up to the tribe's standard of physical endurance, cunning, and skill at
      arms. A certain standard of wealth in the one case, and of prowess in the
      other, is a necessary condition of reputability, and anything in excess of
      this normal amount is meritorious.
    </p>
    <p>
      Those members of the community who fall short of this, somewhat
      indefinite, normal degree of prowess or of property suffer in the esteem
      of their fellow-men; and consequently they suffer also in their own
      esteem, since the usual basis of self-respect is the respect accorded by
      one's neighbours. Only individuals with an aberrant temperament can in the
      long run retain their self-esteem in the face of the disesteem of their
      fellows. Apparent exceptions to the rule are met with, especially among
      people with strong religious convictions. But these apparent exceptions
      are scarcely real exceptions, since such persons commonly fall back on the
      putative approbation of some supernatural witness of their deeds.
    </p>
    <p>
      So soon as the possession of property becomes the basis of popular esteem,
      therefore, it becomes also a requisite to the complacency which we call
      self-respect. In any community where goods are held in severalty it is
      necessary, in order to his own peace of mind, that an individual should
      possess as large a portion of goods as others with whom he is accustomed
      to class himself; and it is extremely gratifying to possess something more
      than others. But as fast as a person makes new acquisitions, and becomes
      accustomed to the resulting new standard of wealth, the new standard
      forthwith ceases to afford appreciably greater satisfaction than the
      earlier standard did. The tendency in any case is constantly to make the
      present pecuniary standard the point of departure for a fresh increase of
      wealth; and this in turn gives rise to a new standard of sufficiency and a
      new pecuniary classification of one's self as compared with one's
      neighbours. So far as concerns the present question, the end sought by
      accumulation is to rank high in comparison with the rest of the community
      in point of pecuniary strength. So long as the comparison is distinctly
      unfavourable to himself, the normal, average individual will live in
      chronic dissatisfaction with his present lot; and when he has reached what
      may be called the normal pecuniary standard of the community, or of his
      class in the community, this chronic dissatisfaction will give place to a
      restless straining to place a wider and ever-widening pecuniary interval
      between himself and this average standard. The invidious comparison can
      never become so favourable to the individual making it that he would not
      gladly rate himself still higher relatively to his competitors in the
      struggle for pecuniary reputability.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the nature of the case, the desire for wealth can scarcely be satiated
      in any individual instance, and evidently a satiation of the average or
      general desire for wealth is out of the question. However widely, or
      equally, or "fairly", it may be distributed, no general increase of the
      community's wealth can make any approach to satiating this need, the
      ground of which is the desire of every one to excel every one else in the
      accumulation of goods. If, as is sometimes assumed, the incentive to
      accumulation were the want of subsistence or of physical comfort, then the
      aggregate economic wants of a community might conceivably be satisfied at
      some point in the advance of industrial efficiency; but since the struggle
      is substantially a race for reputability on the basis of an invidious
      comparison, no approach to a definitive attainment is possible.
    </p>
    <p>
      What has just been said must not be taken to mean that there are no other
      incentives to acquisition and accumulation than this desire to excel in
      pecuniary standing and so gain the esteem and envy of one's fellow-men.
      The desire for added comfort and security from want is present as a motive
      at every stage of the process of accumulation in a modern industrial
      community; although the standard of sufficiency in these respects is in
      turn greatly affected by the habit of pecuniary emulation. To a great
      extent this emulation shapes the methods and selects the objects of
      expenditure for personal comfort and decent livelihood.
    </p>
    <p>
      Besides this, the power conferred by wealth also affords a motive to
      accumulation. That propensity for purposeful activity and that repugnance
      to all futility of effort which belong to man by virtue of his character
      as an agent do not desert him when he emerges from the naive communal
      culture where the dominant note of life is the unanalysed and
      undifferentiated solidarity of the individual with the group with which
      his life is bound up. When he enters upon the predatory stage, where
      self-seeking in the narrower sense becomes the dominant note, this
      propensity goes with him still, as the pervasive trait that shapes his
      scheme of life. The propensity for achievement and the repugnance to
      futility remain the underlying economic motive. The propensity changes
      only in the form of its expression and in the proximate objects to which
      it directs the man's activity. Under the regime of individual ownership
      the most available means of visibly achieving a purpose is that afforded
      by the acquisition and accumulation of goods; and as the self-regarding
      antithesis between man and man reaches fuller consciousness, the
      propensity for achievement&mdash;the instinct of workmanship&mdash;tends
      more and more to shape itself into a straining to excel others in
      pecuniary achievement. Relative success, tested by an invidious pecuniary
      comparison with other men, becomes the conventional end of action. The
      currently accepted legitimate end of effort becomes the achievement of a
      favourable comparison with other men; and therefore the repugnance to
      futility to a good extent coalesces with the incentive of emulation. It
      acts to accentuate the struggle for pecuniary reputability by visiting
      with a sharper disapproval all shortcoming and all evidence of shortcoming
      in point of pecuniary success. Purposeful effort comes to mean, primarily,
      effort directed to or resulting in a more creditable showing of
      accumulated wealth. Among the motives which lead men to accumulate wealth,
      the primacy, both in scope and intensity, therefore, continues to belong
      to this motive of pecuniary emulation.
    </p>
    <p>
      In making use of the term "invidious", it may perhaps be unnecessary to
      remark, there is no intention to extol or depreciate, or to commend or
      deplore any of the phenomena which the word is used to characterise. The
      term is used in a technical sense as describing a comparison of persons
      with a view to rating and grading them in respect of relative worth or
      value&mdash;in an aesthetic or moral sense&mdash;and so awarding and
      defining the relative degrees of complacency with which they may
      legitimately be contemplated by themselves and by others. An invidious
      comparison is a process of valuation of persons in respect of worth.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0003" id="link2HCH0003">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Three ~~ Conspicuous Leisure
    </h2>
    <p>
      If its working were not disturbed by other economic forces or other
      features of the emulative process, the immediate effect of such a
      pecuniary struggle as has just been described in outline would be to make
      men industrious and frugal. This result actually follows, in some measure,
      so far as regards the lower classes, whose ordinary means of acquiring
      goods is productive labour. This is more especially true of the labouring
      classes in a sedentary community which is at an agricultural stage of
      industry, in which there is a considerable subdivision of industry, and
      whose laws and customs secure to these classes a more or less definite
      share of the product of their industry. These lower classes can in any
      case not avoid labour, and the imputation of labour is therefore not
      greatly derogatory to them, at least not within their class. Rather, since
      labour is their recognised and accepted mode of life, they take some
      emulative pride in a reputation for efficiency in their work, this being
      often the only line of emulation that is open to them. For those for whom
      acquisition and emulation is possible only within the field of productive
      efficiency and thrift, the struggle for pecuniary reputability will in
      some measure work out in an increase of diligence and parsimony. But
      certain secondary features of the emulative process, yet to be spoken of,
      come in to very materially circumscribe and modify emulation in these
      directions among the pecuniary inferior classes as well as among the
      superior class.
    </p>
    <p>
      But it is otherwise with the superior pecuniary class, with which we are
      here immediately concerned. For this class also the incentive to diligence
      and thrift is not absent; but its action is so greatly qualified by the
      secondary demands of pecuniary emulation, that any inclination in this
      direction is practically overborne and any incentive to diligence tends to
      be of no effect. The most imperative of these secondary demands of
      emulation, as well as the one of widest scope, is the requirement of
      abstention from productive work. This is true in an especial degree for
      the barbarian stage of culture. During the predatory culture labour comes
      to be associated in men's habits of thought with weakness and subjection
      to a master. It is therefore a mark of inferiority, and therefore comes to
      be accounted unworthy of man in his best estate. By virtue of this
      tradition labour is felt to be debasing, and this tradition has never died
      out. On the contrary, with the advance of social differentiation it has
      acquired the axiomatic force due to ancient and unquestioned prescription.
    </p>
    <p>
      In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely
      to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence,
      for esteem is awarded only on evidence. And not only does the evidence of
      wealth serve to impress one's importance on others and to keep their sense
      of his importance alive and alert, but it is of scarcely less use in
      building up and preserving one's self-complacency. In all but the lowest
      stages of culture the normally constituted man is comforted and upheld in
      his self-respect by "decent surroundings" and by exemption from "menial
      offices". Enforced departure from his habitual standard of decency, either
      in the paraphernalia of life or in the kind and amount of his everyday
      activity, is felt to be a slight upon his human dignity, even apart from
      all conscious consideration of the approval or disapproval of his fellows.
    </p>
    <p>
      The archaic theoretical distinction between the base and the honourable in
      the manner of a man's life retains very much of its ancient force even
      today. So much so that there are few of the better class who are not
      possessed of an instinctive repugnance for the vulgar forms of labour. We
      have a realising sense of ceremonial uncleanness attaching in an especial
      degree to the occupations which are associated in our habits of thought
      with menial service. It is felt by all persons of refined taste that a
      spiritual contamination is inseparable from certain offices that are
      conventionally required of servants. Vulgar surroundings, mean (that is to
      say, inexpensive) habitations, and vulgarly productive occupations are
      unhesitatingly condemned and avoided. They are incompatible with life on a
      satisfactory spiritual plane __ with "high thinking". From the days of the
      Greek philosophers to the present, a degree of leisure and of exemption
      from contact with such industrial processes as serve the immediate
      everyday purposes of human life has ever been recognised by thoughtful men
      as a prerequisite to a worthy or beautiful, or even a blameless, human
      life. In itself and in its consequences the life of leisure is beautiful
      and ennobling in all civilised men's eyes.
    </p>
    <p>
      This direct, subjective value of leisure and of other evidences of wealth
      is no doubt in great part secondary and derivative. It is in part a reflex
      of the utility of leisure as a means of gaining the respect of others, and
      in part it is the result of a mental substitution. The performance of
      labour has been accepted as a conventional evidence of inferior force;
      therefore it comes itself, by a mental short-cut, to be regarded as
      intrinsically base.
    </p>
    <p>
      During the predatory stage proper, and especially during the earlier
      stages of the quasi-peaceable development of industry that follows the
      predatory stage, a life of leisure is the readiest and most conclusive
      evidence of pecuniary strength, and therefore of superior force; provided
      always that the gentleman of leisure can live in manifest ease and
      comfort. At this stage wealth consists chiefly of slaves, and the benefits
      accruing from the possession of riches and power take the form chiefly of
      personal service and the immediate products of personal service.
      Conspicuous abstention from labour therefore becomes the conventional mark
      of superior pecuniary achievement and the conventional index of
      reputability; and conversely, since application to productive labour is a
      mark of poverty and subjection, it becomes inconsistent with a reputable
      standing in the community. Habits of industry and thrift, therefore, are
      not uniformly furthered by a prevailing pecuniary emulation. On the
      contrary, this kind of emulation indirectly discountenances participation
      in productive labour. Labour would unavoidably become dishonourable, as
      being an evidence indecorous under the ancient tradition handed down from
      an earlier cultural stage. The ancient tradition of the predatory culture
      is that productive effort is to be shunned as being unworthy of
      able-bodied men, and this tradition is reinforced rather than set aside in
      the passage from the predatory to the quasi-peaceable manner of life.
    </p>
    <p>
      Even if the institution of a leisure class had not come in with the first
      emergence of individual ownership, by force of the dishonour attaching to
      productive employment, it would in any case have come in as one of the
      early consequences of ownership. And it is to be remarked that while the
      leisure class existed in theory from the beginning of predatory culture,
      the institution takes on a new and fuller meaning with the transition from
      the predatory to the next succeeding pecuniary stage of culture. It is
      from this time forth a "leisure class" in fact as well as in theory. From
      this point dates the institution of the leisure class in its consummate
      form.
    </p>
    <p>
      During the predatory stage proper the distinction between the leisure and
      the labouring class is in some degree a ceremonial distinction only. The
      able bodied men jealously stand aloof from whatever is in their
      apprehension, menial drudgery; but their activity in fact contributes
      appreciably to the sustenance of the group. The subsequent stage of
      quasi-peaceable industry is usually characterised by an established
      chattel slavery, herds of cattle, and a servile class of herdsmen and
      shepherds; industry has advanced so far that the community is no longer
      dependent for its livelihood on the chase or on any other form of activity
      that can fairly be classed as exploit. From this point on, the
      characteristic feature of leisure class life is a conspicuous exemption
      from all useful employment.
    </p>
    <p>
      The normal and characteristic occupations of the class in this mature
      phase of its life history are in form very much the same as in its earlier
      days. These occupations are government, war, sports, and devout
      observances. Persons unduly given to difficult theoretical niceties may
      hold that these occupations are still incidentally and indirectly
      "productive"; but it is to be noted as decisive of the question in hand
      that the ordinary and ostensible motive of the leisure class in engaging
      in these occupations is assuredly not an increase of wealth by productive
      effort. At this as at any other cultural stage, government and war are, at
      least in part, carried on for the pecuniary gain of those who engage in
      them; but it is gain obtained by the honourable method of seizure and
      conversion. These occupations are of the nature of predatory, not of
      productive, employment. Something similar may be said of the chase, but
      with a difference. As the community passes out of the hunting stage
      proper, hunting gradually becomes differentiated into two distinct
      employments. On the one hand it is a trade, carried on chiefly for gain;
      and from this the element of exploit is virtually absent, or it is at any
      rate not present in a sufficient degree to clear the pursuit of the
      imputation of gainful industry. On the other hand, the chase is also a
      sport&mdash;an exercise of the predatory impulse simply. As such it does
      not afford any appreciable pecuniary incentive, but it contains a more or
      less obvious element of exploit. It is this latter development of the
      chase&mdash;purged of all imputation of handicraft&mdash;that alone is
      meritorious and fairly belongs in the scheme of life of the developed
      leisure class.
    </p>
    <p>
      Abstention from labour is not only a honorific or meritorious act, but it
      presently comes to be a requisite of decency. The insistence on property
      as the basis of reputability is very naive and very imperious during the
      early stages of the accumulation of wealth. Abstention from labour is the
      convenient evidence of wealth and is therefore the conventional mark of
      social standing; and this insistence on the meritoriousness of wealth
      leads to a more strenuous insistence on leisure. Nota notae est nota rei
      ipsius. According to well established laws of human nature, prescription
      presently seizes upon this conventional evidence of wealth and fixes it in
      men's habits of thought as something that is in itself substantially
      meritorious and ennobling; while productive labour at the same time and by
      a like process becomes in a double sense intrinsically unworthy.
      Prescription ends by making labour not only disreputable in the eyes of
      the community, but morally impossible to the noble, freeborn man, and
      incompatible with a worthy life.
    </p>
    <p>
      This tabu on labour has a further consequence in the industrial
      differentiation of classes. As the population increases in density and the
      predatory group grows into a settled industrial community, the constituted
      authorities and the customs governing ownership gain in scope and
      consistency. It then presently becomes impracticable to accumulate wealth
      by simple seizure, and, in logical consistency, acquisition by industry is
      equally impossible for high minded and impecunious men. The alternative
      open to them is beggary or privation. Wherever the canon of conspicuous
      leisure has a chance undisturbed to work out its tendency, there will
      therefore emerge a secondary, and in a sense spurious, leisure class&mdash;abjectly
      poor and living in a precarious life of want and discomfort, but morally
      unable to stoop to gainful pursuits. The decayed gentleman and the lady
      who has seen better days are by no means unfamiliar phenomena even now.
      This pervading sense of the indignity of the slightest manual labour is
      familiar to all civilized peoples, as well as to peoples of a less
      advanced pecuniary culture. In persons of a delicate sensibility who have
      long been habituated to gentle manners, the sense of the shamefulness of
      manual labour may become so strong that, at a critical juncture, it will
      even set aside the instinct of self-preservation. So, for instance, we are
      told of certain Polynesian chiefs, who, under the stress of good form,
      preferred to starve rather than carry their food to their mouths with
      their own hands. It is true, this conduct may have been due, at least in
      part, to an excessive sanctity or tabu attaching to the chief's person.
      The tabu would have been communicated by the contact of his hands, and so
      would have made anything touched by him unfit for human food. But the tabu
      is itself a derivative of the unworthiness or moral incompatibility of
      labour; so that even when construed in this sense the conduct of the
      Polynesian chiefs is truer to the canon of honorific leisure than would at
      first appear. A better illustration, or at least a more unmistakable one,
      is afforded by a certain king of France, who is said to have lost his life
      through an excess of moral stamina in the observance of good form. In the
      absence of the functionary whose office it was to shift his master's seat,
      the king sat uncomplaining before the fire and suffered his royal person
      to be toasted beyond recovery. But in so doing he saved his Most Christian
      Majesty from menial contamination. Summum crede nefas animam praeferre
      pudori, Et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas.
    </p>
    <p>
      It has already been remarked that the term "leisure", as here used, does
      not connote indolence or quiescence. What it connotes is non-productive
      consumption of time. Time is consumed non-productively (1) from a sense of
      the unworthiness of productive work, and (2) as an evidence of pecuniary
      ability to afford a life of idleness. But the whole of the life of the
      gentleman of leisure is not spent before the eyes of the spectators who
      are to be impressed with that spectacle of honorific leisure which in the
      ideal scheme makes up his life. For some part of the time his life is
      perforce withdrawn from the public eye, and of this portion which is spent
      in private the gentleman of leisure should, for the sake of his good name,
      be able to give a convincing account. He should find some means of putting
      in evidence the leisure that is not spent in the sight of the spectators.
      This can be done only indirectly, through the exhibition of some tangible,
      lasting results of the leisure so spent&mdash;in a manner analogous to the
      familiar exhibition of tangible, lasting products of the labour performed
      for the gentleman of leisure by handicraftsmen and servants in his employ.
    </p>
    <p>
      The lasting evidence of productive labour is its material product&mdash;commonly
      some article of consumption. In the case of exploit it is similarly
      possible and usual to procure some tangible result that may serve for
      exhibition in the way of trophy or booty. At a later phase of the
      development it is customary to assume some badge of insignia of honour
      that will serve as a conventionally accepted mark of exploit, and which at
      the same time indicates the quantity or degree of exploit of which it is
      the symbol. As the population increases in density, and as human relations
      grow more complex and numerous, all the details of life undergo a process
      of elaboration and selection; and in this process of elaboration the use
      of trophies develops into a system of rank, titles, degrees and insignia,
      typical examples of which are heraldic devices, medals, and honorary
      decorations.
    </p>
    <p>
      As seen from the economic point of view, leisure, considered as an
      employment, is closely allied in kind with the life of exploit; and the
      achievements which characterise a life of leisure, and which remain as its
      decorous criteria, have much in common with the trophies of exploit. But
      leisure in the narrower sense, as distinct from exploit and from any
      ostensibly productive employment of effort on objects which are of no
      intrinsic use, does not commonly leave a material product. The criteria of
      a past performance of leisure therefore commonly take the form of
      "immaterial" goods. Such immaterial evidences of past leisure are
      quasi-scholarly or quasi-artistic accomplishments and a knowledge of
      processes and incidents which do not conduce directly to the furtherance
      of human life. So, for instance, in our time there is the knowledge of the
      dead languages and the occult sciences; of correct spelling; of syntax and
      prosody; of the various forms of domestic music and other household art;
      of the latest properties of dress, furniture, and equipage; of games,
      sports, and fancy-bred animals, such as dogs and race-horses. In all these
      branches of knowledge the initial motive from which their acquisition
      proceeded at the outset, and through which they first came into vogue, may
      have been something quite different from the wish to show that one's time
      had not been spent in industrial employment; but unless these
      accomplishments had approved themselves as serviceable evidence of an
      unproductive expenditure of time, they would not have survived and held
      their place as conventional accomplishments of the leisure class.
    </p>
    <p>
      These accomplishments may, in some sense, be classed as branches of
      learning. Beside and beyond these there is a further range of social facts
      which shade off from the region of learning into that of physical habit
      and dexterity. Such are what is known as manners and breeding, polite
      usage, decorum, and formal and ceremonial observances generally. This
      class of facts are even more immediately and obtrusively presented to the
      observation, and they therefore more widely and more imperatively insisted
      on as required evidences of a reputable degree of leisure. It is worth
      while to remark that all that class of ceremonial observances which are
      classed under the general head of manners hold a more important place in
      the esteem of men during the stage of culture at which conspicuous leisure
      has the greatest vogue as a mark of reputability, than at later stages of
      the cultural development. The barbarian of the quasi-peaceable stage of
      industry is notoriously a more high-bred gentleman, in all that concerns
      decorum, than any but the very exquisite among the men of a later age.
      Indeed, it is well known, or at least it is currently believed, that
      manners have progressively deteriorated as society has receded from the
      patriarchal stage. Many a gentleman of the old school has been provoked to
      remark regretfully upon the under-bred manners and bearing of even the
      better classes in the modern industrial communities; and the decay of the
      ceremonial code&mdash;or as it is otherwise called, the vulgarisation of
      life&mdash;among the industrial classes proper has become one of the chief
      enormities of latter-day civilisation in the eyes of all persons of
      delicate sensibilities. The decay which the code has suffered at the hands
      of a busy people testifies&mdash;all depreciation apart&mdash;to the fact
      that decorum is a product and an exponent of leisure class life and
      thrives in full measure only under a regime of status.
    </p>
    <p>
      The origin, or better the derivation, of manners is no doubt, to be sought
      elsewhere than in a conscious effort on the part of the well-mannered to
      show that much time has been spent in acquiring them. The proximate end of
      innovation and elaboration has been the higher effectiveness of the new
      departure in point of beauty or of expressiveness. In great part the
      ceremonial code of decorous usages owes its beginning and its growth to
      the desire to conciliate or to show good-will, as anthropologists and
      sociologists are in the habit of assuming, and this initial motive is
      rarely if ever absent from the conduct of well-mannered persons at any
      stage of the later development. Manners, we are told, are in part an
      elaboration of gesture, and in part they are symbolical and
      conventionalised survivals representing former acts of dominance or of
      personal service or of personal contact. In large part they are an
      expression of the relation of status,&mdash;a symbolic pantomime of
      mastery on the one hand and of subservience on the other. Wherever at the
      present time the predatory habit of mind, and the consequent attitude of
      mastery and of subservience, gives its character to the accredited scheme
      of life, there the importance of all punctilios of conduct is extreme, and
      the assiduity with which the ceremonial observance of rank and titles is
      attended to approaches closely to the ideal set by the barbarian of the
      quasi-peaceable nomadic culture. Some of the Continental countries afford
      good illustrations of this spiritual survival. In these communities the
      archaic ideal is similarly approached as regards the esteem accorded to
      manners as a fact of intrinsic worth.
    </p>
    <p>
      Decorum set out with being symbol and pantomime and with having utility
      only as an exponent of the facts and qualities symbolised; but it
      presently suffered the transmutation which commonly passes over symbolical
      facts in human intercourse. Manners presently came, in popular
      apprehension, to be possessed of a substantial utility in themselves; they
      acquired a sacramental character, in great measure independent of the
      facts which they originally prefigured. Deviations from the code of
      decorum have become intrinsically odious to all men, and good breeding is,
      in everyday apprehension, not simply an adventitious mark of human
      excellence, but an integral feature of the worthy human soul. There are
      few things that so touch us with instinctive revulsion as a breach of
      decorum; and so far have we progressed in the direction of imputing
      intrinsic utility to the ceremonial observances of etiquette that few of
      us, if any, can dissociate an offence against etiquette from a sense of
      the substantial unworthiness of the offender. A breach of faith may be
      condoned, but a breach of decorum can not. "Manners maketh man."
    </p>
    <p>
      None the less, while manners have this intrinsic utility, in the
      apprehension of the performer and the beholder alike, this sense of the
      intrinsic rightness of decorum is only the proximate ground of the vogue
      of manners and breeding. Their ulterior, economic ground is to be sought
      in the honorific character of that leisure or non-productive employment of
      time and effort without which good manners are not acquired. The knowledge
      and habit of good form come only by long-continued use. Refined tastes,
      manners, habits of life are a useful evidence of gentility, because good
      breeding requires time, application and expense, and can therefore not be
      compassed by those whose time and energy are taken up with work. A
      knowledge of good form is prima facie evidence that that portion of the
      well-bred person's life which is not spent under the observation of the
      spectator has been worthily spent in acquiring accomplishments that are of
      no lucrative effect. In the last analysis the value of manners lies in the
      fact that they are the voucher of a life of leisure. Therefore,
      conversely, since leisure is the conventional means of pecuniary repute,
      the acquisition of some proficiency in decorum is incumbent on all who
      aspire to a modicum of pecuniary decency.
    </p>
    <p>
      So much of the honourable life of leisure as is not spent in the sight of
      spectators can serve the purposes of reputability only in so far as it
      leaves a tangible, visible result that can be put in evidence and can be
      measured and compared with products of the same class exhibited by
      competing aspirants for repute. Some such effect, in the way of leisurely
      manners and carriage, etc., follows from simple persistent abstention from
      work, even where the subject does not take thought of the matter and
      studiously acquire an air of leisurely opulence and mastery. Especially
      does it seem to be true that a life of leisure in this way persisted in
      through several generations will leave a persistent, ascertainable effect
      in the conformation of the person, and still more in his habitual bearing
      and demeanour. But all the suggestions of a cumulative life of leisure,
      and all the proficiency in decorum that comes by the way of passive
      habituation, may be further improved upon by taking thought and
      assiduously acquiring the marks of honourable leisure, and then carrying
      the exhibition of these adventitious marks of exemption from employment
      out in a strenuous and systematic discipline. Plainly, this is a point at
      which a diligent application of effort and expenditure may materially
      further the attainment of a decent proficiency in the leisure-class
      properties. Conversely, the greater the degree of proficiency and the more
      patent the evidence of a high degree of habituation to observances which
      serve no lucrative or other directly useful purpose, the greater the
      consumption of time and substance impliedly involved in their acquisition,
      and the greater the resultant good repute. Hence under the competitive
      struggle for proficiency in good manners, it comes about that much pains
      in taken with the cultivation of habits of decorum; and hence the details
      of decorum develop into a comprehensive discipline, conformity to which is
      required of all who would be held blameless in point of repute. And hence,
      on the other hand, this conspicuous leisure of which decorum is a
      ramification grows gradually into a laborious drill in deportment and an
      education in taste and discrimination as to what articles of consumption
      are decorous and what are the decorous methods of consuming them.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this connection it is worthy of notice that the possibility of
      producing pathological and other idiosyncrasies of person and manner by
      shrewd mimicry and a systematic drill have been turned to account in the
      deliberate production of a cultured class&mdash;often with a very happy
      effect. In this way, by the process vulgarly known as snobbery, a
      syncopated evolution of gentle birth and breeding is achieved in the case
      of a goodly number of families and lines of descent. This syncopated
      gentle birth gives results which, in point of serviceability as a
      leisure-class factor in the population, are in no wise substantially
      inferior to others who may have had a longer but less arduous training in
      the pecuniary properties.
    </p>
    <p>
      There are, moreover, measureable degrees of conformity to the latest
      accredited code of the punctilios as regards decorous means and methods of
      consumption. Differences between one person and another in the degree of
      conformity to the ideal in these respects can be compared, and persons may
      be graded and scheduled with some accuracy and effect according to a
      progressive scale of manners and breeding. The award of reputability in
      this regard is commonly made in good faith, on the ground of conformity to
      accepted canons of taste in the matters concerned, and without conscious
      regard to the pecuniary standing or the degree of leisure practised by any
      given candidate for reputability; but the canons of taste according to
      which the award is made are constantly under the surveillance of the law
      of conspicuous leisure, and are indeed constantly undergoing change and
      revision to bring them into closer conformity with its requirements. So
      that while the proximate ground of discrimination may be of another kind,
      still the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the
      requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. There may be some
      considerable range of variation in detail within the scope of this
      principle, but they are variations of form and expression, not of
      substance.
    </p>
    <p>
      Much of the courtesy of everyday intercourse is of course a direct
      expression of consideration and kindly good-will, and this element of
      conduct has for the most part no need of being traced back to any
      underlying ground of reputability to explain either its presence or the
      approval with which it is regarded; but the same is not true of the code
      of properties. These latter are expressions of status. It is of course
      sufficiently plain, to any one who cares to see, that our bearing towards
      menials and other pecuniary dependent inferiors is the bearing of the
      superior member in a relation of status, though its manifestation is often
      greatly modified and softened from the original expression of crude
      dominance. Similarly, our bearing towards superiors, and in great measure
      towards equals, expresses a more or less conventionalised attitude of
      subservience. Witness the masterful presence of the high-minded gentleman
      or lady, which testifies to so much of dominance and independence of
      economic circumstances, and which at the same time appeals with such
      convincing force to our sense of what is right and gracious. It is among
      this highest leisure class, who have no superiors and few peers, that
      decorum finds its fullest and maturest expression; and it is this highest
      class also that gives decorum that definite formulation which serves as a
      canon of conduct for the classes beneath. And there also the code is most
      obviously a code of status and shows most plainly its incompatibility with
      all vulgarly productive work. A divine assurance and an imperious
      complaisance, as of one habituated to require subservience and to take no
      thought for the morrow, is the birthright and the criterion of the
      gentleman at his best; and it is in popular apprehension even more than
      that, for this demeanour is accepted as an intrinsic attribute of superior
      worth, before which the base-born commoner delights to stoop and yield.
    </p>
    <p>
      As has been indicated in an earlier chapter, there is reason to believe
      that the institution of ownership has begun with the ownership of persons,
      primarily women. The incentives to acquiring such property have apparently
      been: (1) a propensity for dominance and coercion; (2) the utility of
      these persons as evidence of the prowess of the owner; (3) the utility of
      their services.
    </p>
    <p>
      Personal service holds a peculiar place in the economic development.
      During the stage of quasi-peaceable industry, and especially during the
      earlier development of industry within the limits of this general stage,
      the utility of their services seems commonly to be the dominant motive to
      the acquisition of property in persons. Servants are valued for their
      services. But the dominance of this motive is not due to a decline in the
      absolute importance of the other two utilities possessed by servants. It
      is rather that the altered circumstance of life accentuate the utility of
      servants for this last-named purpose. Women and other slaves are highly
      valued, both as an evidence of wealth and as a means of accumulating
      wealth. Together with cattle, if the tribe is a pastoral one, they are the
      usual form of investment for a profit. To such an extent may female
      slavery give its character to the economic life under the quasi-peaceable
      culture that the women even comes to serve as a unit of value among
      peoples occupying this cultural stage&mdash;as for instance in Homeric
      times. Where this is the case there need be little question but that the
      basis of the industrial system is chattel slavery and that the women are
      commonly slaves. The great, pervading human relation in such a system is
      that of master and servant. The accepted evidence of wealth is the
      possession of many women, and presently also of other slaves engaged in
      attendance on their master's person and in producing goods for him.
    </p>
    <p>
      A division of labour presently sets in, whereby personal service and
      attendance on the master becomes the special office of a portion of the
      servants, while those who are wholly employed in industrial occupations
      proper are removed more and more from all immediate relation to the person
      of their owner. At the same time those servants whose office is personal
      service, including domestic duties, come gradually to be exempted from
      productive industry carried on for gain.
    </p>
    <p>
      This process of progressive exemption from the common run of industrial
      employment will commonly begin with the exemption of the wife, or the
      chief wife. After the community has advanced to settled habits of life,
      wife-capture from hostile tribes becomes impracticable as a customary
      source of supply. Where this cultural advance has been achieved, the chief
      wife is ordinarily of gentle blood, and the fact of her being so will
      hasten her exemption from vulgar employment. The manner in which the
      concept of gentle blood originates, as well as the place which it occupies
      in the development of marriage, cannot be discussed in this place. For the
      purpose in hand it will be sufficient to say that gentle blood is blood
      which has been ennobled by protracted contact with accumulated wealth or
      unbroken prerogative. The women with these antecedents is preferred in
      marriage, both for the sake of a resulting alliance with her powerful
      relatives and because a superior worth is felt to inhere in blood which
      has been associated with many goods and great power. She will still be her
      husband's chattel, as she was her father's chattel before her purchase,
      but she is at the same time of her father's gentle blood; and hence there
      is a moral incongruity in her occupying herself with the debasing
      employments of her fellow-servants. However completely she may be subject
      to her master, and however inferior to the male members of the social
      stratum in which her birth has placed her, the principle that gentility is
      transmissible will act to place her above the common slave; and so soon as
      this principle has acquired a prescriptive authority it will act to invest
      her in some measure with that prerogative of leisure which is the chief
      mark of gentility. Furthered by this principle of transmissible gentility
      the wife's exemption gains in scope, if the wealth of her owner permits
      it, until it includes exemption from debasing menial service as well as
      from handicraft. As the industrial development goes on and property
      becomes massed in relatively fewer hands, the conventional standard of
      wealth of the upper class rises. The same tendency to exemption from
      handicraft, and in the course of time from menial domestic employments,
      will then assert itself as regards the other wives, if such there are, and
      also as regards other servants in immediate attendance upon the person of
      their master. The exemption comes more tardily the remoter the relation in
      which the servant stands to the person of the master.
    </p>
    <p>
      If the pecuniary situation of the master permits it, the development of a
      special class of personal or body servants is also furthered by the very
      grave importance which comes to attach to this personal service. The
      master's person, being the embodiment of worth and honour, is of the most
      serious consequence. Both for his reputable standing in the community and
      for his self-respect, it is a matter of moment that he should have at his
      call efficient specialised servants, whose attendance upon his person is
      not diverted from this their chief office by any by-occupation. These
      specialised servants are useful more for show than for service actually
      performed. In so far as they are not kept for exhibition simply, they
      afford gratification to their master chiefly in allowing scope to his
      propensity for dominance. It is true, the care of the continually
      increasing household apparatus may require added labour; but since the
      apparatus is commonly increased in order to serve as a means of good
      repute rather than as a means of comfort, this qualification is not of
      great weight. All these lines of utility are better served by a larger
      number of more highly specialised servants. There results, therefore, a
      constantly increasing differentiation and multiplication of domestic and
      body servants, along with a concomitant progressive exemption of such
      servants from productive labour. By virtue of their serving as evidence of
      ability to pay, the office of such domestics regularly tends to include
      continually fewer duties, and their service tends in the end to become
      nominal only. This is especially true of those servants who are in most
      immediate and obvious attendance upon their master. So that the utility of
      these comes to consist, in great part, in their conspicuous exemption from
      productive labour and in the evidence which this exemption affords of
      their master's wealth and power.
    </p>
    <p>
      After some considerable advance has been made in the practice of employing
      a special corps of servants for the performance of a conspicuous leisure
      in this manner, men begin to be preferred above women for services that
      bring them obtrusively into view. Men, especially lusty, personable
      fellows, such as footmen and other menials should be, are obviously more
      powerful and more expensive than women. They are better fitted for this
      work, as showing a larger waste of time and of human energy. Hence it
      comes about that in the economy of the leisure class the busy housewife of
      the early patriarchal days, with her retinue of hard-working handmaidens,
      presently gives place to the lady and the lackey.
    </p>
    <p>
      In all grades and walks of life, and at any stage of the economic
      development, the leisure of the lady and of the lackey differs from the
      leisure of the gentleman in his own right in that it is an occupation of
      an ostensibly laborious kind. It takes the form, in large measure, of a
      painstaking attention to the service of the master, or to the maintenance
      and elaboration of the household paraphernalia; so that it is leisure only
      in the sense that little or no productive work is performed by this class,
      not in the sense that all appearance of labour is avoided by them. The
      duties performed by the lady, or by the household or domestic servants,
      are frequently arduous enough, and they are also frequently directed to
      ends which are considered extremely necessary to the comfort of the entire
      household. So far as these services conduce to the physical efficiency or
      comfort of the master or the rest of the household, they are to be
      accounted productive work. Only the residue of employment left after
      deduction of this effective work is to be classed as a performance of
      leisure.
    </p>
    <p>
      But much of the services classed as household cares in modern everyday
      life, and many of the "utilities" required for a comfortable existence by
      civilised man, are of a ceremonial character. They are, therefore,
      properly to be classed as a performance of leisure in the sense in which
      the term is here used. They may be none the less imperatively necessary
      from the point of view of decent existence: they may be none the less
      requisite for personal comfort even, although they may be chiefly or
      wholly of a ceremonial character. But in so far as they partake of this
      character they are imperative and requisite because we have been taught to
      require them under pain of ceremonial uncleanness or unworthiness. We feel
      discomfort in their absence, but not because their absence results
      directly in physical discomfort; nor would a taste not trained to
      discriminate between the conventionally good and the conventionally bad
      take offence at their omission. In so far as this is true the labour spent
      in these services is to be classed as leisure; and when performed by
      others than the economically free and self-directed head of the
      establishment, they are to be classed as vicarious leisure.
    </p>
    <p>
      The vicarious leisure performed by housewives and menials, under the head
      of household cares, may frequently develop into drudgery, especially where
      the competition for reputability is close and strenuous. This is
      frequently the case in modern life. Where this happens, the domestic
      service which comprises the duties of this servant class might aptly be
      designated as wasted effort, rather than as vicarious leisure. But the
      latter term has the advantage of indicating the line of derivation of
      these domestic offices, as well as of neatly suggesting the substantial
      economic ground of their utility; for these occupations are chiefly useful
      as a method of imputing pecuniary reputability to the master or to the
      household on the ground that a given amount of time and effort is
      conspicuously wasted in that behalf.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this way, then, there arises a subsidiary or derivative leisure class,
      whose office is the performance of a vicarious leisure for the behoof of
      the reputability of the primary or legitimate leisure class. This
      vicarious leisure class is distinguished from the leisure class proper by
      a characteristic feature of its habitual mode of life. The leisure of the
      master class is, at least ostensibly, an indulgence of a proclivity for
      the avoidance of labour and is presumed to enhance the master's own
      well-being and fulness of life; but the leisure of the servant class
      exempt from productive labour is in some sort a performance exacted from
      them, and is not normally or primarily directed to their own comfort. The
      leisure of the servant is not his own leisure. So far as he is a servant
      in the full sense, and not at the same time a member of a lower order of
      the leisure class proper, his leisure normally passes under the guise of
      specialised service directed to the furtherance of his master's fulness of
      life. Evidence of this relation of subservience is obviously present in
      the servant's carriage and manner of life. The like is often true of the
      wife throughout the protracted economic stage during which she is still
      primarily a servant&mdash;that is to say, so long as the household with a
      male head remains in force. In order to satisfy the requirements of the
      leisure class scheme of life, the servant should show not only an attitude
      of subservience, but also the effects of special training and practice in
      subservience. The servant or wife should not only perform certain offices
      and show a servile disposition, but it is quite as imperative that they
      should show an acquired facility in the tactics of subservience&mdash;a
      trained conformity to the canons of effectual and conspicuous
      subservience. Even today it is this aptitude and acquired skill in the
      formal manifestation of the servile relation that constitutes the chief
      element of utility in our highly paid servants, as well as one of the
      chief ornaments of the well-bred housewife.
    </p>
    <p>
      The first requisite of a good servant is that he should conspicuously know
      his place. It is not enough that he knows how to effect certain desired
      mechanical results; he must above all, know how to effect these results in
      due form. Domestic service might be said to be a spiritual rather than a
      mechanical function. Gradually there grows up an elaborate system of good
      form, specifically regulating the manner in which this vicarious leisure
      of the servant class is to be performed. Any departure from these canons
      of form is to be depreciated, not so much because it evinces a shortcoming
      in mechanical efficiency, or even that it shows an absence of the servile
      attitude and temperament, but because, in the last analysis, it shows the
      absence of special training. Special training in personal service costs
      time and effort, and where it is obviously present in a high degree, it
      argues that the servant who possesses it, neither is nor has been
      habitually engaged in any productive occupation. It is prima facie
      evidence of a vicarious leisure extending far back in the past. So that
      trained service has utility, not only as gratifying the master's
      instinctive liking for good and skilful workmanship and his propensity for
      conspicuous dominance over those whose lives are subservient to his own,
      but it has utility also as putting in evidence a much larger consumption
      of human service than would be shown by the mere present conspicuous
      leisure performed by an untrained person. It is a serious grievance if a
      gentleman's butler or footman performs his duties about his master's table
      or carriage in such unformed style as to suggest that his habitual
      occupation may be ploughing or sheepherding. Such bungling work would
      imply inability on the master's part to procure the service of specially
      trained servants; that is to say, it would imply inability to pay for the
      consumption of time, effort, and instruction required to fit a trained
      servant for special service under the exacting code of forms. If the
      performance of the servant argues lack of means on the part of his master,
      it defeats its chief substantial end; for the chief use of servants is the
      evidence they afford of the master's ability to pay.
    </p>
    <p>
      What has just been said might be taken to imply that the offence of an
      under-trained servant lies in a direct suggestion of inexpensiveness or of
      usefulness. Such, of course, is not the case. The connection is much less
      immediate. What happens here is what happens generally. Whatever approves
      itself to us on any ground at the outset, presently comes to appeal to us
      as a gratifying thing in itself; it comes to rest in our habits of though
      as substantially right. But in order that any specific canon of deportment
      shall maintain itself in favour, it must continue to have the support of,
      or at least not be incompatible with, the habit or aptitude which
      constitutes the norm of its development. The need of vicarious leisure, or
      conspicuous consumption of service, is a dominant incentive to the keeping
      of servants. So long as this remains true it may be set down without much
      discussion that any such departure from accepted usage as would suggest an
      abridged apprenticeship in service would presently be found insufferable.
      The requirement of an expensive vicarious leisure acts indirectly,
      selectively, by guiding the formation of our taste,&mdash;of our sense of
      what is right in these matters,&mdash;and so weeds out unconformable
      departures by withholding approval of them.
    </p>
    <p>
      As the standard of wealth recognized by common consent advances, the
      possession and exploitation of servants as a means of showing superfluity
      undergoes a refinement. The possession and maintenance of slaves employed
      in the production of goods argues wealth and prowess, but the maintenance
      of servants who produce nothing argues still higher wealth and position.
      Under this principle there arises a class of servants, the more numerous
      the better, whose sole office is fatuously to wait upon the person of
      their owner, and so to put in evidence his ability unproductively to
      consume a large amount of service. There supervenes a division of labour
      among the servants or dependents whose life is spent in maintaining the
      honour of the gentleman of leisure. So that, while one group produces
      goods for him, another group, usually headed by the wife, or chief,
      consumes for him in conspicuous leisure; thereby putting in evidence his
      ability to sustain large pecuniary damage without impairing his superior
      opulence.
    </p>
    <p>
      This somewhat idealized and diagrammatic outline of the development and
      nature of domestic service comes nearest being true for that cultural
      stage which was here been named the "quasi-peaceable" stage of industry.
      At this stage personal service first rises to the position of an economic
      institution, and it is at this stage that it occupies the largest place in
      the community's scheme of life. In the cultural sequence, the
      quasi-peaceable stage follows the predatory stage proper, the two being
      successive phases of barbarian life. Its characteristic feature is a
      formal observance of peace and order, at the same time that life at this
      stage still has too much of coercion and class antagonism to be called
      peaceable in the full sense of the word. For many purposes, and from
      another point of view than the economic one, it might as well be named the
      stage of status. The method of human relation during this stage, and the
      spiritual attitude of men at this level of culture, is well summed up
      under the term. But as a descriptive term to characterise the prevailing
      methods of industry, as well as to indicate the trend of industrial
      development at this point in economic evolution, the term
      "quasi-peaceable" seems preferable. So far as concerns the communities of
      the Western culture, this phase of economic development probably lies in
      the past; except for a numerically small though very conspicuous fraction
      of the community in whom the habits of thought peculiar to the barbarian
      culture have suffered but a relatively slight disintegration.
    </p>
    <p>
      Personal service is still an element of great economic importance,
      especially as regards the distribution and consumption of goods; but its
      relative importance even in this direction is no doubt less than it once
      was. The best development of this vicarious leisure lies in the past
      rather than in the present; and its best expression in the present is to
      be found in the scheme of life of the upper leisure class. To this class
      the modern culture owes much in the way of the conservation of traditions,
      usages, and habits of thought which belong on a more archaic cultural
      plane, so far as regards their widest acceptance and their most effective
      development.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the modern industrial communities the mechanical contrivances available
      for the comfort and convenience of everyday life are highly developed. So
      much so that body servants, or, indeed, domestic servants of any kind,
      would now scarcely be employed by anybody except on the ground of a canon
      of reputability carried over by tradition from earlier usage. The only
      exception would be servants employed to attend on the persons of the
      infirm and the feeble-minded. But such servants properly come under the
      head of trained nurses rather than under that of domestic servants, and
      they are, therefore, an apparent rather than a real exception to the rule.
    </p>
    <p>
      The proximate reason for keeping domestic servants, for instance, in the
      moderately well-to-do household of to-day, is (ostensibly) that the
      members of the household are unable without discomfort to compass the work
      required by such a modern establishment. And the reason for their being
      unable to accomplish it is (1) that they have too many "social duties",
      and (2) that the work to be done is too severe and that there is too much
      of it. These two reasons may be restated as follows: (1) Under the
      mandatory code of decency, the time and effort of the members of such a
      household are required to be ostensibly all spent in a performance of
      conspicuous leisure, in the way of calls, drives, clubs, sewing-circles,
      sports, charity organisations, and other like social functions. Those
      persons whose time and energy are employed in these matters privately avow
      that all these observances, as well as the incidental attention to dress
      and other conspicuous consumption, are very irksome but altogether
      unavoidable. (2) Under the requirement of conspicuous consumption of
      goods, the apparatus of living has grown so elaborate and cumbrous, in the
      way of dwellings, furniture, bric-a-brac, wardrobe and meals, that the
      consumers of these things cannot make way with them in the required manner
      without help. Personal contact with the hired persons whose aid is called
      in to fulfil the routine of decency is commonly distasteful to the
      occupants of the house, but their presence is endured and paid for, in
      order to delegate to them a share in this onerous consumption of household
      goods. The presence of domestic servants, and of the special class of body
      servants in an eminent degree, is a concession of physical comfort to the
      moral need of pecuniary decency.
    </p>
    <p>
      The largest manifestation of vicarious leisure in modern life is made up
      of what are called domestic duties. These duties are fast becoming a
      species of services performed, not so much for the individual behoof of
      the head of the household as for the reputability of the household taken
      as a corporate unit&mdash;a group of which the housewife is a member on a
      footing of ostensible equality. As fast as the household for which they
      are performed departs from its archaic basis of ownership-marriage, these
      household duties of course tend to fall out of the category of vicarious
      leisure in the original sense; except so far as they are performed by
      hired servants. That is to say, since vicarious leisure is possible only
      on a basis of status or of hired service, the disappearance of the
      relation of status from human intercourse at any point carries with it the
      disappearance of vicarious leisure so far as regards that much of life.
      But it is to be added, in qualification of this qualification, that so
      long as the household subsists, even with a divided head, this class of
      non-productive labour performed for the sake of the household reputability
      must still be classed as vicarious leisure, although in a slightly altered
      sense. It is now leisure performed for the quasi-personal corporate
      household, instead of, as formerly, for the proprietary head of the
      household.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0004" id="link2HCH0004">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Four ~~ Conspicuous Consumption
    </h2>
    <p>
      In what has been said of the evolution of the vicarious leisure class and
      its differentiation from the general body of the working classes,
      reference has been made to a further division of labour,&mdash;that
      between the different servant classes. One portion of the servant class,
      chiefly those persons whose occupation is vicarious leisure, come to
      undertake a new, subsidiary range of duties&mdash;the vicarious
      consumption of goods. The most obvious form in which this consumption
      occurs is seen in the wearing of liveries and the occupation of spacious
      servants' quarters. Another, scarcely less obtrusive or less effective
      form of vicarious consumption, and a much more widely prevalent one, is
      the consumption of food, clothing, dwelling, and furniture by the lady and
      the rest of the domestic establishment.
    </p>
    <p>
      But already at a point in economic evolution far antedating the emergence
      of the lady, specialised consumption of goods as an evidence of pecuniary
      strength had begun to work out in a more or less elaborate system. The
      beginning of a differentiation in consumption even antedates the
      appearance of anything that can fairly be called pecuniary strength. It is
      traceable back to the initial phase of predatory culture, and there is
      even a suggestion that an incipient differentiation in this respect lies
      back of the beginnings of the predatory life. This most primitive
      differentiation in the consumption of goods is like the later
      differentiation with which we are all so intimately familiar, in that it
      is largely of a ceremonial character, but unlike the latter it does not
      rest on a difference in accumulated wealth. The utility of consumption as
      an evidence of wealth is to be classed as a derivative growth. It is an
      adaption to a new end, by a selective process, of a distinction previously
      existing and well established in men's habits of thought.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the earlier phases of the predatory culture the only economic
      differentiation is a broad distinction between an honourable superior
      class made up of the able-bodied men on the one side, and a base inferior
      class of labouring women on the other. According to the ideal scheme of
      life in force at the time it is the office of the men to consume what the
      women produce. Such consumption as falls to the women is merely incidental
      to their work; it is a means to their continued labour, and not a
      consumption directed to their own comfort and fulness of life.
      Unproductive consumption of goods is honourable, primarily as a mark of
      prowess and a perquisite of human dignity; secondarily it becomes
      substantially honourable to itself, especially the consumption of the more
      desirable things. The consumption of choice articles of food, and
      frequently also of rare articles of adornment, becomes tabu to the women
      and children; and if there is a base (servile) class of men, the tabu
      holds also for them. With a further advance in culture this tabu may
      change into simple custom of a more or less rigorous character; but
      whatever be the theoretical basis of the distinction which is maintained,
      whether it be a tabu or a larger conventionality, the features of the
      conventional scheme of consumption do not change easily. When the
      quasi-peaceable stage of industry is reached, with its fundamental
      institution of chattel slavery, the general principle, more or less
      rigorously applied, is that the base, industrious class should consume
      only what may be necessary to their subsistence. In the nature of things,
      luxuries and the comforts of life belong to the leisure class. Under the
      tabu, certain victuals, and more particularly certain beverages, are
      strictly reserved for the use of the superior class.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ceremonial differentiation of the dietary is best seen in the use of
      intoxicating beverages and narcotics. If these articles of consumption are
      costly, they are felt to be noble and honorific. Therefore the base
      classes, primarily the women, practice an enforced continence with respect
      to these stimulants, except in countries where they are obtainable at a
      very low cost. From archaic times down through all the length of the
      patriarchal regime it has been the office of the women to prepare and
      administer these luxuries, and it has been the perquisite of the men of
      gentle birth and breeding to consume them. Drunkenness and the other
      pathological consequences of the free use of stimulants therefore tend in
      their turn to become honorific, as being a mark, at the second remove, of
      the superior status of those who are able to afford the indulgence.
      Infirmities induced by over-indulgence are among some peoples freely
      recognised as manly attributes. It has even happened that the name for
      certain diseased conditions of the body arising from such an origin has
      passed into everyday speech as a synonym for "noble" or "gentle". It is
      only at a relatively early stage of culture that the symptoms of expensive
      vice are conventionally accepted as marks of a superior status, and so
      tend to become virtues and command the deference of the community; but the
      reputability that attaches to certain expensive vices long retains so much
      of its force as to appreciably lesson the disapprobation visited upon the
      men of the wealthy or noble class for any excessive indulgence. The same
      invidious distinction adds force to the current disapproval of any
      indulgence of this kind on the part of women, minors, and inferiors. This
      invidious traditional distinction has not lost its force even among the
      more advanced peoples of today. Where the example set by the leisure class
      retains its imperative force in the regulation of the conventionalities,
      it is observable that the women still in great measure practise the same
      traditional continence with regard to stimulants.
    </p>
    <p>
      This characterisation of the greater continence in the use of stimulants
      practised by the women of the reputable classes may seem an excessive
      refinement of logic at the expense of common sense. But facts within easy
      reach of any one who cares to know them go to say that the greater
      abstinence of women is in some part due to an imperative conventionality;
      and this conventionality is, in a general way, strongest where the
      patriarchal tradition&mdash;the tradition that the woman is a chattel&mdash;has
      retained its hold in greatest vigour. In a sense which has been greatly
      qualified in scope and rigour, but which has by no means lost its meaning
      even yet, this tradition says that the woman, being a chattel, should
      consume only what is necessary to her sustenance,&mdash;except so far as
      her further consumption contributes to the comfort or the good repute of
      her master. The consumption of luxuries, in the true sense, is a
      consumption directed to the comfort of the consumer himself, and is,
      therefore, a mark of the master. Any such consumption by others can take
      place only on a basis of sufferance. In communities where the popular
      habits of thought have been profoundly shaped by the patriarchal tradition
      we may accordingly look for survivals of the tabu on luxuries at least to
      the extent of a conventional deprecation of their use by the unfree and
      dependent class. This is more particularly true as regards certain
      luxuries, the use of which by the dependent class would detract sensibly
      from the comfort or pleasure of their masters, or which are held to be of
      doubtful legitimacy on other grounds. In the apprehension of the great
      conservative middle class of Western civilisation the use of these various
      stimulants is obnoxious to at least one, if not both, of these objections;
      and it is a fact too significant to be passed over that it is precisely
      among these middle classes of the Germanic culture, with their strong
      surviving sense of the patriarchal proprieties, that the women are to the
      greatest extent subject to a qualified tabu on narcotics and alcoholic
      beverages. With many qualifications&mdash;with more qualifications as the
      patriarchal tradition has gradually weakened&mdash;the general rule is
      felt to be right and binding that women should consume only for the
      benefit of their masters. The objection of course presents itself that
      expenditure on women's dress and household paraphernalia is an obvious
      exception to this rule; but it will appear in the sequel that this
      exception is much more obvious than substantial. During the earlier stages
      of economic development, consumption of goods without stint, especially
      consumption of the better grades of goods,&mdash;ideally all consumption
      in excess of the subsistence minimum,&mdash;pertains normally to the
      leisure class. This restriction tends to disappear, at least formally,
      after the later peaceable stage has been reached, with private ownership
      of goods and an industrial system based on wage labour or on the petty
      household economy. But during the earlier quasi-peaceable stage, when so
      many of the traditions through which the institution of a leisure class
      has affected the economic life of later times were taking form and
      consistency, this principle has had the force of a conventional law. It
      has served as the norm to which consumption has tended to conform, and any
      appreciable departure from it is to be regarded as an aberrant form, sure
      to be eliminated sooner or later in the further course of development.
    </p>
    <p>
      The quasi-peaceable gentleman of leisure, then, not only consumes of the
      staff of life beyond the minimum required for subsistence and physical
      efficiency, but his consumption also undergoes a specialisation as regards
      the quality of the goods consumed. He consumes freely and of the best, in
      food, drink, narcotics, shelter, services, ornaments, apparel, weapons and
      accoutrements, amusements, amulets, and idols or divinities. In the
      process of gradual amelioration which takes place in the articles of his
      consumption, the motive principle and proximate aim of innovation is no
      doubt the higher efficiency of the improved and more elaborate products
      for personal comfort and well-being. But that does not remain the sole
      purpose of their consumption. The canon of reputability is at hand and
      seizes upon such innovations as are, according to its standard, fit to
      survive. Since the consumption of these more excellent goods is an
      evidence of wealth, it becomes honorific; and conversely, the failure to
      consume in due quantity and quality becomes a mark of inferiority and
      demerit.
    </p>
    <p>
      This growth of punctilious discrimination as to qualitative excellence in
      eating, drinking, etc. presently affects not only the manner of life, but
      also the training and intellectual activity of the gentleman of leisure.
      He is no longer simply the successful, aggressive male,&mdash;the man of
      strength, resource, and intrepidity. In order to avoid stultification he
      must also cultivate his tastes, for it now becomes incumbent on him to
      discriminate with some nicety between the noble and the ignoble in
      consumable goods. He becomes a connoisseur in creditable viands of various
      degrees of merit, in manly beverages and trinkets, in seemly apparel and
      architecture, in weapons, games, dancers, and the narcotics. This
      cultivation of aesthetic faculty requires time and application, and the
      demands made upon the gentleman in this direction therefore tend to change
      his life of leisure into a more or less arduous application to the
      business of learning how to live a life of ostensible leisure in a
      becoming way. Closely related to the requirement that the gentleman must
      consume freely and of the right kind of goods, there is the requirement
      that he must know how to consume them in a seemly manner. His life of
      leisure must be conducted in due form. Hence arise good manners in the way
      pointed out in an earlier chapter. High-bred manners and ways of living
      are items of conformity to the norm of conspicuous leisure and conspicuous
      consumption.
    </p>
    <p>
      Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to
      the gentleman of leisure. As wealth accumulates on his hands, his own
      unaided effort will not avail to sufficiently put his opulence in evidence
      by this method. The aid of friends and competitors is therefore brought in
      by resorting to the giving of valuable presents and expensive feasts and
      entertainments. Presents and feasts had probably another origin than that
      of naive ostentation, but they required their utility for this purpose
      very early, and they have retained that character to the present; so that
      their utility in this respect has now long been the substantial ground on
      which these usages rest. Costly entertainments, such as the potlatch or
      the ball, are peculiarly adapted to serve this end. The competitor with
      whom the entertainer wishes to institute a comparison is, by this method,
      made to serve as a means to the end. He consumes vicariously for his host
      at the same time that he is witness to the consumption of that excess of
      good things which his host is unable to dispose of single-handed, and he
      is also made to witness his host's facility in etiquette.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the giving of costly entertainments other motives, of more genial kind,
      are of course also present. The custom of festive gatherings probably
      originated in motives of conviviality and religion; these motives are also
      present in the later development, but they do not continue to be the sole
      motives. The latter-day leisure-class festivities and entertainments may
      continue in some slight degree to serve the religious need and in a higher
      degree the needs of recreation and conviviality, but they also serve an
      invidious purpose; and they serve it none the less effectually for having
      a colorable non-invidious ground in these more avowable motives. But the
      economic effect of these social amenities is not therefore lessened,
      either in the vicarious consumption of goods or in the exhibition of
      difficult and costly achievements in etiquette.
    </p>
    <p>
      As wealth accumulates, the leisure class develops further in function and
      structure, and there arises a differentiation within the class. There is a
      more or less elaborate system of rank and grades. This differentiation is
      furthered by the inheritance of wealth and the consequent inheritance of
      gentility. With the inheritance of gentility goes the inheritance of
      obligatory leisure; and gentility of a sufficient potency to entail a life
      of leisure may be inherited without the complement of wealth required to
      maintain a dignified leisure. Gentle blood may be transmitted without
      goods enough to afford a reputably free consumption at one's ease. Hence
      results a class of impecunious gentlemen of leisure, incidentally referred
      to already. These half-caste gentlemen of leisure fall into a system of
      hierarchical gradations. Those who stand near the higher and the highest
      grades of the wealthy leisure class, in point of birth, or in point of
      wealth, or both, outrank the remoter-born and the pecuniarily weaker.
      These lower grades, especially the impecunious, or marginal, gentlemen of
      leisure, affiliate themselves by a system of dependence or fealty to the
      great ones; by so doing they gain an increment of repute, or of the means
      with which to lead a life of leisure, from their patron. They become his
      courtiers or retainers, servants; and being fed and countenanced by their
      patron they are indices of his rank and vicarious consumer of his
      superfluous wealth. Many of these affiliated gentlemen of leisure are at
      the same time lesser men of substance in their own right; so that some of
      them are scarcely at all, others only partially, to be rated as vicarious
      consumers. So many of them, however, as make up the retainer and
      hangers-on of the patron may be classed as vicarious consumer without
      qualification. Many of these again, and also many of the other aristocracy
      of less degree, have in turn attached to their persons a more or less
      comprehensive group of vicarious consumer in the persons of their wives
      and children, their servants, retainers, etc.
    </p>
    <p>
      Throughout this graduated scheme of vicarious leisure and vicarious
      consumption the rule holds that these offices must be performed in some
      such manner, or under some such circumstance or insignia, as shall point
      plainly to the master to whom this leisure or consumption pertains, and to
      whom therefore the resulting increment of good repute of right inures. The
      consumption and leisure executed by these persons for their master or
      patron represents an investment on his part with a view to an increase of
      good fame. As regards feasts and largesses this is obvious enough, and the
      imputation of repute to the host or patron here takes place immediately,
      on the ground of common notoriety. Where leisure and consumption is
      performed vicariously by henchmen and retainers, imputation of the
      resulting repute to the patron is effected by their residing near his
      person so that it may be plain to all men from what source they draw. As
      the group whose good esteem is to be secured in this way grows larger,
      more patent means are required to indicate the imputation of merit for the
      leisure performed, and to this end uniforms, badges, and liveries come
      into vogue. The wearing of uniforms or liveries implies a considerable
      degree of dependence, and may even be said to be a mark of servitude, real
      or ostensible. The wearers of uniforms and liveries may be roughly divided
      into two classes-the free and the servile, or the noble and the ignoble.
      The services performed by them are likewise divisible into noble and
      ignoble. Of course the distinction is not observed with strict consistency
      in practice; the less debasing of the base services and the less honorific
      of the noble functions are not infrequently merged in the same person. But
      the general distinction is not on that account to be overlooked. What may
      add some perplexity is the fact that this fundamental distinction between
      noble and ignoble, which rests on the nature of the ostensible service
      performed, is traversed by a secondary distinction into honorific and
      humiliating, resting on the rank of the person for whom the service is
      performed or whose livery is worn. So, those offices which are by right
      the proper employment of the leisure class are noble; such as government,
      fighting, hunting, the care of arms and accoutrements, and the like&mdash;in
      short, those which may be classed as ostensibly predatory employments. On
      the other hand, those employments which properly fall to the industrious
      class are ignoble; such as handicraft or other productive labor, menial
      services and the like. But a base service performed for a person of very
      high degree may become a very honorific office; as for instance the office
      of a Maid of Honor or of a Lady in Waiting to the Queen, or the King's
      Master of the Horse or his Keeper of the Hounds. The two offices last
      named suggest a principle of some general bearing. Whenever, as in these
      cases, the menial service in question has to do directly with the primary
      leisure employments of fighting and hunting, it easily acquires a
      reflected honorific character. In this way great honor may come to attach
      to an employment which in its own nature belongs to the baser sort. In the
      later development of peaceable industry, the usage of employing an idle
      corps of uniformed men-at-arms gradually lapses. Vicarious consumption by
      dependents bearing the insignia of their patron or master narrows down to
      a corps of liveried menials. In a heightened degree, therefore, the livery
      comes to be a badge of servitude, or rather servility. Something of a
      honorific character always attached to the livery of the armed retainer,
      but this honorific character disappears when the livery becomes the
      exclusive badge of the menial. The livery becomes obnoxious to nearly all
      who are required to wear it. We are yet so little removed from a state of
      effective slavery as still to be fully sensitive to the sting of any
      imputation of servility. This antipathy asserts itself even in the case of
      the liveries or uniforms which some corporations prescribe as the
      distinctive dress of their employees. In this country the aversion even
      goes the length of discrediting&mdash;in a mild and uncertain way&mdash;those
      government employments, military and civil, which require the wearing of a
      livery or uniform.
    </p>
    <p>
      With the disappearance of servitude, the number of vicarious consumers
      attached to any one gentleman tends, on the whole, to decrease. The like
      is of course true, and perhaps in a still higher degree, of the number of
      dependents who perform vicarious leisure for him. In a general way, though
      not wholly nor consistently, these two groups coincide. The dependent who
      was first delegated for these duties was the wife, or the chief wife; and,
      as would be expected, in the later development of the institution, when
      the number of persons by whom these duties are customarily performed
      gradually narrows, the wife remains the last. In the higher grades of
      society a large volume of both these kinds of service is required; and
      here the wife is of course still assisted in the work by a more or less
      numerous corps of menials. But as we descend the social scale, the point
      is presently reached where the duties of vicarious leisure and consumption
      devolve upon the wife alone. In the communities of the Western culture,
      this point is at present found among the lower middle class.
    </p>
    <p>
      And here occurs a curious inversion. It is a fact of common observance
      that in this lower middle class there is no pretense of leisure on the
      part of the head of the household. Through force of circumstances it has
      fallen into disuse. But the middle-class wife still carries on the
      business of vicarious leisure, for the good name of the household and its
      master. In descending the social scale in any modern industrial community,
      the primary fact-the conspicuous leisure of the master of the
      household-disappears at a relatively high point. The head of the
      middle-class household has been reduced by economic circumstances to turn
      his hand to gaining a livelihood by occupations which often partake
      largely of the character of industry, as in the case of the ordinary
      business man of today. But the derivative fact-the vicarious leisure and
      consumption rendered by the wife, and the auxiliary vicarious performance
      of leisure by menials-remains in vogue as a conventionality which the
      demands of reputability will not suffer to be slighted. It is by no means
      an uncommon spectacle to find a man applying himself to work with the
      utmost assiduity, in order that his wife may in due form render for him
      that degree of vicarious leisure which the common sense of the time
      demands.
    </p>
    <p>
      The leisure rendered by the wife in such cases is, of course, not a simple
      manifestation of idleness or indolence. It almost invariably occurs
      disguised under some form of work or household duties or social amenities,
      which prove on analysis to serve little or no ulterior end beyond showing
      that she does not occupy herself with anything that is gainful or that is
      of substantial use. As has already been noticed under the head of manners,
      the greater part of the customary round of domestic cares to which the
      middle-class housewife gives her time and effort is of this character. Not
      that the results of her attention to household matters, of a decorative
      and mundificatory character, are not pleasing to the sense of men trained
      in middle-class proprieties; but the taste to which these effects of
      household adornment and tidiness appeal is a taste which has been formed
      under the selective guidance of a canon of propriety that demands just
      these evidences of wasted effort. The effects are pleasing to us chiefly
      because we have been taught to find them pleasing. There goes into these
      domestic duties much solicitude for a proper combination of form and
      color, and for other ends that are to be classed as aesthetic in the
      proper sense of the term; and it is not denied that effects having some
      substantial aesthetic value are sometimes attained. Pretty much all that
      is here insisted on is that, as regards these amenities of life, the
      housewife's efforts are under the guidance of traditions that have been
      shaped by the law of conspicuously wasteful expenditure of time and
      substance. If beauty or comfort is achieved-and it is a more or less
      fortuitous circumstance if they are-they must be achieved by means and
      methods that commend themselves to the great economic law of wasted
      effort. The more reputable, "presentable" portion of middle-class
      household paraphernalia are, on the one hand, items of conspicuous
      consumption, and on the other hand, apparatus for putting in evidence the
      vicarious leisure rendered by the housewife.
    </p>
    <p>
      The requirement of vicarious consumption at the hands of the wife
      continues in force even at a lower point in the pecuniary scale than the
      requirement of vicarious leisure. At a point below which little if any
      pretense of wasted effort, in ceremonial cleanness and the like, is
      observable, and where there is assuredly no conscious attempt at
      ostensible leisure, decency still requires the wife to consume some goods
      conspicuously for the reputability of the household and its head. So that,
      as the latter-day outcome of this evolution of an archaic institution, the
      wife, who was at the outset the drudge and chattel of the man, both in
      fact and in theory&mdash;the producer of goods for him to consume&mdash;has
      become the ceremonial consumer of goods which he produces. But she still
      quite unmistakably remains his chattel in theory; for the habitual
      rendering of vicarious leisure and consumption is the abiding mark of the
      unfree servant.
    </p>
    <p>
      This vicarious consumption practiced by the household of the middle and
      lower classes can not be counted as a direct expression of the
      leisure-class scheme of life, since the household of this pecuniary grade
      does not belong within the leisure class. It is rather that the
      leisure-class scheme of life here comes to an expression at the second
      remove. The leisure class stands at the head of the social structure in
      point of reputability; and its manner of life and its standards of worth
      therefore afford the norm of reputability for the community. The
      observance of these standards, in some degree of approximation, becomes
      incumbent upon all classes lower in the scale. In modern civilized
      communities the lines of demarcation between social classes have grown
      vague and transient, and wherever this happens the norm of reputability
      imposed by the upper class extends its coercive influence with but slight
      hindrance down through the social structure to the lowest strata. The
      result is that the members of each stratum accept as their ideal of
      decency the scheme of life in vogue in the next higher stratum, and bend
      their energies to live up to that ideal. On pain of forfeiting their good
      name and their self-respect in case of failure, they must conform to the
      accepted code, at least in appearance. The basis on which good repute in
      any highly organized industrial community ultimately rests is pecuniary
      strength; and the means of showing pecuniary strength, and so of gaining
      or retaining a good name, are leisure and a conspicuous consumption of
      goods. Accordingly, both of these methods are in vogue as far down the
      scale as it remains possible; and in the lower strata in which the two
      methods are employed, both offices are in great part delegated to the wife
      and children of the household. Lower still, where any degree of leisure,
      even ostensible, has become impracticable for the wife, the conspicuous
      consumption of goods remains and is carried on by the wife and children.
      The man of the household also can do something in this direction, and
      indeed, he commonly does; but with a still lower descent into the levels
      of indigence&mdash;along the margin of the slums&mdash;the man, and
      presently also the children, virtually cease to consume valuable goods for
      appearances, and the woman remains virtually the sole exponent of the
      household's pecuniary decency. No class of society, not even the most
      abjectly poor, forgoes all customary conspicuous consumption. The last
      items of this category of consumption are not given up except under stress
      of the direst necessity. Very much of squalor and discomfort will be
      endured before the last trinket or the last pretense of pecuniary decency
      is put away. There is no class and no country that has yielded so abjectly
      before the pressure of physical want as to deny themselves all
      gratification of this higher or spiritual need.
    </p>
    <p>
      From the foregoing survey of the growth of conspicuous leisure and
      consumption, it appears that the utility of both alike for the purposes of
      reputability lies in the element of waste that is common to both. In the
      one case it is a waste of time and effort, in the other it is a waste of
      goods. Both are methods of demonstrating the possession of wealth, and the
      two are conventionally accepted as equivalents. The choice between them is
      a question of advertising expediency simply, except so far as it may be
      affected by other standards of propriety, springing from a different
      source. On grounds of expediency the preference may be given to the one or
      the other at different stages of the economic development. The question
      is, which of the two methods will most effectively reach the persons whose
      convictions it is desired to affect. Usage has answered this question in
      different ways under different circumstances.
    </p>
    <p>
      So long as the community or social group is small enough and compact
      enough to be effectually reached by common notoriety alone that is to say,
      so long as the human environment to which the individual is required to
      adapt himself in respect of reputability is comprised within his sphere of
      personal acquaintance and neighborhood gossip&mdash;so long the one method
      is about as effective as the other. Each will therefore serve about
      equally well during the earlier stages of social growth. But when the
      differentiation has gone farther and it becomes necessary to reach a wider
      human environment, consumption begins to hold over leisure as an ordinary
      means of decency. This is especially true during the later, peaceable
      economic stage. The means of communication and the mobility of the
      population now expose the individual to the observation of many persons
      who have no other means of judging of his reputability than the display of
      goods (and perhaps of breeding) which he is able to make while he is under
      their direct observation.
    </p>
    <p>
      The modern organization of industry works in the same direction also by
      another line. The exigencies of the modern industrial system frequently
      place individuals and households in juxtaposition between whom there is
      little contact in any other sense than that of juxtaposition. One's
      neighbors, mechanically speaking, often are socially not one's neighbors,
      or even acquaintances; and still their transient good opinion has a high
      degree of utility. The only practicable means of impressing one's
      pecuniary ability on these unsympathetic observers of one's everyday life
      is an unremitting demonstration of ability to pay. In the modern community
      there is also a more frequent attendance at large gatherings of people to
      whom one's everyday life is unknown; in such places as churches, theaters,
      ballrooms, hotels, parks, shops, and the like. In order to impress these
      transient observers, and to retain one's self-complacency under their
      observation, the signature of one's pecuniary strength should be written
      in characters which he who runs may read. It is evident, therefore, that
      the present trend of the development is in the direction of heightening
      the utility of conspicuous consumption as compared with leisure.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is also noticeable that the serviceability of consumption as a means of
      repute, as well as the insistence on it as an element of decency, is at
      its best in those portions of the community where the human contact of the
      individual is widest and the mobility of the population is greatest.
      Conspicuous consumption claims a relatively larger portion of the income
      of the urban than of the rural population, and the claim is also more
      imperative. The result is that, in order to keep up a decent appearance,
      the former habitually live hand-to-mouth to a greater extent than the
      latter. So it comes, for instance, that the American farmer and his wife
      and daughters are notoriously less modish in their dress, as well as less
      urbane in their manners, than the city artisan's family with an equal
      income. It is not that the city population is by nature much more eager
      for the peculiar complacency that comes of a conspicuous consumption, nor
      has the rural population less regard for pecuniary decency. But the
      provocation to this line of evidence, as well as its transient
      effectiveness, is more decided in the city. This method is therefore more
      readily resorted to, and in the struggle to outdo one another the city
      population push their normal standard of conspicuous consumption to a
      higher point, with the result that a relatively greater expenditure in
      this direction is required to indicate a given degree of pecuniary decency
      in the city. The requirement of conformity to this higher conventional
      standard becomes mandatory. The standard of decency is higher, class for
      class, and this requirement of decent appearance must be lived up to on
      pain of losing caste.
    </p>
    <p>
      Consumption becomes a larger element in the standard of living in the city
      than in the country. Among the country population its place is to some
      extent taken by savings and home comforts known through the medium of
      neighborhood gossip sufficiently to serve the like general purpose of
      Pecuniary repute. These home comforts and the leisure indulged in&mdash;where
      the indulgence is found&mdash;are of course also in great part to be
      classed as items of conspicuous consumption; and much the same is to be
      said of the savings. The smaller amount of the savings laid by by the
      artisan class is no doubt due, in some measure, to the fact that in the
      case of the artisan the savings are a less effective means of
      advertisement, relative to the environment in which he is placed, than are
      the savings of the people living on farms and in the small villages. Among
      the latter, everybody's affairs, especially everybody's pecuniary status,
      are known to everybody else. Considered by itself simply&mdash;taken in
      the first degree&mdash;this added provocation to which the artisan and the
      urban laboring classes are exposed may not very seriously decrease the
      amount of savings; but in its cumulative action, through raising the
      standard of decent expenditure, its deterrent effect on the tendency to
      save cannot but be very great.
    </p>
    <p>
      A felicitous illustration of the manner in which this canon of
      reputability works out its results is seen in the practice of
      dram-drinking, "treating," and smoking in public places, which is
      customary among the laborers and handicraftsmen of the towns, and among
      the lower middle class of the urban population generally Journeymen
      printers may be named as a class among whom this form of conspicuous
      consumption has a great vogue, and among whom it carries with it certain
      well-marked consequences that are often deprecated. The peculiar habits of
      the class in this respect are commonly set down to some kind of an
      ill-defined moral deficiency with which this class is credited, or to a
      morally deleterious influence which their occupation is supposed to exert,
      in some unascertainable way, upon the men employed in it. The state of the
      case for the men who work in the composition and press rooms of the common
      run of printing-houses may be summed up as follows. Skill acquired in any
      printing-house or any city is easily turned to account in almost any other
      house or city; that is to say, the inertia due to special training is
      slight. Also, this occupation requires more than the average of
      intelligence and general information, and the men employed in it are
      therefore ordinarily more ready than many others to take advantage of any
      slight variation in the demand for their labor from one place to another.
      The inertia due to the home feeling is consequently also slight. At the
      same time the wages in the trade are high enough to make movement from
      place to place relatively easy. The result is a great mobility of the
      labor employed in printing; perhaps greater than in any other equally
      well-defined and considerable body of workmen. These men are constantly
      thrown in contact with new groups of acquaintances, with whom the
      relations established are transient or ephemeral, but whose good opinion
      is valued none the less for the time being. The human proclivity to
      ostentation, reenforced by sentiments of good-fellowship, leads them to
      spend freely in those directions which will best serve these needs. Here
      as elsewhere prescription seizes upon the custom as soon as it gains a
      vogue, and incorporates it in the accredited standard of decency. The next
      step is to make this standard of decency the point of departure for a new
      move in advance in the same direction&mdash;for there is no merit in
      simple spiritless conformity to a standard of dissipation that is lived up
      to as a matter of course by everyone in the trade.
    </p>
    <p>
      The greater prevalence of dissipation among printers than among the
      average of workmen is accordingly attributable, at least in some measure,
      to the greater ease of movement and the more transient character of
      acquaintance and human contact in this trade. But the substantial ground
      of this high requirement in dissipation is in the last analysis no other
      than that same propensity for a manifestation of dominance and pecuniary
      decency which makes the French peasant-proprietor parsimonious and frugal,
      and induces the American millionaire to found colleges, hospitals and
      museums. If the canon of conspicuous consumption were not offset to a
      considerable extent by other features of human nature, alien to it, any
      saving should logically be impossible for a population situated as the
      artisan and laboring classes of the cities are at present, however high
      their wages or their income might be.
    </p>
    <p>
      But there are other standards of repute and other, more or less
      imperative, canons of conduct, besides wealth and its manifestation, and
      some of these come in to accentuate or to qualify the broad, fundamental
      canon of conspicuous waste. Under the simple test of effectiveness for
      advertising, we should expect to find leisure and the conspicuous
      consumption of goods dividing the field of pecuniary emulation pretty
      evenly between them at the outset. Leisure might then be expected
      gradually to yield ground and tend to obsolescence as the economic
      development goes forward, and the community increases in size; while the
      conspicuous consumption of goods should gradually gain in importance, both
      absolutely and relatively, until it had absorbed all the available
      product, leaving nothing over beyond a bare livelihood. But the actual
      course of development has been somewhat different from this ideal scheme.
      Leisure held the first place at the start, and came to hold a rank very
      much above wasteful consumption of goods, both as a direct exponent of
      wealth and as an element in the standard of decency, during the
      quasi-peaceable culture. From that point onward, consumption has gained
      ground, until, at present, it unquestionably holds the primacy, though it
      is still far from absorbing the entire margin of production above the
      subsistence minimum.
    </p>
    <p>
      The early ascendency of leisure as a means of reputability is traceable to
      the archaic distinction between noble and ignoble employments. Leisure is
      honorable and becomes imperative partly because it shows exemption from
      ignoble labor. The archaic differentiation into noble and ignoble classes
      is based on an invidious distinction between employments as honorific or
      debasing; and this traditional distinction grows into an imperative canon
      of decency during the early quasi-peaceable stage. Its ascendency is
      furthered by the fact that leisure is still fully as effective an evidence
      of wealth as consumption. Indeed, so effective is it in the relatively
      small and stable human environment to which the individual is exposed at
      that cultural stage, that, with the aid of the archaic tradition which
      deprecates all productive labor, it gives rise to a large impecunious
      leisure class, and it even tends to limit the production of the
      community's industry to the subsistence minimum. This extreme inhibition
      of industry is avoided because slave labor, working under a compulsion
      more vigorous than that of reputability, is forced to turn out a product
      in excess of the subsistence minimum of the working class. The subsequent
      relative decline in the use of conspicuous leisure as a basis of repute is
      due partly to an increasing relative effectiveness of consumption as an
      evidence of wealth; but in part it is traceable to another force, alien,
      and in some degree antagonistic, to the usage of conspicuous waste.
    </p>
    <p>
      This alien factor is the instinct of workmanship. Other circumstances
      permitting, that instinct disposes men to look with favor upon productive
      efficiency and on whatever is of human use. It disposes them to deprecate
      waste of substance or effort. The instinct of workmanship is present in
      all men, and asserts itself even under very adverse circumstances. So that
      however wasteful a given expenditure may be in reality, it must at least
      have some colorable excuse in the way of an ostensible purpose. The manner
      in which, under special circumstances, the instinct eventuates in a taste
      for exploit and an invidious discrimination between noble and ignoble
      classes has been indicated in an earlier chapter. In so far as it comes
      into conflict with the law of conspicuous waste, the instinct of
      workmanship expresses itself not so much in insistence on substantial
      usefulness as in an abiding sense of the odiousness and aesthetic
      impossibility of what is obviously futile. Being of the nature of an
      instinctive affection, its guidance touches chiefly and immediately the
      obvious and apparent violations of its requirements. It is only less
      promptly and with less constraining force that it reaches such substantial
      violations of its requirements as are appreciated only upon reflection.
    </p>
    <p>
      So long as all labor continues to be performed exclusively or usually by
      slaves, the baseness of all productive effort is too constantly and
      deterrently present in the mind of men to allow the instinct of
      workmanship seriously to take effect in the direction of industrial
      usefulness; but when the quasi-peaceable stage (with slavery and status)
      passes into the peaceable stage of industry (with wage labor and cash
      payment) the instinct comes more effectively into play. It then begins
      aggressively to shape men's views of what is meritorious, and asserts
      itself at least as an auxiliary canon of self-complacency. All extraneous
      considerations apart, those persons (adult) are but a vanishing minority
      today who harbor no inclination to the accomplishment of some end, or who
      are not impelled of their own motion to shape some object or fact or
      relation for human use. The propensity may in large measure be overborne
      by the more immediately constraining incentive to a reputable leisure and
      an avoidance of indecorous usefulness, and it may therefore work itself
      out in make-believe only; as for instance in "social duties," and in
      quasi-artistic or quasi-scholarly accomplishments, in the care and
      decoration of the house, in sewing-circle activity or dress reform, in
      proficiency at dress, cards, yachting, golf, and various sports. But the
      fact that it may under stress of circumstances eventuate in inanities no
      more disproves the presence of the instinct than the reality of the
      brooding instinct is disproved by inducing a hen to sit on a nestful of
      china eggs.
    </p>
    <p>
      This latter-day uneasy reaching-out for some form of purposeful activity
      that shall at the same time not be indecorously productive of either
      individual or collective gain marks a difference of attitude between the
      modern leisure class and that of the quasi-peaceable stage. At the earlier
      stage, as was said above, the all-dominating institution of slavery and
      status acted resistlessly to discountenance exertion directed to other
      than naively predatory ends. It was still possible to find some habitual
      employment for the inclination to action in the way of forcible aggression
      or repression directed against hostile groups or against the subject
      classes within the group; and this served to relieve the pressure and draw
      off the energy of the leisure class without a resort to actually useful,
      or even ostensibly useful employments. The practice of hunting also served
      the same purpose in some degree. When the community developed into a
      peaceful industrial organization, and when fuller occupation of the land
      had reduced the opportunities for the hunt to an inconsiderable residue,
      the pressure of energy seeking purposeful employment was left to find an
      outlet in some other direction. The ignominy which attaches to useful
      effort also entered upon a less acute phase with the disappearance of
      compulsory labor; and the instinct of workmanship then came to assert
      itself with more persistence and consistency.
    </p>
    <p>
      The line of least resistance has changed in some measure, and the energy
      which formerly found a vent in predatory activity, now in part takes the
      direction of some ostensibly useful end. Ostensibly purposeless leisure
      has come to be deprecated, especially among that large portion of the
      leisure class whose plebeian origin acts to set them at variance with the
      tradition of the otium cum dignitate. But that canon of reputability which
      discountenances all employment that is of the nature of productive effort
      is still at hand, and will permit nothing beyond the most transient vogue
      to any employment that is substantially useful or productive. The
      consequence is that a change has been wrought in the conspicuous leisure
      practiced by the leisure class; not so much in substance as in form. A
      reconciliation between the two conflicting requirements is effected by a
      resort to make-believe. Many and intricate polite observances and social
      duties of a ceremonial nature are developed; many organizations are
      founded, with some specious object of amelioration embodied in their
      official style and title; there is much coming and going, and a deal of
      talk, to the end that the talkers may not have occasion to reflect on what
      is the effectual economic value of their traffic. And along with the
      make-believe of purposeful employment, and woven inextricably into its
      texture, there is commonly, if not invariably, a more or less appreciable
      element of purposeful effort directed to some serious end.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the narrower sphere of vicarious leisure a similar change has gone
      forward. Instead of simply passing her time in visible idleness, as in the
      best days of the patriarchal regime, the housewife of the advanced
      peaceable stage applies herself assiduously to household cares. The
      salient features of this development of domestic service have already been
      indicated. Throughout the entire evolution of conspicuous expenditure,
      whether of goods or of services or human life, runs the obvious
      implication that in order to effectually mend the consumer's good fame it
      must be an expenditure of superfluities. In order to be reputable it must
      be wasteful. No merit would accrue from the consumption of the bare
      necessaries of life, except by comparison with the abjectly poor who fall
      short even of the subsistence minimum; and no standard of expenditure
      could result from such a comparison, except the most prosaic and
      unattractive level of decency. A standard of life would still be possible
      which should admit of invidious comparison in other respects than that of
      opulence; as, for instance, a comparison in various directions in the
      manifestation of moral, physical, intellectual, or aesthetic force.
      Comparison in all these directions is in vogue today; and the comparison
      made in these respects is commonly so inextricably bound up with the
      pecuniary comparison as to be scarcely distinguishable from the latter.
      This is especially true as regards the current rating of expressions of
      intellectual and aesthetic force or proficiency' so that we frequently
      interpret as aesthetic or intellectual a difference which in substance is
      pecuniary only.
    </p>
    <p>
      The use of the term "waste" is in one respect an unfortunate one. As used
      in the speech of everyday life the word carries an undertone of
      deprecation. It is here used for want of a better term that will
      adequately describe the same range of motives and of phenomena, and it is
      not to be taken in an odious sense, as implying an illegitimate
      expenditure of human products or of human life. In the view of economic
      theory the expenditure in question is no more and no less legitimate than
      any other expenditure. It is here called "waste" because this expenditure
      does not serve human life or human well-being on the whole, not because it
      is waste or misdirection of effort or expenditure as viewed from the
      standpoint of the individual consumer who chooses it. If he chooses it,
      that disposes of the question of its relative utility to him, as compared
      with other forms of consumption that would not be deprecated on account of
      their wastefulness. Whatever form of expenditure the consumer chooses, or
      whatever end he seeks in making his choice, has utility to him by virtue
      of his preference. As seen from the point of view of the individual
      consumer, the question of wastefulness does not arise within the scope of
      economic theory proper. The use of the word "waste" as a technical term,
      therefore, implies no deprecation of the motives or of the ends sought by
      the consumer under this canon of conspicuous waste.
    </p>
    <p>
      But it is, on other grounds, worth noting that the term "waste" in the
      language of everyday life implies deprecation of what is characterized as
      wasteful. This common-sense implication is itself an outcropping of the
      instinct of workmanship. The popular reprobation of waste goes to say that
      in order to be at peace with himself the common man must be able to see in
      any and all human effort and human enjoyment an enhancement of life and
      well-being on the whole. In order to meet with unqualified approval, any
      economic fact must approve itself under the test of impersonal usefulness&mdash;usefulness
      as seen from the point of view of the generically human. Relative or
      competitive advantage of one individual in comparison with another does
      not satisfy the economic conscience, and therefore competitive expenditure
      has not the approval of this conscience.
    </p>
    <p>
      In strict accuracy nothing should be included under the head of
      conspicuous waste but such expenditure as is incurred on the ground of an
      invidious pecuniary comparison. But in order to bring any given item or
      element in under this head it is not necessary that it should be
      recognized as waste in this sense by the person incurring the expenditure.
      It frequently happens that an element of the standard of living which set
      out with being primarily wasteful, ends with becoming, in the apprehension
      of the consumer, a necessary of life; and it may in this way become as
      indispensable as any other item of the consumer's habitual expenditure. As
      items which sometimes fall under this head, and are therefore available as
      illustrations of the manner in which this principle applies, may be cited
      carpets and tapestries, silver table service, waiter's services, silk
      hats, starched linen, many articles of jewelry and of dress. The
      indispensability of these things after the habit and the convention have
      been formed, however, has little to say in the classification of
      expenditures as waste or not waste in the technical meaning of the word.
      The test to which all expenditure must be brought in an attempt to decide
      that point is the question whether it serves directly to enhance human
      life on the whole-whether it furthers the life process taken impersonally.
      For this is the basis of award of the instinct of workmanship, and that
      instinct is the court of final appeal in any question of economic truth or
      adequacy. It is a question as to the award rendered by a dispassionate
      common sense. The question is, therefore, not whether, under the existing
      circumstances of individual habit and social custom, a given expenditure
      conduces to the particular consumer's gratification or peace of mind; but
      whether, aside from acquired tastes and from the canons of usage and
      conventional decency, its result is a net gain in comfort or in the
      fullness of life. Customary expenditure must be classed under the head of
      waste in so far as the custom on which it rests is traceable to the habit
      of making an invidious pecuniary comparison-in so far as it is conceived
      that it could not have become customary and prescriptive without the
      backing of this principle of pecuniary reputability or relative economic
      success. It is obviously not necessary that a given object of expenditure
      should be exclusively wasteful in order to come in under the category of
      conspicuous waste. An article may be useful and wasteful both, and its
      utility to the consumer may be made up of use and waste in the most
      varying proportions. Consumable goods, and even productive goods,
      generally show the two elements in combination, as constituents of their
      utility; although, in a general way, the element of waste tends to
      predominate in articles of consumption, while the contrary is true of
      articles designed for productive use. Even in articles which appear at
      first glance to serve for pure ostentation only, it is always possible to
      detect the presence of some, at least ostensible, useful purpose; and on
      the other hand, even in special machinery and tools contrived for some
      particular industrial process, as well as in the rudest appliances of
      human industry, the traces of conspicuous waste, or at least of the habit
      of ostentation, usually become evident on a close scrutiny. It would be
      hazardous to assert that a useful purpose is ever absent from the utility
      of any article or of any service, however obviously its prime purpose and
      chief element is conspicuous waste; and it would be only less hazardous to
      assert of any primarily useful product that the element of waste is in no
      way concerned in its value, immediately or remotely.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0005" id="link2HCH0005">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Five ~~ The Pecuniary Standard of Living
    </h2>
    <p>
      For the great body of the people in any modern community, the proximate
      ground of expenditure in excess of what is required for physical comfort
      is not a conscious effort to excel in the expensiveness of their visible
      consumption, so much as it is a desire to live up to the conventional
      standard of decency in the amount and grade of goods consumed. This desire
      is not guided by a rigidly invariable standard, which must be lived up to,
      and beyond which there is no incentive to go. The standard is flexible;
      and especially it is indefinitely extensible, if only time is allowed for
      habituation to any increase in pecuniary ability and for acquiring
      facility in the new and larger scale of expenditure that follows such an
      increase. It is much more difficult to recede from a scale of expenditure
      once adopted than it is to extend the accustomed scale in response to an
      accession of wealth. Many items of customary expenditure prove on analysis
      to be almost purely wasteful, and they are therefore honorific only, but
      after they have once been incorporated into the scale of decent
      consumption, and so have become an integral part of one's scheme of life,
      it is quite as hard to give up these as it is to give up many items that
      conduce directly to one's physical comfort, or even that may be necessary
      to life and health. That is to say, the conspicuously wasteful honorific
      expenditure that confers spiritual well-being may become more
      indispensable than much of that expenditure which ministers to the "lower"
      wants of physical well-being or sustenance only. It is notoriously just as
      difficult to recede from a "high" standard of living as it is to lower a
      standard which is already relatively low; although in the former case the
      difficulty is a moral one, while in the latter it may involve a material
      deduction from the physical comforts of life.
    </p>
    <p>
      But while retrogression is difficult, a fresh advance in conspicuous
      expenditure is relatively easy; indeed, it takes place almost as a matter
      of course. In the rare cases where it occurs, a failure to increase one's
      visible consumption when the means for an increase are at hand is felt in
      popular apprehension to call for explanation, and unworthy motives of
      miserliness are imputed to those who fall short in this respect. A prompt
      response to the stimulus, on the other hand, is accepted as the normal
      effect. This suggests that the standard of expenditure which commonly
      guides our efforts is not the average, ordinary expenditure already
      achieved; it is an ideal of consumption that lies just beyond our reach,
      or to reach which requires some strain. The motive is emulation&mdash;the
      stimulus of an invidious comparison which prompts us to outdo those with
      whom we are in the habit of classing ourselves. Substantially the same
      proposition is expressed in the commonplace remark that each class envies
      and emulates the class next above it in the social scale, while it rarely
      compares itself with those below or with those who are considerably in
      advance. That is to say, in other words, our standard of decency in
      expenditure, as in other ends of emulation, is set by the usage of those
      next above us in reputability; until, in this way, especially in any
      community where class distinctions are somewhat vague, all canons of
      reputability and decency, and all standards of consumption, are traced
      back by insensible gradations to the usages and habits of thought of the
      highest social and pecuniary class&mdash;the wealthy leisure class.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is for this class to determine, in general outline, what scheme of Life
      the community shall accept as decent or honorific; and it is their office
      by precept and example to set forth this scheme of social salvation in its
      highest, ideal form. But the higher leisure class can exercise this
      quasi-sacerdotal office only under certain material limitations. The class
      cannot at discretion effect a sudden revolution or reversal of the popular
      habits of thought with respect to any of these ceremonial requirements. It
      takes time for any change to permeate the mass and change the habitual
      attitude of the people; and especially it takes time to change the habits
      of those classes that are socially more remote from the radiant body. The
      process is slower where the mobility of the population is less or where
      the intervals between the several classes are wider and more abrupt. But
      if time be allowed, the scope of the discretion of the leisure class as
      regards questions of form and detail in the community's scheme of life is
      large; while as regards the substantial principles of reputability, the
      changes which it can effect lie within a narrow margin of tolerance. Its
      example and precept carries the force of prescription for all classes
      below it; but in working out the precepts which are handed down as
      governing the form and method of reputability&mdash;in shaping the usages
      and the spiritual attitude of the lower classes&mdash;this authoritative
      prescription constantly works under the selective guidance of the canon of
      conspicuous waste, tempered in varying degree by the instinct of
      workmanship. To those norms is to be added another broad principle of
      human nature&mdash;the predatory animus&mdash;which in point of generality
      and of psychological content lies between the two just named. The effect
      of the latter in shaping the accepted scheme of life is yet to be
      discussed. The canon of reputability, then, must adapt itself to the
      economic circumstances, the traditions, and the degree of spiritual
      maturity of the particular class whose scheme of life it is to regulate.
      It is especially to be noted that however high its authority and however
      true to the fundamental requirements of reputability it may have been at
      its inception, a specific formal observance can under no circumstances
      maintain itself in force if with the lapse of time or on its transmission
      to a lower pecuniary class it is found to run counter to the ultimate
      ground of decency among civilized peoples, namely, serviceability for the
      purpose of an invidious comparison in pecuniary success. It is evident
      that these canons of expenditure have much to say in determining the
      standard of living for any community and for any class. It is no less
      evident that the standard of living which prevails at any time or at any
      given social altitude will in its turn have much to say as to the forms
      which honorific expenditure will take, and as to the degree to which this
      "higher" need will dominate a people's consumption. In this respect the
      control exerted by the accepted standard of living is chiefly of a
      negative character; it acts almost solely to prevent recession from a
      scale of conspicuous expenditure that has once become habitual.
    </p>
    <p>
      A standard of living is of the nature of habit. It is an habitual scale
      and method of responding to given stimuli. The difficulty in the way of
      receding from an accustomed standard is the difficulty of breaking a habit
      that has once been formed. The relative facility with which an advance in
      the standard is made means that the life process is a process of unfolding
      activity and that it will readily unfold in a new direction whenever and
      wherever the resistance to self-expression decreases. But when the habit
      of expression along such a given line of low resistance has once been
      formed, the discharge will seek the accustomed outlet even after a change
      has taken place in the environment whereby the external resistance has
      appreciably risen. That heightened facility of expression in a given
      direction which is called habit may offset a considerable increase in the
      resistance offered by external circumstances to the unfolding of life in
      the given direction. As between the various habits, or habitual modes and
      directions of expression, which go to make up an individual's standard of
      living, there is an appreciable difference in point of persistence under
      counteracting circumstances and in point of the degree of imperativeness
      with which the discharge seeks a given direction.
    </p>
    <p>
      That is to say, in the language of current economic theory, while men are
      reluctant to retrench their expenditures in any direction, they are more
      reluctant to retrench in some directions than in others; so that while any
      accustomed consumption is reluctantly given up, there are certain lines of
      consumption which are given up with relatively extreme reluctance. The
      articles or forms of consumption to which the consumer clings with the
      greatest tenacity are commonly the so-called necessaries of life, or the
      subsistence minimum. The subsistence minimum is of course not a rigidly
      determined allowance of goods, definite and invariable in kind and
      quantity; but for the purpose in hand it may be taken to comprise a
      certain, more or less definite, aggregate of consumption required for the
      maintenance of life. This minimum, it may be assumed, is ordinarily given
      up last in case of a progressive retrenchment of expenditure. That is to
      say, in a general way, the most ancient and ingrained of the habits which
      govern the individual's life&mdash;those habits that touch his existence
      as an organism&mdash;are the most persistent and imperative. Beyond these
      come the higher wants&mdash;later-formed habits of the individual or the
      race&mdash;in a somewhat irregular and by no means invariable gradation.
      Some of these higher wants, as for instance the habitual use of certain
      stimulants, or the need of salvation (in the eschatological sense), or of
      good repute, may in some cases take precedence of the lower or more
      elementary wants. In general, the longer the habituation, the more
      unbroken the habit, and the more nearly it coincides with previous
      habitual forms of the life process, the more persistently will the given
      habit assert itself. The habit will be stronger if the particular traits
      of human nature which its action involves, or the particular aptitudes
      that find exercise in it, are traits or aptitudes that are already largely
      and profoundly concerned in the life process or that are intimately bound
      up with the life history of the particular racial stock. The varying
      degrees of ease with which different habits are formed by different
      persons, as well as the varying degrees of reluctance with which different
      habits are given up, goes to say that the formation of specific habits is
      not a matter of length of habituation simply. Inherited aptitudes and
      traits of temperament count for quite as much as length of habituation in
      deciding what range of habits will come to dominate any individual's
      scheme of life. And the prevalent type of transmitted aptitudes, or in
      other words the type of temperament belonging to the dominant ethnic
      element in any community, will go far to decide what will be the scope and
      form of expression of the community's habitual life process. How greatly
      the transmitted idiosyncrasies of aptitude may count in the way of a rapid
      and definitive formation of habit in individuals is illustrated by the
      extreme facility with which an all-dominating habit of alcoholism is
      sometimes formed; or in the similar facility and the similarly inevitable
      formation of a habit of devout observances in the case of persons gifted
      with a special aptitude in that direction. Much the same meaning attaches
      to that peculiar facility of habituation to a specific human environment
      that is called romantic love.
    </p>
    <p>
      Men differ in respect of transmitted aptitudes, or in respect of the
      relative facility with which they unfold their life activity in particular
      directions; and the habits which coincide with or proceed upon a
      relatively strong specific aptitude or a relatively great specific
      facility of expression become of great consequence to the man's
      well-being. The part played by this element of aptitude in determining the
      relative tenacity of the several habits which constitute the standard of
      living goes to explain the extreme reluctance with which men give up any
      habitual expenditure in the way of conspicuous consumption. The aptitudes
      or propensities to which a habit of this kind is to be referred as its
      ground are those aptitudes whose exercise is comprised in emulation; and
      the propensity for emulation&mdash;for invidious comparison&mdash;is of
      ancient growth and is a pervading trait of human nature. It is easily
      called into vigorous activity in any new form, and it asserts itself with
      great insistence under any form under which it has once found habitual
      expression. When the individual has once formed the habit of seeking
      expression in a given line of honorific expenditure&mdash;when a given set
      of stimuli have come to be habitually responded to in activity of a given
      kind and direction under the guidance of these alert and deep-reaching
      propensities of emulation&mdash;it is with extreme reluctance that such an
      habitual expenditure is given up. And on the other hand, whenever an
      accession of pecuniary strength puts the individual in a position to
      unfold his life process in larger scope and with additional reach, the
      ancient propensities of the race will assert themselves in determining the
      direction which the new unfolding of life is to take. And those
      propensities which are already actively in the field under some related
      form of expression, which are aided by the pointed suggestions afforded by
      a current accredited scheme of life, and for the exercise of which the
      material means and opportunities are readily available&mdash;these will
      especially have much to say in shaping the form and direction in which the
      new accession to the individual's aggregate force will assert itself. That
      is to say, in concrete terms, in any community where conspicuous
      consumption is an element of the scheme of life, an increase in an
      individual's ability to pay is likely to take the form of an expenditure
      for some accredited line of conspicuous consumption.
    </p>
    <p>
      With the exception of the instinct of self-preservation, the propensity
      for emulation is probably the strongest and most alert and persistent of
      the economic motives proper. In an industrial community this propensity
      for emulation expresses itself in pecuniary emulation; and this, so far as
      regards the Western civilized communities of the present, is virtually
      equivalent to saying that it expresses itself in some form of conspicuous
      waste. The need of conspicuous waste, therefore, stands ready to absorb
      any increase in the community's industrial efficiency or output of goods,
      after the most elementary physical wants have been provided for. Where
      this result does not follow, under modern conditions, the reason for the
      discrepancy is commonly to be sought in a rate of increase in the
      individual's wealth too rapid for the habit of expenditure to keep abreast
      of it; or it may be that the individual in question defers the conspicuous
      consumption of the increment to a later date&mdash;ordinarily with a view
      to heightening the spectacular effect of the aggregate expenditure
      contemplated. As increased industrial efficiency makes it possible to
      procure the means of livelihood with less labor, the energies of the
      industrious members of the community are bent to the compassing of a
      higher result in conspicuous expenditure, rather than slackened to a more
      comfortable pace. The strain is not lightened as industrial efficiency
      increases and makes a lighter strain possible, but the increment of output
      is turned to use to meet this want, which is indefinitely expansible,
      after the manner commonly imputed in economic theory to higher or
      spiritual wants. It is owing chiefly to the presence of this element in
      the standard of living that J. S. Mill was able to say that "hitherto it
      is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened
      the day's toil of any human being." The accepted standard of expenditure
      in the community or in the class to which a person belongs largely
      determines what his standard of living will be. It does this directly by
      commending itself to his common sense as right and good, through his
      habitually contemplating it and assimilating the scheme of life in which
      it belongs; but it does so also indirectly through popular insistence on
      conformity to the accepted scale of expenditure as a matter of propriety,
      under pain of disesteem and ostracism. To accept and practice the standard
      of living which is in vogue is both agreeable and expedient, commonly to
      the point of being indispensable to personal comfort and to success in
      life. The standard of living of any class, so far as concerns the element
      of conspicuous waste, is commonly as high as the earning capacity of the
      class will permit&mdash;with a constant tendency to go higher. The effect
      upon the serious activities of men is therefore to direct them with great
      singleness of purpose to the largest possible acquisition of wealth, and
      to discountenance work that brings no pecuniary gain. At the same time the
      effect on consumption is to concentrate it upon the lines which are most
      patent to the observers whose good opinion is sought; while the
      inclinations and aptitudes whose exercise does not involve a honorific
      expenditure of time or substance tend to fall into abeyance through
      disuse.
    </p>
    <p>
      Through this discrimination in favor of visible consumption it has come
      about that the domestic life of most classes is relatively shabby, as
      compared with the éclat of that overt portion of their life that is
      carried on before the eyes of observers. As a secondary consequence of the
      same discrimination, people habitually screen their private life from
      observation. So far as concerns that portion of their consumption that may
      without blame be carried on in secret, they withdraw from all contact with
      their neighbors, hence the exclusiveness of people, as regards their
      domestic life, in most of the industrially developed communities; and
      hence, by remoter derivation, the habit of privacy and reserve that is so
      large a feature in the code of proprieties of the better class in all
      communities. The low birthrate of the classes upon whom the requirements
      of reputable expenditure fall with great urgency is likewise traceable to
      the exigencies of a standard of living based on conspicuous waste. The
      conspicuous consumption, and the consequent increased expense, required in
      the reputable maintenance of a child is very considerable and acts as a
      powerful deterrent. It is probably the most effectual of the Malthusian
      prudential checks.
    </p>
    <p>
      The effect of this factor of the standard of living, both in the way of
      retrenchment in the obscurer elements of consumption that go to physical
      comfort and maintenance, and also in the paucity or absence of children,
      is perhaps seen at its best among the classes given to scholarly pursuits.
      Because of a presumed superiority and scarcity of the gifts and
      attainments that characterize their life, these classes are by convention
      subsumed under a higher social grade than their pecuniary grade should
      warrant. The scale of decent expenditure in their case is pitched
      correspondingly high, and it consequently leaves an exceptionally narrow
      margin disposable for the other ends of life. By force of circumstances,
      their habitual sense of what is good and right in these matters, as well
      as the expectations of the community in the way of pecuniary decency among
      the learned, are excessively high&mdash;as measured by the prevalent
      degree of opulence and earning capacity of the class, relatively to the
      non-scholarly classes whose social equals they nominally are. In any
      modern community where there is no priestly monopoly of these occupations,
      the people of scholarly pursuits are unavoidably thrown into contact with
      classes that are pecuniarily their superiors. The high standard of
      pecuniary decency in force among these superior classes is transfused
      among the scholarly classes with but little mitigation of its rigor; and
      as a consequence there is no class of the community that spends a larger
      proportion of its substance in conspicuous waste than these.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0006" id="link2HCH0006">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Six ~~ Pecuniary Canons of Taste
    </h2>
    <p>
      The caution has already been repeated more than once, that while the
      regulating norm of consumption is in large part the requirement of
      conspicuous waste, it must not be understood that the motive on which the
      consumer acts in any given case is this principle in its bald,
      unsophisticated form. Ordinarily his motive is a wish to conform to
      established usage, to avoid unfavorable notice and comment, to live up to
      the accepted canons of decency in the kind, amount, and grade of goods
      consumed, as well as in the decorous employment of his time and effort. In
      the common run of cases this sense of prescriptive usage is present in the
      motives of the consumer and exerts a direct constraining force, especially
      as regards consumption carried on under the eyes of observers. But a
      considerable element of prescriptive expensiveness is observable also in
      consumption that does not in any appreciable degree become known to
      outsiders&mdash;as, for instance, articles of underclothing, some articles
      of food, kitchen utensils, and other household apparatus designed for
      service rather than for evidence. In all such useful articles a close
      scrutiny will discover certain features which add to the cost and enhance
      the commercial value of the goods in question, but do not proportionately
      increase the serviceability of these articles for the material purposes
      which alone they ostensibly are designed to serve.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under the selective surveillance of the law of conspicuous waste there
      grows up a code of accredited canons of consumption, the effect of which
      is to hold the consumer up to a standard of expensiveness and wastefulness
      in his consumption of goods and in his employment of time and effort. This
      growth of prescriptive usage has an immediate effect upon economic life,
      but it has also an indirect and remoter effect upon conduct in other
      respects as well. Habits of thought with respect to the expression of life
      in any given direction unavoidably affect the habitual view of what is
      good and right in life in other directions also. In the organic complex of
      habits of thought which make up the substance of an individual's conscious
      life the economic interest does not lie isolated and distinct from all
      other interests. Something, for instance, has already been said of its
      relation to the canons of reputability.
    </p>
    <p>
      The principle of conspicuous waste guides the formation of habits of
      thought as to what is honest and reputable in life and in commodities. In
      so doing, this principle will traverse other norms of conduct which do not
      primarily have to do with the code of pecuniary honor, but which have,
      directly or incidentally, an economic significance of some magnitude. So
      the canon of honorific waste may, immediately or remotely, influence the
      sense of duty, the sense of beauty, the sense of utility, the sense of
      devotional or ritualistic fitness, and the scientific sense of truth.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is scarcely necessary to go into a discussion here of the particular
      points at which, or the particular manner in which, the canon of honorific
      expenditure habitually traverses the canons of moral conduct. The matter
      is one which has received large attention and illustration at the hands of
      those whose office it is to watch and admonish with respect to any
      departures from the accepted code of morals. In modern communities, where
      the dominant economic and legal feature of the community's life is the
      institution of private property, one of the salient features of the code
      of morals is the sacredness of property. There needs no insistence or
      illustration to gain assent to the proposition that the habit of holding
      private property inviolate is traversed by the other habit of seeking
      wealth for the sake of the good repute to be gained through its
      conspicuous consumption. Most offenses against property, especially
      offenses of an appreciable magnitude, come under this head. It is also a
      matter of common notoriety and byword that in offenses which result in a
      large accession of property to the offender he does not ordinarily incur
      the extreme penalty or the extreme obloquy with which his offenses would
      be visited on the ground of the naive moral code alone. The thief or
      swindler who has gained great wealth by his delinquency has a better
      chance than the small thief of escaping the rigorous penalty of the law
      and some good repute accrues to him from his increased wealth and from his
      spending the irregularly acquired possessions in a seemly manner. A
      well-bred expenditure of his booty especially appeals with great effect to
      persons of a cultivated sense of the proprieties, and goes far to mitigate
      the sense of moral turpitude with which his dereliction is viewed by them.
      It may be noted also&mdash;and it is more immediately to the point&mdash;that
      we are all inclined to condone an offense against property in the case of
      a man whose motive is the worthy one of providing the means of a "decent"
      manner of life for his wife and children. If it is added that the wife has
      been "nurtured in the lap of luxury," that is accepted as an additional
      extenuating circumstance. That is to say, we are prone to condone such an
      offense where its aim is the honorific one of enabling the offender's wife
      to perform for him such an amount of vicarious consumption of time and
      substance as is demanded by the standard of pecuniary decency. In such a
      case the habit of approving the accustomed degree of conspicuous waste
      traverses the habit of deprecating violations of ownership, to the extent
      even of sometimes leaving the award of praise or blame uncertain. This is
      peculiarly true where the dereliction involves an appreciable predatory or
      piratical element.
    </p>
    <p>
      This topic need scarcely be pursued further here; but the remark may not
      be out of place that all that considerable body of morals that clusters
      about the concept of an inviolable ownership is itself a psychological
      precipitate of the traditional meritoriousness of wealth. And it should be
      added that this wealth which is held sacred is valued primarily for the
      sake of the good repute to be got through its conspicuous consumption. The
      bearing of pecuniary decency upon the scientific spirit or the quest of
      knowledge will be taken up in some detail in a separate chapter. Also as
      regards the sense of devout or ritual merit and adequacy in this
      connection, little need be said in this place. That topic will also come
      up incidentally in a later chapter. Still, this usage of honorific
      expenditure has much to say in shaping popular tastes as to what is right
      and meritorious in sacred matters, and the bearing of the principle of
      conspicuous waste upon some of the commonplace devout observances and
      conceits may therefore be pointed out.
    </p>
    <p>
      Obviously, the canon of conspicuous waste is accountable for a great
      portion of what may be called devout consumption; as, e.g., the
      consumption of sacred edifices, vestments, and other goods of the same
      class. Even in those modern cults to whose divinities is imputed a
      predilection for temples not built with hands, the sacred buildings and
      the other properties of the cult are constructed and decorated with some
      view to a reputable degree of wasteful expenditure. And it needs but
      little either of observation or introspection&mdash;and either will serve
      the turn&mdash;to assure us that the expensive splendor of the house of
      worship has an appreciable uplifting and mellowing effect upon the
      worshipper's frame of mind. It will serve to enforce the same fact if we
      reflect upon the sense of abject shamefulness with which any evidence of
      indigence or squalor about the sacred place affects all beholders. The
      accessories of any devout observance should be pecuniarily above reproach.
      This requirement is imperative, whatever latitude may be allowed with
      regard to these accessories in point of aesthetic or other serviceability.
      It may also be in place to notice that in all communities, especially in
      neighborhoods where the standard of pecuniary decency for dwellings is not
      high, the local sanctuary is more ornate, more conspicuously wasteful in
      its architecture and decoration, than the dwelling houses of the
      congregation. This is true of nearly all denominations and cults, whether
      Christian or Pagan, but it is true in a peculiar degree of the older and
      maturer cults. At the same time the sanctuary commonly contributes little
      if anything to the physical comfort of the members. Indeed, the sacred
      structure not only serves the physical well-being of the members to but a
      slight extent, as compared with their humbler dwelling-houses; but it is
      felt by all men that a right and enlightened sense of the true, the
      beautiful, and the good demands that in all expenditure on the sanctuary
      anything that might serve the comfort of the worshipper should be
      conspicuously absent. If any element of comfort is admitted in the
      fittings of the sanctuary, it should be at least scrupulously screened and
      masked under an ostensible austerity. In the most reputable latter-day
      houses of worship, where no expense is spared, the principle of austerity
      is carried to the length of making the fittings of the place a means of
      mortifying the flesh, especially in appearance. There are few persons of
      delicate tastes, in the matter of devout consumption to whom this
      austerely wasteful discomfort does not appeal as intrinsically right and
      good. Devout consumption is of the nature of vicarious consumption. This
      canon of devout austerity is based on the pecuniary reputability of
      conspicuously wasteful consumption, backed by the principle that vicarious
      consumption should conspicuously not conduce to the comfort of the
      vicarious consumer.
    </p>
    <p>
      The sanctuary and its fittings have something of this austerity in all the
      cults in which the saint or divinity to whom the sanctuary pertains is not
      conceived to be present and make personal use of the property for the
      gratification of luxurious tastes imputed to him. The character of the
      sacred paraphernalia is somewhat different in this respect in those cults
      where the habits of life imputed to the divinity more nearly approach
      those of an earthly patriarchal potentate&mdash;where he is conceived to
      make use of these consumable goods in person. In the latter case the
      sanctuary and its fittings take on more of the fashion given to goods
      destined for the conspicuous consumption of a temporal master or owner. On
      the other hand, where the sacred apparatus is simply employed in the
      divinity's service, that is to say, where it is consumed vicariously on
      his account by his servants, there the sacred properties take the
      character suited to goods that are destined for vicarious consumption
      only.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the latter case the sanctuary and the sacred apparatus are so contrived
      as not to enhance the comfort or fullness of life of the vicarious
      consumer, or at any rate not to convey the impression that the end of
      their consumption is the consumer's comfort. For the end of vicarious
      consumption is to enhance, not the fullness of life of the consumer, but
      the pecuniary repute of the master for whose behoof the consumption takes
      place. Therefore priestly vestments are notoriously expensive, ornate, and
      inconvenient; and in the cults where the priestly servitor of the divinity
      is not conceived to serve him in the capacity of consort, they are of an
      austere, comfortless fashion. And such it is felt that they should be.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is not only in establishing a devout standard of decent expensiveness
      that the principle of waste invades the domain of the canons of ritual
      serviceability. It touches the ways as well as the means, and draws on
      vicarious leisure as well as on vicarious consumption. Priestly demeanor
      at its best is aloof, leisurely, perfunctory, and uncontaminated with
      suggestions of sensuous pleasure. This holds true, in different degrees of
      course, for the different cults and denominations; but in the priestly
      life of all anthropomorphic cults the marks of a vicarious consumption of
      time are visible.
    </p>
    <p>
      The same pervading canon of vicarious leisure is also visibly present in
      the exterior details of devout observances and need only be pointed out in
      order to become obvious to all beholders. All ritual has a notable
      tendency to reduce itself to a rehearsal of formulas. This development of
      formula is most noticeable in the maturer cults, which have at the same
      time a more austere, ornate, and severe priestly life and garb; but it is
      perceptible also in the forms and methods of worship of the newer and
      fresher sects, whose tastes in respect of priests, vestments, and
      sanctuaries are less exacting. The rehearsal of the service (the term
      "service" carries a suggestion significant for the point in question)
      grows more perfunctory as the cult gains in age and consistency, and this
      perfunctoriness of the rehearsal is very pleasing to the correct devout
      taste. And with a good reason, for the fact of its being perfunctory goes
      to say pointedly that the master for whom it is performed is exalted above
      the vulgar need of actually proficuous service on the part of his
      servants. They are unprofitable servants, and there is an honorific
      implication for their master in their remaining unprofitable. It is
      needless to point out the close analogy at this point between the priestly
      office and the office of the footman. It is pleasing to our sense of what
      is fitting in these matters, in either case, to recognize in the obvious
      perfunctoriness of the service that it is a pro forma execution only.
      There should be no show of agility or of dexterous manipulation in the
      execution of the priestly office, such as might suggest a capacity for
      turning off the work.
    </p>
    <p>
      In all this there is of course an obvious implication as to the
      temperament, tastes, propensities, and habits of life imputed to the
      divinity by worshippers who live under the tradition of these pecuniary
      canons of reputability. Through its pervading men's habits of thought, the
      principle of conspicuous waste has colored the worshippers' notions of the
      divinity and of the relation in which the human subject stands to him. It
      is of course in the more naive cults that this suffusion of pecuniary
      beauty is most patent, but it is visible throughout. All peoples, at
      whatever stage of culture or degree of enlightenment, are fain to eke out
      a sensibly scant degree of authentic formation regarding the personality
      and habitual surroundings of their divinities. In so calling in the aid of
      fancy to enrich and fill in their picture of the divinity's presence and
      manner of life they habitually impute to him such traits as go to make up
      their ideal of a worthy man. And in seeking communion with the divinity
      the ways and means of approach are assimilated as nearly as may be to the
      divine ideal that is in men's minds at the time. It is felt that the
      divine presence is entered with the best grace, and with the best effect,
      according to certain accepted methods and with the accompaniment of
      certain material circumstances which in popular apprehension are
      peculiarly consonant with the divine nature. This popularly accepted ideal
      of the bearing and paraphernalia adequate to such occasions of communion
      is, of course, to a good extent shaped by the popular apprehension of what
      is intrinsically worthy and beautiful in human carriage and surroundings
      on all occasions of dignified intercourse. It would on this account be
      misleading to attempt an analysis of devout demeanor by referring all
      evidences of the presence of a pecuniary standard of reputability back
      directly and baldly to the underlying norm of pecuniary emulation. So it
      would also be misleading to ascribe to the divinity, as popularly
      conceived, a jealous regard for his pecuniary standing and a habit of
      avoiding and condemning squalid situations and surroundings simply because
      they are under grade in the pecuniary respect.
    </p>
    <p>
      And still, after all allowance has been made, it appears that the canons
      of pecuniary reputability do, directly or indirectly, materially affect
      our notions of the attributes of divinity, as well as our notions of what
      are the fit and adequate manner and circumstances of divine communion. It
      is felt that the divinity must be of a peculiarly serene and leisurely
      habit of life. And whenever his local habitation is pictured in poetic
      imagery, for edification or in appeal to the devout fancy, the devout
      word-painter, as a matter of course, brings out before his auditors'
      imagination a throne with a profusion of the insignia of opulence and
      power, and surrounded by a great number of servitors. In the common run of
      such presentations of the celestial abodes, the office of this corps of
      servants is a vicarious leisure, their time and efforts being in great
      measure taken up with an industrially unproductive rehearsal of the
      meritorious characteristics and exploits of the divinity; while the
      background of the presentation is filled with the shimmer of the precious
      metals and of the more expensive varieties of precious stones. It is only
      in the crasser expressions of devout fancy that this intrusion of
      pecuniary canons into the devout ideals reaches such an extreme. An
      extreme case occurs in the devout imagery of the Negro population of the
      South. Their word-painters are unable to descend to anything cheaper than
      gold; so that in this case the insistence on pecuniary beauty gives a
      startling effect in yellow&mdash;such as would be unbearable to a soberer
      taste. Still, there is probably no cult in which ideals of pecuniary merit
      have not been called in to supplement the ideals of ceremonial adequacy
      that guide men's conception of what is right in the matter of sacred
      apparatus.
    </p>
    <p>
      Similarly it is felt&mdash;and the sentiment is acted upon&mdash;that the
      priestly servitors of the divinity should not engage in industrially
      productive work; that work of any kind&mdash;any employment which is of
      tangible human use&mdash;must not be carried on in the divine presence, or
      within the precincts of the sanctuary; that whoever comes into the
      presence should come cleansed of all profane industrial features in his
      apparel or person, and should come clad in garments of more than everyday
      expensiveness; that on holidays set apart in honor of or for communion
      with the divinity no work that is of human use should be performed by any
      one. Even the remoter, lay dependents should render a vicarious leisure to
      the extent of one day in seven. In all these deliverances of men's
      uninstructed sense of what is fit and proper in devout observance and in
      the relations of the divinity, the effectual presence of the canons of
      pecuniary reputability is obvious enough, whether these canons have had
      their effect on the devout judgment in this respect immediately or at the
      second remove.
    </p>
    <p>
      These canons of reputability have had a similar, but more far-reaching and
      more specifically determinable, effect upon the popular sense of beauty or
      serviceability in consumable goods. The requirements of pecuniary decency
      have, to a very appreciable extent, influenced the sense of beauty and of
      utility in articles of use or beauty. Articles are to an extent preferred
      for use on account of their being conspicuously wasteful; they are felt to
      be serviceable somewhat in proportion as they are wasteful and ill adapted
      to their ostensible use.
    </p>
    <p>
      The utility of articles valued for their beauty depends closely upon the
      expensiveness of the articles. A homely illustration will bring out this
      dependence. A hand-wrought silver spoon, of a commercial value of some ten
      to twenty dollars, is not ordinarily more serviceable&mdash;in the first
      sense of the word&mdash;than a machine-made spoon of the same material. It
      may not even be more serviceable than a machine-made spoon of some "base"
      metal, such as aluminum, the value of which may be no more than some ten
      to twenty cents. The former of the two utensils is, in fact, commonly a
      less effective contrivance for its ostensible purpose than the latter. The
      objection is of course ready to hand that, in taking this view of the
      matter, one of the chief uses, if not the chief use, of the costlier spoon
      is ignored; the hand-wrought spoon gratifies our taste, our sense of the
      beautiful, while that made by machinery out of the base metal has no
      useful office beyond a brute efficiency. The facts are no doubt as the
      objection states them, but it will be evident on rejection that the
      objection is after all more plausible than conclusive. It appears (1) that
      while the different materials of which the two spoons are made each
      possesses beauty and serviceability for the purpose for which it is used,
      the material of the hand-wrought spoon is some one hundred times more
      valuable than the baser metal, without very greatly excelling the latter
      in intrinsic beauty of grain or color, and without being in any
      appreciable degree superior in point of mechanical serviceability; (2) if
      a close inspection should show that the supposed hand-wrought spoon were
      in reality only a very clever citation of hand-wrought goods, but an
      imitation so cleverly wrought as to give the same impression of line and
      surface to any but a minute examination by a trained eye, the utility of
      the article, including the gratification which the user derives from its
      contemplation as an object of beauty, would immediately decline by some
      eighty or ninety per cent, or even more; (3) if the two spoons are, to a
      fairly close observer, so nearly identical in appearance that the lighter
      weight of the spurious article alone betrays it, this identity of form and
      color will scarcely add to the value of the machine-made spoon, nor
      appreciably enhance the gratification of the user's "sense of beauty" in
      contemplating it, so long as the cheaper spoon is not a novelty, ad so
      long as it can be procured at a nominal cost. The case of the spoons is
      typical. The superior gratification derived from the use and contemplation
      of costly and supposedly beautiful products is, commonly, in great measure
      a gratification of our sense of costliness masquerading under the name of
      beauty. Our higher appreciation of the superior article is an appreciation
      of its superior honorific character, much more frequently than it is an
      unsophisticated appreciation of its beauty. The requirement of conspicuous
      wastefulness is not commonly present, consciously, in our canons of taste,
      but it is none the less present as a constraining norm selectively shaping
      and sustaining our sense of what is beautiful, and guiding our
      discrimination with respect to what may legitimately be approved as
      beautiful and what may not.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is at this point, where the beautiful and the honorific meet and blend,
      that a discrimination between serviceability and wastefulness is most
      difficult in any concrete case. It frequently happens that an article
      which serves the honorific purpose of conspicuous waste is at the same
      time a beautiful object; and the same application of labor to which it
      owes its utility for the former purpose may, and often does, give beauty
      of form and color to the article. The question is further complicated by
      the fact that many objects, as, for instance, the precious stones and the
      metals and some other materials used for adornment and decoration, owe
      their utility as items of conspicuous waste to an antecedent utility as
      objects of beauty. Gold, for instance, has a high degree of sensuous
      beauty very many if not most of the highly prized works of art are
      intrinsically beautiful, though often with material qualification; the
      like is true of some stuffs used for clothing, of some landscapes, and of
      many other things in less degree. Except for this intrinsic beauty which
      they possess, these objects would scarcely have been coveted as they are,
      or have become monopolized objects of pride to their possessors and users.
      But the utility of these things to the possessor is commonly due less to
      their intrinsic beauty than to the honor which their possession and
      consumption confers, or to the obloquy which it wards off.
    </p>
    <p>
      Apart from their serviceability in other respects, these objects are
      beautiful and have a utility as such; they are valuable on this account if
      they can be appropriated or monopolized; they are, therefore, coveted as
      valuable possessions, and their exclusive enjoyment gratifies the
      possessor's sense of pecuniary superiority at the same time that their
      contemplation gratifies his sense of beauty. But their beauty, in the
      naive sense of the word, is the occasion rather than the ground of their
      monopolization or of their commercial value. "Great as is the sensuous
      beauty of gems, their rarity and price adds an expression of distinction
      to them, which they would never have if they were cheap." There is,
      indeed, in the common run of cases under this head, relatively little
      incentive to the exclusive possession and use of these beautiful things,
      except on the ground of their honorific character as items of conspicuous
      waste. Most objects of this general class, with the partial exception of
      articles of personal adornment, would serve all other purposes than the
      honorific one equally well, whether owned by the person viewing them or
      not; and even as regards personal ornaments it is to be added that their
      chief purpose is to lend éclat to the person of their wearer (or owner) by
      comparison with other persons who are compelled to do without. The
      aesthetic serviceability of objects of beauty is not greatly nor
      universally heightened by possession.
    </p>
    <p>
      The generalization for which the discussion so far affords ground is that
      any valuable object in order to appeal to our sense of beauty must conform
      to the requirements of beauty and of expensiveness both. But this is not
      all. Beyond this the canon of expensiveness also affects our tastes in
      such a way as to inextricably blend the marks of expensiveness, in our
      appreciation, with the beautiful features of the object, and to subsume
      the resultant effect under the head of an appreciation of beauty simply.
      The marks of expensiveness come to be accepted as beautiful features of
      the expensive articles. They are pleasing as being marks of honorific
      costliness, and the pleasure which they afford on this score blends with
      that afforded by the beautiful form and color of the object; so that we
      often declare that an article of apparel, for instance, is "perfectly
      lovely," when pretty much all that an analysis of the aesthetic value of
      the article would leave ground for is the declaration that it is
      pecuniarily honorific.
    </p>
    <p>
      This blending and confusion of the elements of expensiveness and of beauty
      is, perhaps, best exemplified in articles of dress and of household
      furniture. The code of reputability in matters of dress decides what
      shapes, colors, materials, and general effects in human apparel are for
      the time to be accepted as suitable; and departures from the code are
      offensive to our taste, supposedly as being departures from aesthetic
      truth. The approval with which we look upon fashionable attire is by no
      means to be accounted pure make-believe. We readily, and for the most part
      with utter sincerity, find those things pleasing that are in vogue. Shaggy
      dress-stuffs and pronounced color effects, for instance, offend us at
      times when the vogue is goods of a high, glossy finish and neutral colors.
      A fancy bonnet of this year's model unquestionably appeals to our
      sensibilities today much more forcibly than an equally fancy bonnet of the
      model of last year; although when viewed in the perspective of a quarter
      of a century, it would, I apprehend, be a matter of the utmost difficulty
      to award the palm for intrinsic beauty to the one rather than to the other
      of these structures. So, again, it may be remarked that, considered simply
      in their physical juxtaposition with the human form, the high gloss of a
      gentleman's hat or of a patent-leather shoe has no more of intrinsic
      beauty than a similarly high gloss on a threadbare sleeve; and yet there
      is no question but that all well-bred people (in the Occidental civilized
      communities) instinctively and unaffectedly cleave to the one as a
      phenomenon of great beauty, and eschew the other as offensive to every
      sense to which it can appeal. It is extremely doubtful if any one could be
      induced to wear such a contrivance as the high hat of civilized society,
      except for some urgent reason based on other than aesthetic grounds.
    </p>
    <p>
      By further habituation to an appreciative perception of the marks of
      expensiveness in goods, and by habitually identifying beauty with
      reputability, it comes about that a beautiful article which is not
      expensive is accounted not beautiful. In this way it has happened, for
      instance, that some beautiful flowers pass conventionally for offensive
      weeds; others that can be cultivated with relative ease are accepted and
      admired by the lower middle class, who can afford no more expensive
      luxuries of this kind; but these varieties are rejected as vulgar by those
      people who are better able to pay for expensive flowers and who are
      educated to a higher schedule of pecuniary beauty in the florist's
      products; while still other flowers, of no greater intrinsic beauty than
      these, are cultivated at great cost and call out much admiration from
      flower-lovers whose tastes have been matured under the critical guidance
      of a polite environment.
    </p>
    <p>
      The same variation in matters of taste, from one class of society to
      another, is visible also as regards many other kinds of consumable goods,
      as, for example, is the case with furniture, houses, parks, and gardens.
      This diversity of views as to what is beautiful in these various classes
      of goods is not a diversity of the norm according to which the
      unsophisticated sense of the beautiful works. It is not a constitutional
      difference of endowments in the aesthetic respect, but rather a difference
      in the code of reputability which specifies what objects properly lie
      within the scope of honorific consumption for the class to which the
      critic belongs. It is a difference in the traditions of propriety with
      respect to the kinds of things which may, without derogation to the
      consumer, be consumed under the head of objects of taste and art. With a
      certain allowance for variations to be accounted for on other grounds,
      these traditions are determined, more or less rigidly, by the pecuniary
      plane of life of the class.
    </p>
    <p>
      Everyday life affords many curious illustrations of the way in which the
      code of pecuniary beauty in articles of use varies from class to class, as
      well as of the way in which the conventional sense of beauty departs in
      its deliverances from the sense untutored by the requirements of pecuniary
      repute. Such a fact is the lawn, or the close-cropped yard or park, which
      appeals so unaffectedly to the taste of the Western peoples. It appears
      especially to appeal to the tastes of the well-to-do classes in those
      communities in which the dolicho-blond element predominates in an
      appreciable degree. The lawn unquestionably has an element of sensuous
      beauty, simply as an object of apperception, and as such no doubt it
      appeals pretty directly to the eye of nearly all races and all classes;
      but it is, perhaps, more unquestionably beautiful to the eye of the
      dolicho-blond than to most other varieties of men. This higher
      appreciation of a stretch of greensward in this ethnic element than in the
      other elements of the population, goes along with certain other features
      of the dolicho-blond temperament that indicate that this racial element
      had once been for a long time a pastoral people inhabiting a region with a
      humid climate. The close-cropped lawn is beautiful in the eyes of a people
      whose inherited bent it is to readily find pleasure in contemplating a
      well-preserved pasture or grazing land.
    </p>
    <p>
      For the aesthetic purpose the lawn is a cow pasture; and in some cases
      today&mdash;where the expensiveness of the attendant circumstances bars
      out any imputation of thrift&mdash;the idyl of the dolicho-blond is
      rehabilitated in the introduction of a cow into a lawn or private ground.
      In such cases the cow made use of is commonly of an expensive breed. The
      vulgar suggestion of thrift, which is nearly inseparable from the cow, is
      a standing objection to the decorative use of this animal. So that in all
      cases, except where luxurious surroundings negate this suggestion, the use
      of the cow as an object of taste must be avoided. Where the predilection
      for some grazing animal to fill out the suggestion of the pasture is too
      strong to be suppressed, the cow's place is often given to some more or
      less inadequate substitute, such as deer, antelopes, or some such exotic
      beast. These substitutes, although less beautiful to the pastoral eye of
      Western man than the cow, are in such cases preferred because of their
      superior expensiveness or futility, and their consequent repute. They are
      not vulgarly lucrative either in fact or in suggestion.
    </p>
    <p>
      Public parks of course fall in the same category with the lawn; they too,
      at their best, are imitations of the pasture. Such a park is of course
      best kept by grazing, and the cattle on the grass are themselves no mean
      addition to the beauty of the thing, as need scarcely be insisted on with
      anyone who has once seen a well-kept pasture. But it is worth noting, as
      an expression of the pecuniary element in popular taste, that such a
      method of keeping public grounds is seldom resorted to. The best that is
      done by skilled workmen under the supervision of a trained keeper is a
      more or less close imitation of a pasture, but the result invariably falls
      somewhat short of the artistic effect of grazing. But to the average
      popular apprehension a herd of cattle so pointedly suggests thrift and
      usefulness that their presence in the public pleasure ground would be
      intolerably cheap. This method of keeping grounds is comparatively
      inexpensive, therefore it is indecorous.
    </p>
    <p>
      Of the same general bearing is another feature of public grounds. There is
      a studious exhibition of expensiveness coupled with a make-believe of
      simplicity and crude serviceability. Private grounds also show the same
      physiognomy wherever they are in the management or ownership of persons
      whose tastes have been formed under middle-class habits of life or under
      the upper-class traditions of no later a date than the childhood of the
      generation that is now passing. Grounds which conform to the instructed
      tastes of the latter-day upper class do not show these features in so
      marked a degree. The reason for this difference in tastes between the past
      and the incoming generation of the well-bred lies in the changing economic
      situation. A similar difference is perceptible in other respects, as well
      as in the accepted ideals of pleasure grounds. In this country as in most
      others, until the last half century but a very small proportion of the
      population were possessed of such wealth as would exempt them from thrift.
      Owing to imperfect means of communication, this small fraction were
      scattered and out of effective touch with one another. There was therefore
      no basis for a growth of taste in disregard of expensiveness. The revolt
      of the well-bred taste against vulgar thrift was unchecked. Wherever the
      unsophisticated sense of beauty might show itself sporadically in an
      approval of inexpensive or thrifty surroundings, it would lack the "social
      confirmation" which nothing but a considerable body of like-minded people
      can give. There was, therefore, no effective upper-class opinion that
      would overlook evidences of possible inexpensiveness in the management of
      grounds; and there was consequently no appreciable divergence between the
      leisure-class and the lower middle-class ideal in the physiognomy of
      pleasure grounds. Both classes equally constructed their ideals with the
      fear of pecuniary disrepute before their eyes.
    </p>
    <p>
      Today a divergence in ideals is beginning to be apparent. The portion of
      the leisure class that has been consistently exempt from work and from
      pecuniary cares for a generation or more is now large enough to form and
      sustain opinion in matters of taste. Increased mobility of the members has
      also added to the facility with which a "social confirmation" can be
      attained within the class. Within this select class the exemption from
      thrift is a matter so commonplace as to have lost much of its utility as a
      basis of pecuniary decency. Therefore the latter-day upper-class canons of
      taste do not so consistently insist on an unremitting demonstration of
      expensiveness and a strict exclusion of the appearance of thrift. So, a
      predilection for the rustic and the "natural" in parks and grounds makes
      its appearance on these higher social and intellectual levels. This
      predilection is in large part an outcropping of the instinct of
      workmanship; and it works out its results with varying degrees of
      consistency. It is seldom altogether unaffected, and at times it shades
      off into something not widely different from that make-believe of
      rusticity which has been referred to above.
    </p>
    <p>
      A weakness for crudely serviceable contrivances that pointedly suggest
      immediate and wasteless use is present even in the middle-class tastes;
      but it is there kept well in hand under the unbroken dominance of the
      canon of reputable futility. Consequently it works out in a variety of
      ways and means for shamming serviceability&mdash;in such contrivances as
      rustic fences, bridges, bowers, pavilions, and the like decorative
      features. An expression of this affectation of serviceability, at what is
      perhaps its widest divergence from the first promptings of the sense of
      economic beauty, is afforded by the cast-iron rustic fence and trellis or
      by a circuitous drive laid across level ground.
    </p>
    <p>
      The select leisure class has outgrown the use of these pseudo-serviceable
      variants of pecuniary beauty, at least at some points. But the taste of
      the more recent accessions to the leisure class proper and of the middle
      and lower classes still requires a pecuniary beauty to supplement the
      aesthetic beauty, even in those objects which are primarily admired for
      the beauty that belongs to them as natural growths.
    </p>
    <p>
      The popular taste in these matters is to be seen in the prevalent high
      appreciation of topiary work and of the conventional flower-beds of public
      grounds. Perhaps as happy an illustration as may be had of this dominance
      of pecuniary beauty over aesthetic beauty in middle-class tastes is seen
      in the reconstruction of the grounds lately occupied by the Columbian
      Exposition. The evidence goes to show that the requirement of reputable
      expensiveness is still present in good vigor even where all ostensibly
      lavish display is avoided. The artistic effects actually wrought in this
      work of reconstruction diverge somewhat widely from the effect to which
      the same ground would have lent itself in hands not guided by pecuniary
      canons of taste. And even the better class of the city's population view
      the progress of the work with an unreserved approval which suggests that
      there is in this case little if any discrepancy between the tastes of the
      upper and the lower or middle classes of the city. The sense of beauty in
      the population of this representative city of the advanced pecuniary
      culture is very chary of any departure from its great cultural principle
      of conspicuous waste.
    </p>
    <p>
      The love of nature, perhaps itself borrowed from a higher-class code of
      taste, sometimes expresses itself in unexpected ways under the guidance of
      this canon of pecuniary beauty, and leads to results that may seem
      incongruous to an unreflecting beholder. The well-accepted practice of
      planting trees in the treeless areas of this country, for instance, has
      been carried over as an item of honorific expenditure into the heavily
      wooded areas; so that it is by no means unusual for a village or a farmer
      in the wooded country to clear the land of its native trees and
      immediately replant saplings of certain introduced varieties about the
      farmyard or along the streets. In this way a forest growth of oak, elm,
      beech, butternut, hemlock, basswood, and birch is cleared off to give room
      for saplings of soft maple, cottonwood, and brittle willow. It is felt
      that the inexpensiveness of leaving the forest trees standing would
      derogate from the dignity that should invest an article which is intended
      to serve a decorative and honorific end.
    </p>
    <p>
      The like pervading guidance of taste by pecuniary repute is traceable in
      the prevalent standards of beauty in animals. The part played by this
      canon of taste in assigning her place in the popular aesthetic scale to
      the cow has already been spokes of. Something to the same effect is true
      of the other domestic animals, so far as they are in an appreciable degree
      industrially useful to the community&mdash;as, for instance, barnyard
      fowl, hogs, cattle, sheep, goats, draught-horses. They are of the nature
      of productive goods, and serve a useful, often a lucrative end; therefore
      beauty is not readily imputed to them. The case is different with those
      domestic animals which ordinarily serve no industrial end; such as
      pigeons, parrots and other cage-birds, cats, dogs, and fast horses. These
      commonly are items of conspicuous consumption, and are therefore honorific
      in their nature and may legitimately be accounted beautiful. This class of
      animals are conventionally admired by the body of the upper classes, while
      the pecuniarily lower classes&mdash;and that select minority of the
      leisure class among whom the rigorous canon that abjures thrift is in a
      measure obsolescent&mdash;find beauty in one class of animals as in
      another, without drawing a hard and fast line of pecuniary demarcation
      between the beautiful and the ugly. In the case of those domestic animals
      which are honorific and are reputed beautiful, there is a subsidiary basis
      of merit that should be spokes of. Apart from the birds which belong in
      the honorific class of domestic animals, and which owe their place in this
      class to their non-lucrative character alone, the animals which merit
      particular attention are cats, dogs, and fast horses. The cat is less
      reputable than the other two just named, because she is less wasteful; she
      may even serve a useful end. At the same time the cat's temperament does
      not fit her for the honorific purpose. She lives with man on terms of
      equality, knows nothing of that relation of status which is the ancient
      basis of all distinctions of worth, honor, and repute, and she does not
      lend herself with facility to an invidious comparison between her owner
      and his neighbors. The exception to this last rule occurs in the case of
      such scarce and fanciful products as the Angora cat, which have some
      slight honorific value on the ground of expensiveness, and have,
      therefore, some special claim to beauty on pecuniary grounds.
    </p>
    <p>
      The dog has advantages in the way of uselessness as well as in special
      gifts of temperament. He is often spoken of, in an eminent sense, as the
      friend of man, and his intelligence and fidelity are praised. The meaning
      of this is that the dog is man's servant and that he has the gift of an
      unquestioning subservience and a slave's quickness in guessing his
      master's mood. Coupled with these traits, which fit him well for the
      relation of status&mdash;and which must for the present purpose be set
      down as serviceable traits&mdash;the dog has some characteristics which
      are of a more equivocal aesthetic value. He is the filthiest of the
      domestic animals in his person and the nastiest in his habits. For this he
      makes up is a servile, fawning attitude towards his master, and a
      readiness to inflict damage and discomfort on all else. The dog, then,
      commends himself to our favor by affording play to our propensity for
      mastery, and as he is also an item of expense, and commonly serves no
      industrial purpose, he holds a well-assured place in men's regard as a
      thing of good repute. The dog is at the same time associated in our
      imagination with the chase&mdash;a meritorious employment and an
      expression of the honorable predatory impulse. Standing on this vantage
      ground, whatever beauty of form and motion and whatever commendable mental
      traits he may possess are conventionally acknowledged and magnified. And
      even those varieties of the dog which have been bred into grotesque
      deformity by the dog-fancier are in good faith accounted beautiful by
      many. These varieties of dogs&mdash;and the like is true of other
      fancy-bred animals&mdash;are rated and graded in aesthetic value somewhat
      in proportion to the degree of grotesqueness and instability of the
      particular fashion which the deformity takes in the given case. For the
      purpose in hand, this differential utility on the ground of grotesqueness
      and instability of structure is reducible to terms of a greater scarcity
      and consequent expense. The commercial value of canine monstrosities, such
      as the prevailing styles of pet dogs both for men's and women's use, rests
      on their high cost of production, and their value to their owners lies
      chiefly in their utility as items of conspicuous consumption. Indirectly,
      through reflection upon their honorific expensiveness, a social worth is
      imputed to them; and so, by an easy substitution of words and ideas, they
      come to be admired and reputed beautiful. Since any attention bestowed
      upon these animals is in no sense gainful or useful, it is also reputable;
      and since the habit of giving them attention is consequently not
      deprecated, it may grow into an habitual attachment of great tenacity and
      of a most benevolent character. So that in the affection bestowed on pet
      animals the canon of expensiveness is present more or less remotely as a
      norm which guides and shapes the sentiment and the selection of its
      object. The like is true, as will be noticed presently, with respect to
      affection for persons also; although the manner in which the norm acts in
      that case is somewhat different.
    </p>
    <p>
      The case of the fast horse is much like that of the dog. He is on the
      whole expensive, or wasteful and useless&mdash;for the industrial purpose.
      What productive use he may possess, in the way of enhancing the well-being
      of the community or making the way of life easier for men, takes the form
      of exhibitions of force and facility of motion that gratify the popular
      aesthetic sense. This is of course a substantial serviceability. The horse
      is not endowed with the spiritual aptitude for servile dependence in the
      same measure as the dog; but he ministers effectually to his master's
      impulse to convert the "animate" forces of the environment to his own use
      and discretion and so express his own dominating individuality through
      them. The fast horse is at least potentially a race-horse, of high or low
      degree; and it is as such that he is peculiarly serviceable to his owner.
      The utility of the fast horse lies largely in his efficiency as a means of
      emulation; it gratifies the owner's sense of aggression and dominance to
      have his own horse outstrip his neighbor's. This use being not lucrative,
      but on the whole pretty consistently wasteful, and quite conspicuously so,
      it is honorific, and therefore gives the fast horse a strong presumptive
      position of reputability. Beyond this, the race-horse proper has also a
      similarly non-industrial but honorific use as a gambling instrument.
    </p>
    <p>
      The fast horse, then, is aesthetically fortunate, in that the canon of
      pecuniary good repute legitimates a free appreciation of whatever beauty
      or serviceability he may possess. His pretensions have the countenance of
      the principle of conspicuous waste and the backing of the predatory
      aptitude for dominance and emulation. The horse is, moreover, a beautiful
      animal, although the race-horse is so in no peculiar degree to the
      uninstructed taste of those persons who belong neither in the class of
      race-horse fanciers nor in the class whose sense of beauty is held in
      abeyance by the moral constraint of the horse fancier's award. To this
      untutored taste the most beautiful horse seems to be a form which has
      suffered less radical alteration than the race-horse under the breeder's
      selective development of the animal. Still, when a writer or speaker&mdash;especially
      of those whose eloquence is most consistently commonplace wants an
      illustration of animal grace and serviceability, for rhetorical use, he
      habitually turns to the horse; and he commonly makes it plain before he is
      done that what he has in mind is the race-horse.
    </p>
    <p>
      It should be noted that in the graduated appreciation of varieties of
      horses and of dogs, such as one meets with among people of even moderately
      cultivated tastes in these matters, there is also discernible another and
      more direct line of influence of the leisure-class canons of reputability.
      In this country, for instance, leisure-class tastes are to some extent
      shaped on usages and habits which prevail, or which are apprehended to
      prevail, among the leisure class of Great Britain. In dogs this is true to
      a less extent than in horses. In horses, more particularly in saddle
      horses&mdash;which at their best serve the purpose of wasteful display
      simply&mdash;it will hold true in a general way that a horse is more
      beautiful in proportion as he is more English; the English leisure class
      being, for purposes of reputable usage, the upper leisure class of this
      country, and so the exemplar for the lower grades. This mimicry in the
      methods of the apperception of beauty and in the forming of judgments of
      taste need not result in a spurious, or at any rate not a hypocritical or
      affected, predilection. The predilection is as serious and as substantial
      an award of taste when it rests on this basis as when it rests on any
      other, the difference is that this taste is and as substantial an award of
      taste when it rests on this basis as when it rests on any other; the
      difference is that this taste is a taste for the reputably correct, not
      for the aesthetically true.
    </p>
    <p>
      The mimicry, it should be said, extends further than to the sense of
      beauty in horseflesh simply. It includes trappings and horsemanship as
      well, so that the correct or reputably beautiful seat or posture is also
      decided by English usage, as well as the equestrian gait. To show how
      fortuitous may sometimes be the circumstances which decide what shall be
      becoming and what not under the pecuniary canon of beauty, it may be noted
      that this English seat, and the peculiarly distressing gait which has made
      an awkward seat necessary, are a survival from the time when the English
      roads were so bad with mire and mud as to be virtually impassable for a
      horse travelling at a more comfortable gait; so that a person of decorous
      tastes in horsemanship today rides a punch with docked tail, in an
      uncomfortable posture and at a distressing gait, because the English roads
      during a great part of the last century were impassable for a horse
      travelling at a more horse-like gait, or for an animal built for moving
      with ease over the firm and open country to which the horse is indigenous.
      It is not only with respect to consumable goods&mdash;including domestic
      animals&mdash;that the canons of taste have been colored by the canons of
      pecuniary reputability. Something to the like effect is to be said for
      beauty in persons. In order to avoid whatever may be matter of
      controversy, no weight will be given in this connection to such popular
      predilection as there may be for the dignified (leisurely) bearing and
      poly presence that are by vulgar tradition associated with opulence in
      mature men. These traits are in some measure accepted as elements of
      personal beauty. But there are certain elements of feminine beauty, on the
      other hand, which come in under this head, and which are of so concrete
      and specific a character as to admit of itemized appreciation. It is more
      or less a rule that in communities which are at the stage of economic
      development at which women are valued by the upper class for their
      service, the ideal of female beauty is a robust, large-limbed woman. The
      ground of appreciation is the physique, while the conformation of the face
      is of secondary weight only. A well-known instance of this ideal of the
      early predatory culture is that of the maidens of the Homeric poems.
    </p>
    <p>
      This ideal suffers a change in the succeeding development, when, in the
      conventional scheme, the office of the high-class wife comes to be a
      vicarious leisure simply. The ideal then includes the characteristics
      which are supposed to result from or to go with a life of leisure
      consistently enforced. The ideal accepted under these circumstances may be
      gathered from descriptions of beautiful women by poets and writers of the
      chivalric times. In the conventional scheme of those days ladies of high
      degree were conceived to be in perpetual tutelage, and to be scrupulously
      exempt from all useful work. The resulting chivalric or romantic ideal of
      beauty takes cognizance chiefly of the face, and dwells on its delicacy,
      and on the delicacy of the hands and feet, the slender figure, and
      especially the slender waist. In the pictured representations of the women
      of that time, and in modern romantic imitators of the chivalric thought
      and feeling, the waist is attenuated to a degree that implies extreme
      debility. The same ideal is still extant among a considerable portion of
      the population of modern industrial communities; but it is to be said that
      it has retained its hold most tenaciously in those modern communities
      which are least advanced in point of economic and civil development, and
      which show the most considerable survivals of status and of predatory
      institutions. That is to say, the chivalric ideal is best preserved in
      those existing communities which are substantially least modern. Survivals
      of this lackadaisical or romantic ideal occur freely in the tastes of the
      well-to-do classes of Continental countries. In modern communities which
      have reached the higher levels of industrial development, the upper
      leisure class has accumulated so great a mass of wealth as to place its
      women above all imputation of vulgarly productive labor. Here the status
      of women as vicarious consumers is beginning to lose its place in the
      sections of the body of the people; and as a consequence the ideal of
      feminine beauty is beginning to change back again from the infirmly
      delicate, translucent, and hazardously slender, to a woman of the archaic
      type that does not disown her hands and feet, nor, indeed, the other gross
      material facts of her person. In the course of economic development the
      ideal of beauty among the peoples of the Western culture has shifted from
      the woman of physical presence to the lady, and it is beginning to shift
      back again to the woman; and all in obedience to the changing conditions
      of pecuniary emulation. The exigencies of emulation at one time required
      lusty slaves; at another time they required a conspicuous performance of
      vicarious leisure and consequently an obvious disability; but the
      situation is now beginning to outgrow this last requirement, since, under
      the higher efficiency of modern industry, leisure in women is possible so
      far down the scale of reputability that it will no longer serve as a
      definitive mark of the highest pecuniary grade.
    </p>
    <p>
      Apart from this general control exercised by the norm of conspicuous waste
      over the ideal of feminine beauty, there are one or two details which
      merit specific mention as showing how it may exercise an extreme
      constraint in detail over men's sense of beauty in women. It has already
      been noticed that at the stages of economic evolution at which conspicuous
      leisure is much regarded as a means of good repute, the ideal requires
      delicate and diminutive hands and feet and a slender waist. These
      features, together with the other, related faults of structure that
      commonly go with them, go to show that the person so affected is incapable
      of useful effort and must therefore be supported in idleness by her owner.
      She is useless and expensive, and she is consequently valuable as evidence
      of pecuniary strength. It results that at this cultural stage women take
      thought to alter their persons, so as to conform more nearly to the
      requirements of the instructed taste of the time; and under the guidance
      of the canon of pecuniary decency, the men find the resulting artificially
      induced pathological features attractive. So, for instance, the
      constricted waist which has had so wide and persistent a vogue in the
      communities of the Western culture, and so also the deformed foot of the
      Chinese. Both of these are mutilations of unquestioned repulsiveness to
      the untrained sense. It requires habituation to become reconciled to them.
      Yet there is no room to question their attractiveness to men into whose
      scheme of life they fit as honorific items sanctioned by the requirements
      of pecuniary reputability. They are items of pecuniary and cultural beauty
      which have come to do duty as elements of the ideal of womanliness.
    </p>
    <p>
      The connection here indicated between the aesthetic value and the
      invidious pecuniary value of things is of course not present in the
      consciousness of the valuer. So far as a person, in forming a judgment of
      taste, takes thought and reflects that the object of beauty under
      consideration is wasteful and reputable, and therefore may legitimately be
      accounted beautiful; so far the judgment is not a bona fide judgment of
      taste and does not come up for consideration in this connection. The
      connection which is here insisted on between the reputability and the
      apprehended beauty of objects lies through the effect which the fact of
      reputability has upon the valuer's habits of thought. He is in the habit
      of forming judgments of value of various kinds-economic, moral, aesthetic,
      or reputable concerning the objects with which he has to do, and his
      attitude of commendation towards a given object on any other ground will
      affect the degree of his appreciation of the object when he comes to value
      it for the aesthetic purpose. This is more particularly true as regards
      valuation on grounds so closely related to the aesthetic ground as that of
      reputability. The valuation for the aesthetic purpose and for the purpose
      of repute are not held apart as distinctly as might be. Confusion is
      especially apt to arise between these two kinds of valuation, because the
      value of objects for repute is not habitually distinguished in speech by
      the use of a special descriptive term. The result is that the terms in
      familiar use to designate categories or elements of beauty are applied to
      cover this unnamed element of pecuniary merit, and the corresponding
      confusion of ideas follows by easy consequence. The demands of
      reputability in this way coalesce in the popular apprehension with the
      demands of the sense of beauty, and beauty which is not accompanied by the
      accredited marks of good repute is not accepted. But the requirements of
      pecuniary reputability and those of beauty in the naive sense do not in
      any appreciable degree coincide. The elimination from our surroundings of
      the pecuniarily unfit, therefore, results in a more or less thorough
      elimination of that considerable range of elements of beauty which do not
      happen to conform to the pecuniary requirement. The underlying norms of
      taste are of very ancient growth, probably far antedating the advent of
      the pecuniary institutions that are here under discussion. Consequently,
      by force of the past selective adaptation of men's habits of thought, it
      happens that the requirements of beauty, simply, are for the most part
      best satisfied by inexpensive contrivances and structures which in a
      straightforward manner suggest both the office which they are to perform
      and the method of serving their end. It may be in place to recall the
      modern psychological position. Beauty of form seems to be a question of
      facility of apperception. The proposition could perhaps safely be made
      broader than this. If abstraction is made from association, suggestion,
      and "expression," classed as elements of beauty, then beauty in any
      perceived object means that the mind readily unfolds its apperceptive
      activity in the directions which the object in question affords. But the
      directions in which activity readily unfolds or expresses itself are the
      directions to which long and close habituation has made the mind prone. So
      far as concerns the essential elements of beauty, this habituation is an
      habituation so close and long as to have induced not only a proclivity to
      the apperceptive form in question, but an adaptation of physiological
      structure and function as well. So far as the economic interest enters
      into the constitution of beauty, it enters as a suggestion or expression
      of adequacy to a purpose, a manifest and readily inferable subservience to
      the life process. This expression of economic facility or economic
      serviceability in any object&mdash;what may be called the economic beauty
      of the object-is best served by neat and unambiguous suggestion of its
      office and its efficiency for the material ends of life.
    </p>
    <p>
      On this ground, among objects of use the simple and unadorned article is
      aesthetically the best. But since the pecuniary canon of reputability
      rejects the inexpensive in articles appropriated to individual
      consumption, the satisfaction of our craving for beautiful things must be
      sought by way of compromise. The canons of beauty must be circumvented by
      some contrivance which will give evidence of a reputably wasteful
      expenditure, at the same time that it meets the demands of our critical
      sense of the useful and the beautiful, or at least meets the demand of
      some habit which has come to do duty in place of that sense. Such an
      auxiliary sense of taste is the sense of novelty; and this latter is
      helped out in its surrogateship by the curiosity with which men view
      ingenious and puzzling contrivances. Hence it comes that most objects
      alleged to be beautiful, and doing duty as such, show considerable
      ingenuity of design and are calculated to puzzle the beholder&mdash;to
      bewilder him with irrelevant suggestions and hints of the improbable&mdash;at
      the same time that they give evidence of an expenditure of labor in excess
      of what would give them their fullest efficency for their ostensible
      economic end.
    </p>
    <p>
      This may be shown by an illustration taken from outside the range of our
      everyday habits and everyday contact, and so outside the range of our
      bias. Such are the remarkable feather mantles of Hawaii, or the well-known
      cawed handles of the ceremonial adzes of several Polynesian islands. These
      are undeniably beautiful, both in the sense that they offer a pleasing
      composition of form, lines, and color, and in the sense that they evince
      great skill and ingenuity in design and construction. At the same time the
      articles are manifestly ill fitted to serve any other economic purpose.
      But it is not always that the evolution of ingenious and puzzling
      contrivances under the guidance of the canon of wasted effort works out so
      happy a result. The result is quite as often a virtually complete
      suppression of all elements that would bear scrutiny as expressions of
      beauty, or of serviceability, and the substitution of evidences of
      misspent ingenuity and labor, backed by a conspicuous ineptitude; until
      many of the objects with which we surround ourselves in everyday life, and
      even many articles of everyday dress and ornament, are such as would not
      be tolerated except under the stress of prescriptive tradition.
      Illustrations of this substitution of ingenuity and expense in place of
      beauty and serviceability are to be seen, for instance, in domestic
      architecture, in domestic art or fancy work, in various articles of
      apparel, especially of feminine and priestly apparel.
    </p>
    <p>
      The canon of beauty requires expression of the generic. The "novelty" due
      to the demands of conspicuous waste traverses this canon of beauty, in
      that it results in making the physiognomy of our objects of taste a
      congeries of idiosyncrasies; and the idiosyncrasies are, moreover, under
      the selective surveillance of the canon of expensiveness.
    </p>
    <p>
      This process of selective adaptation of designs to the end of conspicuous
      waste, and the substitution of pecuniary beauty for aesthetic beauty, has
      been especially effective in the development of architecture. It would be
      extremely difficult to find a modern civilized residence or public
      building which can claim anything better than relative inoffensiveness in
      the eyes of anyone who will dissociate the elements of beauty from those
      of honorific waste. The endless variety of fronts presented by the better
      class of tenements and apartment houses in our cities is an endless
      variety of architectural distress and of suggestions of expensive
      discomfort. Considered as objects of beauty, the dead walls of the sides
      and back of these structures, left untouched by the hands of the artist,
      are commonly the best feature of the building.
    </p>
    <p>
      What has been said of the influence of the law of conspicuous waste upon
      the canons of taste will hold true, with but a slight change of terms, of
      its influence upon our notions of the serviceability of goods for other
      ends than the aesthetic one. Goods are produced and consumed as a means to
      the fuller unfolding of human life; and their utility consists, in the
      first instance, in their efficiency as means to this end. The end is, in
      the first instance, the fullness of life of the individual, taken in
      absolute terms. But the human proclivity to emulation has seized upon the
      consumption of goods as a means to an invidious comparison, and has
      thereby invested consumable goods with a secondary utility as evidence of
      relative ability to pay. This indirect or secondary use of consumable
      goods lends an honorific character to consumption and presently also to
      the goods which best serve the emulative end of consumption. The
      consumption of expensive goods is meritorious, and the goods which contain
      an appreciable element of cost in excess of what goes to give them
      serviceability for their ostensible mechanical purpose are honorific. The
      marks of superfluous costliness in the goods are therefore marks of worth&mdash;of
      high efficency for the indirect, invidious end to be served by their
      consumption; and conversely, goods are humilific, and therefore
      unattractive, if they show too thrifty an adaptation to the mechanical end
      sought and do not include a margin of expensiveness on which to rest a
      complacent invidious comparison. This indirect utility gives much of their
      value to the "better" grades of goods. In order to appeal to the
      cultivated sense of utility, an article must contain a modicum of this
      indirect utility.
    </p>
    <p>
      While men may have set out with disapproving an inexpensive manner of
      living because it indicated inability to spend much, and so indicated a
      lack of pecuniary success, they end by falling into the habit of
      disapproving cheap things as being intrinsically dishonorable or unworthy
      because they are cheap. As time has gone on, each succeeding generation
      has received this tradition of meritorious expenditure from the generation
      before it, and has in its turn further elaborated and fortified the
      traditional canon of pecuniary reputability in goods consumed; until we
      have finally reached such a degree of conviction as to the unworthiness of
      all inexpensive things, that we have no longer any misgivings in
      formulating the maxim, "Cheap and nasty." So thoroughly has the habit of
      approving the expensive and disapproving the inexpensive been ingrained
      into our thinking that we instinctively insist upon at least some measure
      of wasteful expensiveness in all our consumption, even in the case of
      goods which are consumed in strict privacy and without the slightest
      thought of display. We all feel, sincerely and without misgiving, that we
      are the more lifted up in spirit for having, even in the privacy of our
      own household, eaten our daily meal by the help of hand-wrought silver
      utensils, from hand-painted china (often of dubious artistic value) laid
      on high-priced table linen. Any retrogression from the standard of living
      which we are accustomed to regard as worthy in this respect is felt to be
      a grievous violation of our human dignity. So, also, for the last dozen
      years candles have been a more pleasing source of light at dinner than any
      other. Candlelight is now softer, less distressing to well-bred eyes, than
      oil, gas, or electric light. The same could not have been said thirty
      years ago, when candles were, or recently had been, the cheapest available
      light for domestic use. Nor are candles even now found to give an
      acceptable or effective light for any other than a ceremonial
      illumination.
    </p>
    <p>
      A political sage still living has summed up the conclusion of this whole
      matter in the dictum: "A cheap coat makes a cheap man," and there is
      probably no one who does not feel the convincing force of the maxim.
    </p>
    <p>
      The habit of looking for the marks of superfluous expensiveness in goods,
      and of requiring that all goods should afford some utility of the indirect
      or invidious sort, leads to a change in the standards by which the utility
      of goods is gauged. The honorific element and the element of brute
      efficiency are not held apart in the consumer's appreciation of
      commodities, and the two together go to make up the unanalyzed aggregate
      serviceability of the goods. Under the resulting standard of
      serviceability, no article will pass muster on the strength of material
      sufficiency alone. In order to completeness and full acceptability to the
      consumer it must also show the honorific element. It results that the
      producers of articles of consumption direct their efforts to the
      production of goods that shall meet this demand for the honorific element.
      They will do this with all the more alacrity and effect, since they are
      themselves under the dominance of the same standard of worth in goods, and
      would be sincerely grieved at the sight of goods which lack the proper
      honorific finish. Hence it has come about that there are today no goods
      supplied in any trade which do not contain the honorific element in
      greater or less degree. Any consumer who might, Diogenes-like, insist on
      the elimination of all honorific or wasteful elements from his
      consumption, would be unable to supply his most trivial wants in the
      modern market. Indeed, even if he resorted to supplying his wants directly
      by his own efforts, he would find it difficult if not impossible to divest
      himself of the current habits of thought on this head; so that he could
      scarcely compass a supply of the necessaries of life for a day's
      consumption without instinctively and by oversight incorporating in his
      home-made product something of this honorific, quasi-decorative element of
      wasted labor.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is notorious that in their selection of serviceable goods in the retail
      market purchasers are guided more by the finish and workmanship of the
      goods than by any marks of substantial serviceability. Goods, in order to
      sell, must have some appreciable amount of labor spent in giving them the
      marks of decent expensiveness, in addition to what goes to give them
      efficiency for the material use which they are to serve. This habit of
      making obvious costliness a canon of serviceability of course acts to
      enhance the aggregate cost of articles of consumption. It puts us on our
      guard against cheapness by identifying merit in some degree with cost.
      There is ordinarily a consistent effort on the part of the consumer to
      obtain goods of the required serviceability at as advantageous a bargain
      as may be; but the conventional requirement of obvious costliness, as a
      voucher and a constituent of the serviceability of the goods, leads him to
      reject as under grade such goods as do not contain a large element of
      conspicuous waste.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is to be added that a large share of those features of consumable goods
      which figure in popular apprehension as marks of serviceability, and to
      which reference is here had as elements of conspicuous waste, commend
      themselves to the consumer also on other grounds than that of
      expensiveness alone. They usually give evidence of skill and effective
      workmanship, even if they do not contribute to the substantial
      serviceability of the goods; and it is no doubt largely on some such
      ground that any particular mark of honorific serviceability first comes
      into vogue and afterward maintains its footing as a normal constituent
      element of the worth of an article. A display of efficient workmanship is
      pleasing simply as such, even where its remoter, for the time
      unconsidered, outcome is futile. There is a gratification of the artistic
      sense in the contemplation of skillful work. But it is also to be added
      that no such evidence of skillful workmanship, or of ingenious and
      effective adaptation of means to an end, will, in the long run, enjoy the
      approbation of the modern civilized consumer unless it has the sanction of
      the Canon of conspicuous waste.
    </p>
    <p>
      The position here taken is enforced in a felicitous manner by the place
      assigned in the economy of consumption to machine products. The point of
      material difference between machine-made goods and the hand-wrought goods
      which serve the same purposes is, ordinarily, that the former serve their
      primary purpose more adequately. They are a more perfect product&mdash;show
      a more perfect adaptation of means to end. This does not save them from
      disesteem and deprecation, for they fall short under the test of honorific
      waste. Hand labor is a more wasteful method of production; hence the goods
      turned out by this method are more serviceable for the purpose of
      pecuniary reputability; hence the marks of hand labor come to be
      honorific, and the goods which exhibit these marks take rank as of higher
      grade than the corresponding machine product. Commonly, if not invariably,
      the honorific marks of hand labor are certain imperfections and
      irregularities in the lines of the hand-wrought article, showing where the
      workman has fallen short in the execution of the design. The ground of the
      superiority of hand-wrought goods, therefore, is a certain margin of
      crudeness. This margin must never be so wide as to show bungling
      workmanship, since that would be evidence of low cost, nor so narrow as to
      suggest the ideal precision attained only by the machine, for that would
      be evidence of low cost.
    </p>
    <p>
      The appreciation of those evidences of honorific crudeness to which
      hand-wrought goods owe their superior worth and charm in the eyes of
      well-bred people is a matter of nice discrimination. It requires training
      and the formation of right habits of thought with respect to what may be
      called the physiognomy of goods. Machine-made goods of daily use are often
      admired and preferred precisely on account of their excessive perfection
      by the vulgar and the underbred who have not given due thought to the
      punctilios of elegant consumption. The ceremonial inferiority of machine
      products goes to show that the perfection of skill and workmanship
      embodied in any costly innovations in the finish of goods is not
      sufficient of itself to secure them acceptance and permanent favor. The
      innovation must have the support of the canon of conspicuous waste. Any
      feature in the physiognomy of goods, however pleasing in itself, and
      however well it may approve itself to the taste for effective work, will
      not be tolerated if it proves obnoxious to this norm of pecuniary
      reputability.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ceremonial inferiority or uncleanness in consumable goods due to
      "commonness," or in other words to their slight cost of production, has
      been taken very seriously by many persons. The objection to machine
      products is often formulated as an objection to the commonness of such
      goods. What is common is within the (pecuniary) reach of many people. Its
      consumption is therefore not honorific, since it does not serve the
      purpose of a favorable invidious comparison with other consumers. Hence
      the consumption, or even the sight of such goods, is inseparable from an
      odious suggestion of the lower levels of human life, and one comes away
      from their contemplation with a pervading sense of meanness that is
      extremely distasteful and depressing to a person of sensibility. In
      persons whose tastes assert themselves imperiously, and who have not the
      gift, habit, or incentive to discriminate between the grounds of their
      various judgments of taste, the deliverances of the sense of the honorific
      coalesce with those of the sense of beauty and of the sense of
      serviceability&mdash;in the manner already spoken of; the resulting
      composite valuation serves as a judgment of the object's beauty or its
      serviceability, according as the valuer's bias or interest inclines him to
      apprehend the object in the one or the other of these aspects. It follows
      not infrequently that the marks of cheapness or commonness are accepted as
      definitive marks of artistic unfitness, and a code or schedule of
      aesthetic proprieties on the one hand, and of aesthetic abominations on
      the other, is constructed on this basis for guidance in questions of
      taste.
    </p>
    <p>
      As has already been pointed out, the cheap, and therefore indecorous,
      articles of daily consumption in modern industrial communities are
      commonly machine products; and the generic feature of the physiognomy of
      machine-made goods as compared with the hand-wrought article is their
      greater perfection in workmanship and greater accuracy in the detail
      execution of the design. Hence it comes about that the visible
      imperfections of the hand-wrought goods, being honorific, are accounted
      marks of superiority in point of beauty, or serviceability, or both. Hence
      has arisen that exaltation of the defective, of which John Ruskin and
      William Morris were such eager spokesmen in their time; and on this ground
      their propaganda of crudity and wasted effort has been taken up and
      carried forward since their time. And hence also the propaganda for a
      return to handicraft and household industry. So much of the work and
      speculations of this group of men as fairly comes under the
      characterization here given would have been impossible at a time when the
      visibly more perfect goods were not the cheaper.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is of course only as to the economic value of this school of aesthetic
      teaching that anything is intended to be said or can be said here. What is
      said is not to be taken in the sense of depreciation, but chiefly as a
      characterization of the tendency of this teaching in its effect on
      consumption and on the production of consumable goods.
    </p>
    <p>
      The manner in which the bias of this growth of taste has worked itself out
      in production is perhaps most cogently exemplified in the book manufacture
      with which Morris busied himself during the later years of his life; but
      what holds true of the work of the Kelmscott Press in an eminent degree,
      holds true with but slightly abated force when applied to latter-day
      artistic book-making generally&mdash;as to type, paper, illustration,
      binding materials, and binder's work. The claims to excellence put forward
      by the later products of the bookmaker's industry rest in some measure on
      the degree of its approximation to the crudities of the time when the work
      of book-making was a doubtful struggle with refractory materials carried
      on by means of insufficient appliances. These products, since they require
      hand labor, are more expensive; they are also less convenient for use than
      the books turned out with a view to serviceability alone; they therefore
      argue ability on the part of the purchaser to consume freely, as well as
      ability to waste time and effort. It is on this basis that the printers of
      today are returning to "old-style," and other more or less obsolete styles
      of type which are less legible and give a cruder appearance to the page
      than the "modern." Even a scientific periodical, with ostensibly no
      purpose but the most effective presentation of matter with which its
      science is concerned, will concede so much to the demands of this
      pecuniary beauty as to publish its scientific discussions in oldstyle
      type, on laid paper, and with uncut edges. But books which are not
      ostensibly concerned with the effective presentation of their contents
      alone, of course go farther in this direction. Here we have a somewhat
      cruder type, printed on hand-laid, deckel-edged paper, with excessive
      margins and uncut leaves, with bindings of a painstaking crudeness and
      elaborate ineptitude. The Kelmscott Press reduced the matter to an
      absurdity&mdash;as seen from the point of view of brute serviceability
      alone&mdash;by issuing books for modern use, edited with the obsolete
      spelling, printed in black-letter, and bound in limp vellum fitted with
      thongs. As a further characteristic feature which fixes the economic place
      of artistic book-making, there is the fact that these more elegant books
      are, at their best, printed in limited editions. A limited edition is in
      effect a guarantee&mdash;somewhat crude, it is true&mdash;that this book
      is scarce and that it therefore is costly and lends pecuniary distinction
      to its consumer.
    </p>
    <p>
      The special attractiveness of these book-products to the book-buyer of
      cultivated taste lies, of course, not in a conscious, naive recognition of
      their costliness and superior clumsiness. Here, as in the parallel case of
      the superiority of hand-wrought articles over machine products, the
      conscious ground of preference is an intrinsic excellence imputed to the
      costlier and more awkward article. The superior excellence imputed to the
      book which imitates the products of antique and obsolete processes is
      conceived to be chiefly a superior utility in the aesthetic respect; but
      it is not unusual to find a well-bred book-lover insisting that the
      clumsier product is also more serviceable as a vehicle of printed speech.
      So far as regards the superior aesthetic value of the decadent book, the
      chances are that the book-lover's contention has some ground. The book is
      designed with an eye single to its beauty, and the result is commonly some
      measure of success on the part of the designer. What is insisted on here,
      however, is that the canon of taste under which the designer works is a
      canon formed under the surveillance of the law of conspicuous waste, and
      that this law acts selectively to eliminate any canon of taste that does
      not conform to its demands. That is to say, while the decadent book may be
      beautiful, the limits within which the designer may work are fixed by
      requirements of a non-aesthetic kind. The product, if it is beautiful,
      must also at the same time be costly and ill adapted to its ostensible
      use. This mandatory canon of taste in the case of the book-designer,
      however, is not shaped entirely by the law of waste in its first form; the
      canon is to some extent shaped in conformity to that secondary expression
      of the predatory temperament, veneration for the archaic or obsolete,
      which in one of its special developments is called classicism. In
      aesthetic theory it might be extremely difficult, if not quite
      impracticable, to draw a line between the canon of classicism, or regard
      for the archaic, and the canon of beauty. For the aesthetic purpose such a
      distinction need scarcely be drawn, and indeed it need not exist. For a
      theory of taste the expression of an accepted ideal of archaism, on
      whatever basis it may have been accepted, is perhaps best rated as an
      element of beauty; there need be no question of its legitimation. But for
      the present purpose&mdash;for the purpose of determining what economic
      grounds are present in the accepted canons of taste and what is their
      significance for the distribution and consumption of goods&mdash;the
      distinction is not similarly beside the point. The position of machine
      products in the civilized scheme of consumption serves to point out the
      nature of the relation which subsists between the canon of conspicuous
      waste and the code of proprieties in consumption. Neither in matters of
      art and taste proper, nor as regards the current sense of the
      serviceability of goods, does this canon act as a principle of innovation
      or initiative. It does not go into the future as a creative principle
      which makes innovations and adds new items of consumption and new elements
      of cost. The principle in question is, in a certain sense, a negative
      rather than a positive law. It is a regulative rather than a creative
      principle. It very rarely initiates or originates any usage or custom
      directly. Its action is selective only. Conspicuous wastefulness does not
      directly afford ground for variation and growth, but conformity to its
      requirements is a condition to the survival of such innovations as may be
      made on other grounds. In whatever way usages and customs and methods of
      expenditure arise, they are all subject to the selective action of this
      norm of reputability; and the degree in which they conform to its
      requirements is a test of their fitness to survive in the competition with
      other similar usages and customs. Other thing being equal, the more
      obviously wasteful usage or method stands the better chance of survival
      under this law. The law of conspicuous waste does not account for the
      origin of variations, but only for the persistence of such forms as are
      fit to survive under its dominance. It acts to conserve the fit, not to
      originate the acceptable. Its office is to prove all things and to hold
      fast that which is good for its purpose.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0007" id="link2HCH0007">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Seven ~~ Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture
    </h2>
    <p>
      It will in place, by way of illustration, to show in some detail how the
      economic principles so far set forth apply to everyday facts in some one
      direction of the life process. For this purpose no line of consumption
      affords a more apt illustration than expenditure on dress. It is
      especially the rule of the conspicuous waste of goods that finds
      expression in dress, although the other, related principles of pecuniary
      repute are also exemplified in the same contrivances. Other methods of
      putting one's pecuniary standing in evidence serve their end effectually,
      and other methods are in vogue always and everywhere; but expenditure on
      dress has this advantage over most other methods, that our apparel is
      always in evidence and affords an indication of our pecuniary standing to
      all observers at the first glance. It is also true that admitted
      expenditure for display is more obviously present, and is, perhaps, more
      universally practiced in the matter of dress than in any other line of
      consumption. No one finds difficulty in assenting to the commonplace that
      the greater part of the expenditure incurred by all classes for apparel is
      incurred for the sake of a respectable appearance rather than for the
      protection of the person. And probably at no other point is the sense of
      shabbiness so keenly felt as it is if we fall short of the standard set by
      social usage in this matter of dress. It is true of dress in even a higher
      degree than of most other items of consumption, that people will undergo a
      very considerable degree of privation in the comforts or the necessaries
      of life in order to afford what is considered a decent amount of wasteful
      consumption; so that it is by no means an uncommon occurrence, in an
      inclement climate, for people to go ill clad in order to appear well
      dressed. And the commercial value of the goods used for clotting in any
      modern community is made up to a much larger extent of the
      fashionableness, the reputability of the goods than of the mechanical
      service which they render in clothing the person of the wearer. The need
      of dress is eminently a "higher" or spiritual need.
    </p>
    <p>
      This spiritual need of dress is not wholly, nor even chiefly, a naive
      propensity for display of expenditure. The law of conspicuous waste guides
      consumption in apparel, as in other things, chiefly at the second remove,
      by shaping the canons of taste and decency. In the common run of cases the
      conscious motive of the wearer or purchaser of conspicuously wasteful
      apparel is the need of conforming to established usage, and of living up
      to the accredited standard of taste and reputability. It is not only that
      one must be guided by the code of proprieties in dress in order to avoid
      the mortification that comes of unfavorable notice and comment, though
      that motive in itself counts for a great deal; but besides that, the
      requirement of expensiveness is so ingrained into our habits of thought in
      matters of dress that any other than expensive apparel is instinctively
      odious to us. Without reflection or analysis, we feel that what is
      inexpensive is unworthy. "A cheap coat makes a cheap man." "Cheap and
      nasty" is recognized to hold true in dress with even less mitigation than
      in other lines of consumption. On the ground both of taste and of
      serviceability, an inexpensive article of apparel is held to be inferior,
      under the maxim "cheap and nasty." We find things beautiful, as well as
      serviceable, somewhat in proportion as they are costly. With few and
      inconsequential exceptions, we all find a costly hand-wrought article of
      apparel much preferable, in point of beauty and of serviceability, to a
      less expensive imitation of it, however cleverly the spurious article may
      imitate the costly original; and what offends our sensibilities in the
      spurious article is not that it falls short in form or color, or, indeed,
      in visual effect in any way. The offensive object may be so close an
      imitation as to defy any but the closest scrutiny; and yet so soon as the
      counterfeit is detected, its aesthetic value, and its commercial value as
      well, declines precipitately. Not only that, but it may be asserted with
      but small risk of contradiction that the aesthetic value of a detected
      counterfeit in dress declines somewhat in the same proportion as the
      counterfeit is cheaper than its original. It loses caste aesthetically
      because it falls to a lower pecuniary grade.
    </p>
    <p>
      But the function of dress as an evidence of ability to pay does not end
      with simply showing that the wearer consumes valuable goods in excess of
      what is required for physical comfort. Simple conspicuous waste of goods
      is effective and gratifying as far as it goes; it is good prima facie
      evidence of pecuniary success, and consequently prima facie evidence of
      social worth. But dress has subtler and more far-reaching possibilities
      than this crude, first-hand evidence of wasteful consumption only. If, in
      addition to showing that the wearer can afford to consume freely and
      uneconomically, it can also be shown in the same stroke that he or she is
      not under the necessity of earning a livelihood, the evidence of social
      worth is enhanced in a very considerable degree. Our dress, therefore, in
      order to serve its purpose effectually, should not only he expensive, but
      it should also make plain to all observers that the wearer is not engaged
      in any kind of productive labor. In the evolutionary process by which our
      system of dress has been elaborated into its present admirably perfect
      adaptation to its purpose, this subsidiary line of evidence has received
      due attention. A detailed examination of what passes in popular
      apprehension for elegant apparel will show that it is contrived at every
      point to convey the impression that the wearer does not habitually put
      forth any useful effort. It goes without saying that no apparel can be
      considered elegant, or even decent, if it shows the effect of manual labor
      on the part of the wearer, in the way of soil or wear. The pleasing effect
      of neat and spotless garments is chiefly, if not altogether, due to their
      carrying the suggestion of leisure-exemption from personal contact with
      industrial processes of any kind. Much of the charm that invests the
      patent-leather shoe, the stainless linen, the lustrous cylindrical hat,
      and the walking-stick, which so greatly enhance the native dignity of a
      gentleman, comes of their pointedly suggesting that the wearer cannot when
      so attired bear a hand in any employment that is directly and immediately
      of any human use. Elegant dress serves its purpose of elegance not only in
      that it is expensive, but also because it is the insignia of leisure. It
      not only shows that the wearer is able to consume a relatively large
      value, but it argues at the same time that he consumes without producing.
    </p>
    <p>
      The dress of women goes even farther than that of men in the way of
      demonstrating the wearer's abstinence from productive employment. It needs
      no argument to enforce the generalization that the more elegant styles of
      feminine bonnets go even farther towards making work impossible than does
      the man's high hat. The woman's shoe adds the so-called French heel to the
      evidence of enforced leisure afforded by its polish; because this high
      heel obviously makes any, even the simplest and most necessary manual work
      extremely difficult. The like is true even in a higher degree of the skirt
      and the rest of the drapery which characterizes woman's dress. The
      substantial reason for our tenacious attachment to the skirt is just this;
      it is expensive and it hampers the wearer at every turn and incapacitates
      her for all useful exertion. The like is true of the feminine custom of
      wearing the hair excessively long.
    </p>
    <p>
      But the woman's apparel not only goes beyond that of the modern man in the
      degree in which it argues exemption from labor; it also adds a peculiar
      and highly characteristic feature which differs in kind from anything
      habitually practiced by the men. This feature is the class of contrivances
      of which the corset is the typical example. The corset is, in economic
      theory, substantially a mutilation, undergone for the purpose of lowering
      the subject's vitality and rendering her permanently and obviously unfit
      for work. It is true, the corset impairs the personal attractions of the
      wearer, but the loss suffered on that score is offset by the gain in
      reputability which comes of her visibly increased expensiveness and
      infirmity. It may broadly be set down that the womanliness of woman's
      apparel resolves itself, in point of substantial fact, into the more
      effective hindrance to useful exertion offered by the garments peculiar to
      women. This difference between masculine and feminine apparel is here
      simply pointed out as a characteristic feature. The ground of its
      occurrence will be discussed presently.
    </p>
    <p>
      So far, then, we have, as the great and dominant norm of dress, the broad
      principle of conspicuous waste. Subsidiary to this principle, and as a
      corollary under it, we get as a second norm the principle of conspicuous
      leisure. In dress construction this norm works out in the shape of divers
      contrivances going to show that the wearer does not and, as far as it may
      conveniently be shown, can not engage in productive labor. Beyond these
      two principles there is a third of scarcely less constraining force, which
      will occur to any one who reflects at all on the subject. Dress must not
      only be conspicuously expensive and inconvenient, it must at the same time
      be up to date. No explanation at all satisfactory has hitherto been
      offered of the phenomenon of changing fashions. The imperative requirement
      of dressing in the latest accredited manner, as well as the fact that this
      accredited fashion constantly changes from season to season, is
      sufficiently familiar to every one, but the theory of this flux and change
      has not been worked out. We may of course say, with perfect consistency
      and truthfulness, that this principle of novelty is another corollary
      under the law of conspicuous waste. Obviously, if each garment is
      permitted to serve for but a brief term, and if none of last season's
      apparel is carried over and made further use of during the present season,
      the wasteful expenditure on dress is greatly increased. This is good as
      far as it goes, but it is negative only. Pretty much all that this
      consideration warrants us in saying is that the norm of conspicuous waste
      exercises a controlling surveillance in all matters of dress, so that any
      change in the fashions must conspicuous waste exercises a controlling
      surveillance in all matters of dress, so that any change in the fashions
      must conform to the requirement of wastefulness; it leaves unanswered the
      question as to the motive for making and accepting a change in the
      prevailing styles, and it also fails to explain why conformity to a given
      style at a given time is so imperatively necessary as we know it to be.
    </p>
    <p>
      For a creative principle, capable of serving as motive to invention and
      innovation in fashions, we shall have to go back to the primitive,
      non-economic motive with which apparel originated&mdash;the motive of
      adornment. Without going into an extended discussion of how and why this
      motive asserts itself under the guidance of the law of expensiveness, it
      may be stated broadly that each successive innovation in the fashions is
      an effort to reach some form of display which shall be more acceptable to
      our sense of form and color or of effectiveness, than that which it
      displaces. The changing styles are the expression of a restless search for
      something which shall commend itself to our aesthetic sense; but as each
      innovation is subject to the selective action of the norm of conspicuous
      waste, the range within which innovation can take place is somewhat
      restricted. The innovation must not only be more beautiful, or perhaps
      oftener less offensive, than that which it displaces, but it must also
      come up to the accepted standard of expensiveness.
    </p>
    <p>
      It would seem at first sight that the result of such an unremitting
      struggle to attain the beautiful in dress should be a gradual approach to
      artistic perfection. We might naturally expect that the fashions should
      show a well-marked trend in the direction of some one or more types of
      apparel eminently becoming to the human form; and we might even feel that
      we have substantial ground for the hope that today, after all the
      ingenuity and effort which have been spent on dress these many years, the
      fashions should have achieved a relative perfection and a relative
      stability, closely approximating to a permanently tenable artistic ideal.
      But such is not the case. It would be very hazardous indeed to assert that
      the styles of today are intrinsically more becoming than those of ten
      years ago, or than those of twenty, or fifty, or one hundred years ago. On
      the other hand, the assertion freely goes uncontradicted that styles in
      vogue two thousand years ago are more becoming than the most elaborate and
      painstaking constructions of today.
    </p>
    <p>
      The explanation of the fashions just offered, then, does not fully
      explain, and we shall have to look farther. It is well known that certain
      relatively stable styles and types of costume have been worked out in
      various parts of the world; as, for instance, among the Japanese, Chinese,
      and other Oriental nations; likewise among the Greeks, Romans, and other
      Eastern peoples of antiquity so also, in later times, among the peasants
      of nearly every country of Europe. These national or popular costumes are
      in most cases adjudged by competent critics to be more becoming, more
      artistic, than the fluctuating styles of modern civilized apparel. At the
      same time they are also, at least usually, less obviously wasteful; that
      is to say, other elements than that of a display of expense are more
      readily detected in their structure.
    </p>
    <p>
      These relatively stable costumes are, commonly, pretty strictly and
      narrowly localized, and they vary by slight and systematic gradations from
      place to place. They have in every case been worked out by peoples or
      classes which are poorer than we, and especially they belong in countries
      and localities and times where the population, or at least the class to
      which the costume in question belongs, is relatively homogeneous, stable,
      and immobile. That is to say, stable costumes which will bear the test of
      time and perspective are worked out under circumstances where the norm of
      conspicuous waste asserts itself less imperatively than it does in the
      large modern civilized cities, whose relatively mobile wealthy population
      today sets the pace in matters of fashion. The countries and classes which
      have in this way worked out stable and artistic costumes have been so
      placed that the pecuniary emulation among them has taken the direction of
      a competition in conspicuous leisure rather than in conspicuous
      consumption of goods. So that it will hold true in a general way that
      fashions are least stable and least becoming in those communities where
      the principle of a conspicuous waste of goods asserts itself most
      imperatively, as among ourselves. All this points to an antagonism between
      expensiveness and artistic apparel. In point of practical fact, the norm
      of conspicuous waste is incompatible with the requirement that dress
      should be beautiful or becoming. And this antagonism offers an explanation
      of that restless change in fashion which neither the canon of
      expensiveness nor that of beauty alone can account for.
    </p>
    <p>
      The standard of reputability requires that dress should show wasteful
      expenditure; but all wastefulness is offensive to native taste. The
      psychological law has already been pointed out that all men&mdash;and
      women perhaps even in a higher degree abhor futility, whether of effort or
      of expenditure&mdash;much as Nature was once said to abhor a vacuum. But
      the principle of conspicuous waste requires an obviously futile
      expenditure; and the resulting conspicuous expensiveness of dress is
      therefore intrinsically ugly. Hence we find that in all innovations in
      dress, each added or altered detail strives to avoid condemnation by
      showing some ostensible purpose, at the same time that the requirement of
      conspicuous waste prevents the purposefulness of these innovations from
      becoming anything more than a somewhat transparent pretense. Even in its
      freest flights, fashion rarely if ever gets away from a simulation of some
      ostensible use. The ostensible usefulness of the fashionable details of
      dress, however, is always so transparent a make-believe, and their
      substantial futility presently forces itself so baldly upon our attention
      as to become unbearable, and then we take refuge in a new style. But the
      new style must conform to the requirement of reputable wastefulness and
      futility. Its futility presently becomes as odious as that of its
      predecessor; and the only remedy which the law of waste allows us is to
      seek relief in some new construction, equally futile and equally
      untenable. Hence the essential ugliness and the unceasing change of
      fashionable attire.
    </p>
    <p>
      Having so explained the phenomenon of shifting fashions, the next thing is
      to make the explanation tally with everyday facts. Among these everyday
      facts is the well-known liking which all men have for the styles that are
      in vogue at any given time. A new style comes into vogue and remains in
      favor for a season, and, at least so long as it is a novelty, people very
      generally find the new style attractive. The prevailing fashion is felt to
      be beautiful. This is due partly to the relief it affords in being
      different from what went before it, partly to its being reputable. As
      indicated in the last chapter, the canon of reputability to some extent
      shapes our tastes, so that under its guidance anything will be accepted as
      becoming until its novelty wears off, or until the warrant of reputability
      is transferred to a new and novel structure serving the same general
      purpose. That the alleged beauty, or "loveliness," of the styles in vogue
      at any given time is transient and spurious only is attested by the fact
      that none of the many shifting fashions will bear the test of time. When
      seen in the perspective of half-a-dozen years or more, the best of our
      fashions strike us as grotesque, if not unsightly. Our transient
      attachment to whatever happens to be the latest rests on other than
      aesthetic grounds, and lasts only until our abiding aesthetic sense has
      had time to assert itself and reject this latest indigestible contrivance.
    </p>
    <p>
      The process of developing an aesthetic nausea takes more or less time; the
      length of time required in any given case being inversely as the degree of
      intrinsic odiousness of the style in question. This time relation between
      odiousness and instability in fashions affords ground for the inference
      that the more rapidly the styles succeed and displace one another, the
      more offensive they are to sound taste. The presumption, therefore, is
      that the farther the community, especially the wealthy classes of the
      community, develop in wealth and mobility and in the range of their human
      contact, the more imperatively will the law of conspicuous waste assert
      itself in matters of dress, the more will the sense of beauty tend to fall
      into abeyance or be overborne by the canon of pecuniary reputability, the
      more rapidly will fashions shift and change, and the more grotesque and
      intolerable will be the varying styles that successively come into vogue.
    </p>
    <p>
      There remains at least one point in this theory of dress yet to be
      discussed. Most of what has been said applies to men's attire as well as
      to that of women; although in modern times it applies at nearly all points
      with greater force to that of women. But at one point the dress of women
      differs substantially from that of men. In woman's dress there is
      obviously greater insistence on such features as testify to the wearer's
      exemption from or incapacity for all vulgarly productive employment. This
      characteristic of woman's apparel is of interest, not only as completing
      the theory of dress, but also as confirming what has already been said of
      the economic status of women, both in the past and in the present.
    </p>
    <p>
      As has been seen in the discussion of woman's status under the heads of
      Vicarious Leisure and Vicarious Consumption, it has in the course of
      economic development become the office of the woman to consume vicariously
      for the head of the household; and her apparel is contrived with this
      object in view. It has come about that obviously productive labor is in a
      peculiar degree derogatory to respectable women, and therefore special
      pains should be taken in the construction of women's dress, to impress
      upon the beholder the fact (often indeed a fiction) that the wearer does
      not and can not habitually engage in useful work. Propriety requires
      respectable women to abstain more consistently from useful effort and to
      make more of a show of leisure than the men of the same social classes. It
      grates painfully on our nerves to contemplate the necessity of any
      well-bred woman's earning a livelihood by useful work. It is not "woman's
      sphere." Her sphere is within the household, which she should "beautify,"
      and of which she should be the "chief ornament." The male head of the
      household is not currently spoken of as its ornament. This feature taken
      in conjunction with the other fact that propriety requires more
      unremitting attention to expensive display in the dress and other
      paraphernalia of women, goes to enforce the view already implied in what
      has gone before. By virtue of its descent from a patriarchal past, our
      social system makes it the woman's function in an especial degree to put
      in evidence her household's ability to pay. According to the modern
      civilized scheme of life, the good name of the household to which she
      belongs should be the special care of the woman; and the system of
      honorific expenditure and conspicuous leisure by which this good name is
      chiefly sustained is therefore the woman's sphere. In the ideal scheme, as
      it tends to realize itself in the life of the higher pecuniary classes,
      this attention to conspicuous waste of substance and effort should
      normally be the sole economic function of the woman.
    </p>
    <p>
      At the stage of economic development at which the women were still in the
      full sense the property of the men, the performance of conspicuous leisure
      and consumption came to be part of the services required of them. The
      women being not their own masters, obvious expenditure and leisure on
      their part would redound to the credit of their master rather than to
      their own credit; and therefore the more expensive and the more obviously
      unproductive the women of the household are, the more creditable and more
      effective for the purpose of reputability of the household or its head
      will their life be. So much so that the women have been required not only
      to afford evidence of a life of leisure, but even to disable themselves
      for useful activity.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is at this point that the dress of men falls short of that of women,
      and for sufficient reason. Conspicuous waste and conspicuous leisure are
      reputable because they are evidence of pecuniary strength; pecuniary
      strength is reputable or honorific because, in the last analysis, it
      argues success and superior force; therefore the evidence of waste and
      leisure put forth by any individual in his own behalf cannot consistently
      take such a form or be carried to such a pitch as to argue incapacity or
      marked discomfort on his part; as the exhibition would in that case show
      not superior force, but inferiority, and so defeat its own purpose. So,
      then, wherever wasteful expenditure and the show of abstention from effort
      is normally, or on an average, carried to the extent of showing obvious
      discomfort or voluntarily induced physical disability. There the immediate
      inference is that the individual in question does not perform this
      wasteful expenditure and undergo this disability for her own personal gain
      in pecuniary repute, but in behalf of some one else to whom she stands in
      a relation of economic dependence; a relation which in the last analysis
      must, in economic theory, reduce itself to a relation of servitude.
    </p>
    <p>
      To apply this generalization to women's dress, and put the matter in
      concrete terms: the high heel, the skirt, the impracticable bonnet, the
      corset, and the general disregard of the wearer's comfort which is an
      obvious feature of all civilized women's apparel, are so many items of
      evidence to the effect that in the modern civilized scheme of life the
      woman is still, in theory, the economic dependent of the man&mdash;that,
      perhaps in a highly idealized sense, she still is the man's chattel. The
      homely reason for all this conspicuous leisure and attire on the part of
      women lies in the fact that they are servants to whom, in the
      differentiation of economic functions, has been delegated the office of
      putting in evidence their master's ability to pay. There is a marked
      similarity in these respects between the apparel of women and that of
      domestic servants, especially liveried servants. In both there is a very
      elaborate show of unnecessary expensiveness, and in both cases there is
      also a notable disregard of the physical comfort of the wearer. But the
      attire of the lady goes farther in its elaborate insistence on the
      idleness, if not on the physical infirmity of the wearer, than does that
      of the domestic. And this is as it should be; for in theory, according to
      the ideal scheme of the pecuniary culture, the lady of the house is the
      chief menial of the household.
    </p>
    <p>
      Besides servants, currently recognized as such, there is at least one
      other class of persons whose garb assimilates them to the class of
      servants and shows many of the features that go to make up the womanliness
      of woman's dress. This is the priestly class. Priestly vestments show, in
      accentuated form, all the features that have been shown to be evidence of
      a servile status and a vicarious life. Even more strikingly than the
      everyday habit of the priest, the vestments, properly so called, are
      ornate, grotesque, inconvenient, and, at least ostensibly, comfortless to
      the point of distress. The priest is at the same time expected to refrain
      from useful effort and, when before the public eye, to present an
      impassively disconsolate countenance, very much after the manner of a
      well-trained domestic servant. The shaven face of the priest is a further
      item to the same effect. This assimilation of the priestly class to the
      class of body servants, in demeanor and apparel, is due to the similarity
      of the two classes as regards economic function. In economic theory, the
      priest is a body servant, constructively in attendance upon the person of
      the divinity whose livery he wears. His livery is of a very expensive
      character, as it should be in order to set forth in a beseeming manner the
      dignity of his exalted master; but it is contrived to show that the
      wearing of it contributes little or nothing to the physical comfort of the
      wearer, for it is an item of vicarious consumption, and the repute which
      accrues from its consumption is to be imputed to the absent master, not to
      the servant.
    </p>
    <p>
      The line of demarcation between the dress of women, priests, and servants,
      on the one hand, and of men, on the other hand, is not always consistently
      observed in practice, but it will scarcely be disputed that it is always
      present in a more or less definite way in the popular habits of thought.
      There are of course also free men, and not a few of them, who, in their
      blind zeal for faultless reputable attire, transgress the theoretical line
      between man's and woman's dress, to the extent of arraying themselves in
      apparel that is obviously designed to vex the mortal frame; but everyone
      recognizes without hesitation that such apparel for men is a departure
      from the normal. We are in the habit of saying that such dress is
      "effeminate"; and one sometimes hears the remark that such or such an
      exquisitely attired gentleman is as well dressed as a footman.
    </p>
    <p>
      Certain apparent discrepancies under this theory of dress merit a more
      detailed examination, especially as they mark a more or less evident trend
      in the later and maturer development of dress. The vogue of the corset
      offers an apparent exception from the rule of which it has here been cited
      as an illustration. A closer examination, however, will show that this
      apparent exception is really a verification of the rule that the vogue of
      any given element or feature in dress rests on its utility as an evidence
      of pecuniary standing. It is well known that in the industrially more
      advanced communities the corset is employed only within certain fairly
      well defined social strata. The women of the poorer classes, especially of
      the rural population, do not habitually use it, except as a holiday
      luxury. Among these classes the women have to work hard, and it avails
      them little in the way of a pretense of leisure to so crucify the flesh in
      everyday life. The holiday use of the contrivance is due to imitation of a
      higher-class canon of decency. Upwards from this low level of indigence
      and manual labor, the corset was until within a generation or two nearly
      indispensable to a socially blameless standing for all women, including
      the wealthiest and most reputable. This rule held so long as there still
      was no large class of people wealthy enough to be above the imputation of
      any necessity for manual labor and at the same time large enough to form a
      self-sufficient, isolated social body whose mass would afford a foundation
      for special rules of conduct within the class, enforced by the current
      opinion of the class alone. But now there has grown up a large enough
      leisure class possessed of such wealth that any aspersion on the score of
      enforced manual employment would be idle and harmless calumny; and the
      corset has therefore in large measure fallen into disuse within this
      class. The exceptions under this rule of exemption from the corset are
      more apparent than real. They are the wealthy classes of countries with a
      lower industrial structure&mdash;nearer the archaic, quasi-industrial type&mdash;together
      with the later accessions of the wealthy classes in the more advanced
      industrial communities. The latter have not yet had time to divest
      themselves of the plebeian canons of taste and of reputability carried
      over from their former, lower pecuniary grade. Such survival of the corset
      is not infrequent among the higher social classes of those American
      cities, for instance, which have recently and rapidly risen into opulence.
      If the word be used as a technical term, without any odious implication,
      it may be said that the corset persists in great measure through the
      period of snobbery&mdash;the interval of uncertainty and of transition
      from a lower to the upper levels of pecuniary culture. That is to say, in
      all countries which have inherited the corset it continues in use wherever
      and so long as it serves its purpose as an evidence of honorific leisure
      by arguing physical disability in the wearer. The same rule of course
      applies to other mutilations and contrivances for decreasing the visible
      efficiency of the individual.
    </p>
    <p>
      Something similar should hold true with respect to divers items of
      conspicuous consumption, and indeed something of the kind does seem to
      hold to a slight degree of sundry features of dress, especially if such
      features involve a marked discomfort or appearance of discomfort to the
      wearer. During the past one hundred years there is a tendency perceptible,
      in the development of men's dress especially, to discontinue methods of
      expenditure and the use of symbols of leisure which must have been
      irksome, which may have served a good purpose in their time, but the
      continuation of which among the upper classes today would be a work of
      supererogation; as, for instance, the use of powdered wigs and of gold
      lace, and the practice of constantly shaving the face. There has of late
      years been some slight recrudescence of the shaven face in polite society,
      but this is probably a transient and unadvised mimicry of the fashion
      imposed upon body servants, and it may fairly be expected to go the way of
      the powdered wig of our grandfathers.
    </p>
    <p>
      These indices and others which resemble them in point of the boldness with
      which they point out to all observers the habitual uselessness of those
      persons who employ them, have been replaced by other, more dedicate
      methods of expressing the same fact; methods which are no less evident to
      the trained eyes of that smaller, select circle whose good opinion is
      chiefly sought. The earlier and cruder method of advertisement held its
      ground so long as the public to which the exhibitor had to appeal
      comprised large portions of the community who were not trained to detect
      delicate variations in the evidences of wealth and leisure. The method of
      advertisement undergoes a refinement when a sufficiently large wealthy
      class has developed, who have the leisure for acquiring skill in
      interpreting the subtler signs of expenditure. "Loud" dress becomes
      offensive to people of taste, as evincing an undue desire to reach and
      impress the untrained sensibilities of the vulgar. To the individual of
      high breeding, it is only the more honorific esteem accorded by the
      cultivated sense of the members of his own high class that is of material
      consequence. Since the wealthy leisure class has grown so large, or the
      contact of the leisure-class individual with members of his own class has
      grown so wide, as to constitute a human environment sufficient for the
      honorific purpose, there arises a tendency to exclude the baser elements
      of the population from the scheme even as spectators whose applause or
      mortification should be sought. The result of all this is a refinement of
      methods, a resort to subtler contrivances, and a spiritualization of the
      scheme of symbolism in dress. And as this upper leisure class sets the
      pace in all matters of decency, the result for the rest of society also is
      a gradual amelioration of the scheme of dress. As the community advances
      in wealth and culture, the ability to pay is put in evidence by means
      which require a progressively nicer discrimination in the beholder. This
      nicer discrimination between advertising media is in fact a very large
      element of the higher pecuniary culture.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0008" id="link2HCH0008">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Eight ~~ Industrial Exemption and Conservatism
    </h2>
    <p>
      The life of man in society, just like the life of other species, is a
      struggle for existence, and therefore it is a process of selective
      adaptation. The evolution of social structure has been a process of
      natural selection of institutions. The progress which has been and is
      being made in human institutions and in human character may be set down,
      broadly, to a natural selection of the fittest habits of thought and to a
      process of enforced adaptation of individuals to an environment which has
      progressively changed with the growth of the community and with the
      changing institutions under which men have lived. Institutions are not
      only themselves the result of a selective and adaptive process which
      shapes the prevailing or dominant types of spiritual attitude and
      aptitudes; they are at the same time special methods of life and of human
      relations, and are therefore in their turn efficient factors of selection.
      So that the changing institutions in their turn make for a further
      selection of individuals endowed with the fittest temperament, and a
      further adaptation of individual temperament and habits to the changing
      environment through the formation of new institutions.
    </p>
    <p>
      The forces which have shaped the development of human life and of social
      structure are no doubt ultimately reducible to terms of living tissue and
      material environment; but proximately for the purpose in hand, these
      forces may best be stated in terms of an environment, partly human, partly
      non-human, and a human subject with a more or less definite physical and
      intellectual constitution. Taken in the aggregate or average, this human
      subject is more or less variable; chiefly, no doubt, under a rule of
      selective conservation of favorable variations. The selection of favorable
      variations is perhaps in great measure a selective conservation of ethnic
      types. In the life history of any community whose population is made up of
      a mixture of divers ethnic elements, one or another of several persistent
      and relatively stable types of body and of temperament rises into
      dominance at any given point. The situation, including the institutions in
      force at any given time, will favor the survival and dominance of one type
      of character in preference to another; and the type of man so selected to
      continue and to further elaborate the institutions handed down from the
      past will in some considerable measure shape these institutions in his own
      likeness. But apart from selection as between relatively stable types of
      character and habits of mind, there is no doubt simultaneously going on a
      process of selective adaptation of habits of thought within the general
      range of aptitudes which is characteristic of the dominant ethnic type or
      types. There may be a variation in the fundamental character of any
      population by selection between relatively stable types; but there is also
      a variation due to adaptation in detail within the range of the type, and
      to selection between specific habitual views regarding any given social
      relation or group of relations.
    </p>
    <p>
      For the present purpose, however, the question as to the nature of the
      adaptive process&mdash;whether it is chiefly a selection between stable
      types of temperament and character, or chiefly an adaptation of men's
      habits of thought to changing circumstances&mdash;is of less importance
      than the fact that, by one method or another, institutions change and
      develop. Institutions must change with changing circumstances, since they
      are of the nature of an habitual method of responding to the stimuli which
      these changing circumstances afford. The development of these institutions
      is the development of society. The institutions are, in substance,
      prevalent habits of thought with respect to particular relations and
      particular functions of the individual and of the community; and the
      scheme of life, which is made up of the aggregate of institutions in force
      at a given time or at a given point in the development of any society,
      may, on the psychological side, be broadly characterized as a prevalent
      spiritual attitude or a prevalent theory of life. As regards its generic
      features, this spiritual attitude or theory of life is in the last
      analysis reducible to terms of a prevalent type of character.
    </p>
    <p>
      The situation of today shapes the institutions of tomorrow through a
      selective, coercive process, by acting upon men's habitual view of things,
      and so altering or fortifying a point of view or a mental attitude handed
      down from the past. The institutions&mdash;that is to say the habits of
      thought&mdash;under the guidance of which men live are in this way
      received from an earlier time; more or less remotely earlier, but in any
      event they have been elaborated in and received from the past.
      Institutions are products of the past process, are adapted to past
      circumstances, and are therefore never in full accord with the
      requirements of the present. In the nature of the case, this process of
      selective adaptation can never catch up with the progressively changing
      situation in which the community finds itself at any given time; for the
      environment, the situation, the exigencies of life which enforce the
      adaptation and exercise the selection, change from day to day; and each
      successive situation of the community in its turn tends to obsolescence as
      soon as it has been established. When a step in the development has been
      taken, this step itself constitutes a change of situation which requires a
      new adaptation; it becomes the point of departure for a new step in the
      adjustment, and so on interminably.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is to be noted then, although it may be a tedious truism, that the
      institutions of today&mdash;the present accepted scheme of life&mdash;do
      not entirely fit the situation of today. At the same time, men's present
      habits of thought tend to persist indefinitely, except as circumstances
      enforce a change. These institutions which have thus been handed down,
      these habits of thought, points of view, mental attitudes and aptitudes,
      or what not, are therefore themselves a conservative factor. This is the
      factor of social inertia, psychological inertia, conservatism. Social
      structure changes, develops, adapts itself to an altered situation, only
      through a change in the habits of thought of the several classes of the
      community, or in the last analysis, through a change in the habits of
      thought of the individuals which make up the community. The evolution of
      society is substantially a process of mental adaptation on the part of
      individuals under the stress of circumstances which will no longer
      tolerate habits of thought formed under and conforming to a different set
      of circumstances in the past. For the immediate purpose it need not be a
      question of serious importance whether this adaptive process is a process
      of selection and survival of persistent ethnic types or a process of
      individual adaptation and an inheritance of acquired traits.
    </p>
    <p>
      Social advance, especially as seen from the point of view of economic
      theory, consists in a continued progressive approach to an approximately
      exact "adjustment of inner relations to outer relations", but this
      adjustment is never definitively established, since the "outer relations"
      are subject to constant change as a consequence of the progressive change
      going on in the "inner relations." But the degree of approximation may be
      greater or less, depending on the facility with which an adjustment is
      made. A readjustment of men's habits of thought to conform with the
      exigencies of an altered situation is in any case made only tardily and
      reluctantly, and only under the coercion exercised by a stipulation which
      has made the accredited views untenable. The readjustment of institutions
      and habitual views to an altered environment is made in response to
      pressure from without; it is of the nature of a response to stimulus.
      Freedom and facility of readjustment, that is to say capacity for growth
      in social structure, therefore depends in great measure on the degree of
      freedom with which the situation at any given time acts on the individual
      members of the community-the degree of exposure of the individual members
      to the constraining forces of the environment. If any portion or class of
      society is sheltered from the action of the environment in any essential
      respect, that portion of the community, or that class, will adapt its
      views and its scheme of life more tardily to the altered general
      situation; it will in so far tend to retard the process of social
      transformation. The wealthy leisure class is in such a sheltered position
      with respect to the economic forces that make for change and readjustment.
      And it may be said that the forces which make for a readjustment of
      institutions, especially in the case of a modern industrial community,
      are, in the last analysis, almost entirely of an economic nature.
    </p>
    <p>
      Any community may be viewed as an industrial or economic mechanism, the
      structure of which is made up of what is called its economic institutions.
      These institutions are habitual methods of carrying on the life process of
      the community in contact with the material environment in which it lives.
      When given methods of unfolding human activity in this given environment
      have been elaborated in this way, the life of the community will express
      itself with some facility in these habitual directions. The community will
      make use of the forces of the environment for the purposes of its life
      according to methods learned in the past and embodied in these
      institutions. But as population increases, and as men's knowledge and
      skill in directing the forces of nature widen, the habitual methods of
      relation between the members of the group, and the habitual method of
      carrying on the life process of the group as a whole, no longer give the
      same result as before; nor are the resulting conditions of life
      distributed and apportioned in the same manner or with the same effect
      among the various members as before. If the scheme according to which the
      life process of the group was carried on under the earlier conditions gave
      approximately the highest attainable result&mdash;under the circumstances&mdash;in
      the way of efficiency or facility of the life process of the group; then
      the same scheme of life unaltered will not yield the highest result
      attainable in this respect under the altered conditions. Under the altered
      conditions of population, skill, and knowledge, the facility of life as
      carried on according to the traditional scheme may not be lower than under
      the earlier conditions; but the chances are always that it is less than
      might be if the scheme were altered to suit the altered conditions.
    </p>
    <p>
      The group is made up of individuals, and the group's life is the life of
      individuals carried on in at least ostensible severalty. The group's
      accepted scheme of life is the consensus of views held by the body of
      these individuals as to what is right, good, expedient, and beautiful in
      the way of human life. In the redistribution of the conditions of life
      that comes of the altered method of dealing with the environment, the
      outcome is not an equable change in the facility of life throughout the
      group. The altered conditions may increase the facility of life for the
      group as a whole, but the redistribution will usually result in a decrease
      of facility or fullness of life for some members of the group. An advance
      in technical methods, in population, or in industrial organization will
      require at least some of the members of the community to change their
      habits of life, if they are to enter with facility and effect into the
      altered industrial methods; and in doing so they will be unable to live up
      to the received notions as to what are the right and beautiful habits of
      life.
    </p>
    <p>
      Any one who is required to change his habits of life and his habitual
      relations to his fellow men will feel the discrepancy between the method
      of life required of him by the newly arisen exigencies, and the
      traditional scheme of life to which he is accustomed. It is the
      individuals placed in this position who have the liveliest incentive to
      reconstruct the received scheme of life and are most readily persuaded to
      accept new standards; and it is through the need of the means of
      livelihood that men are placed in such a position. The pressure exerted by
      the environment upon the group, and making for a readjustment of the
      group's scheme of life, impinges upon the members of the group in the form
      of pecuniary exigencies; and it is owing to this fact&mdash;that external
      forces are in great part translated into the form of pecuniary or economic
      exigencies&mdash;it is owing to this fact that we can say that the forces
      which count toward a readjustment of institutions in any modern industrial
      community are chiefly economic forces; or more specifically, these forces
      take the form of pecuniary pressure. Such a readjustment as is here
      contemplated is substantially a change in men's views as to what is good
      and right, and the means through which a change is wrought in men's
      apprehension of what is good and right is in large part the pressure of
      pecuniary exigencies.
    </p>
    <p>
      Any change in men's views as to what is good and right in human life make
      its way but tardily at the best. Especially is this true of any change in
      the direction of what is called progress; that is to say, in the direction
      of divergence from the archaic position&mdash;from the position which may
      be accounted the point of departure at any step in the social evolution of
      the community. Retrogression, reapproach to a standpoint to which the race
      has been long habituated in the past, is easier. This is especially true
      in case the development away from this past standpoint has not been due
      chiefly to a substitution of an ethnic type whose temperament is alien to
      the earlier standpoint. The cultural stage which lies immediately back of
      the present in the life history of Western civilization is what has here
      been called the quasi-peaceable stage. At this quasi-peaceable stage the
      law of status is the dominant feature in the scheme of life. There is no
      need of pointing out how prone the men of today are to revert to the
      spiritual attitude of mastery and of personal subservience which
      characterizes that stage. It may rather be said to be held in an uncertain
      abeyance by the economic exigencies of today, than to have been definitely
      supplanted by a habit of mind that is in full accord with these
      later-developed exigencies. The predatory and quasi-peaceable stages of
      economic evolution seem to have been of long duration in life history of
      all the chief ethnic elements which go to make up the populations of the
      Western culture. The temperament and the propensities proper to those
      cultural stages have, therefore, attained such a persistence as to make a
      speedy reversion to the broad features of the corresponding psychological
      constitution inevitable in the case of any class or community which is
      removed from the action of those forces that make for a maintenance of the
      later-developed habits of thought.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is a matter of common notoriety that when individuals, or even
      considerable groups of men, are segregated from a higher industrial
      culture and exposed to a lower cultural environment, or to an economic
      situation of a more primitive character, they quickly show evidence of
      reversion toward the spiritual features which characterize the predatory
      type; and it seems probable that the dolicho-blond type of European man is
      possessed of a greater facility for such reversion to barbarism than the
      other ethnic elements with which that type is associated in the Western
      culture. Examples of such a reversion on a small scale abound in the later
      history of migration and colonization. Except for the fear of offending
      that chauvinistic patriotism which is so characteristic a feature of the
      predatory culture, and the presence of which is frequently the most
      striking mark of reversion in modern communities, the case of the American
      colonies might be cited as an example of such a reversion on an unusually
      large scale, though it was not a reversion of very large scope.
    </p>
    <p>
      The leisure class is in great measure sheltered from the stress of those
      economic exigencies which prevail in any modern, highly organized
      industrial community. The exigencies of the struggle for the means of life
      are less exacting for this class than for any other; and as a consequence
      of this privileged position we should expect to find it one of the least
      responsive of the classes of society to the demands which the situation
      makes for a further growth of institutions and a readjustment to an
      altered industrial situation. The leisure class is the conservative class.
      The exigencies of the general economic situation of the community do not
      freely or directly impinge upon the members of this class. They are not
      required under penalty of forfeiture to change their habits of life and
      their theoretical views of the external world to suit the demands of an
      altered industrial technique, since they are not in the full sense an
      organic part of the industrial community. Therefore these exigencies do
      not readily produce, in the members of this class, that degree of
      uneasiness with the existing order which alone can lead any body of men to
      give up views and methods of life that have become habitual to them. The
      office of the leisure class in social evolution is to retard the movement
      and to conserve what is obsolescent. This proposition is by no means
      novel; it has long been one of the commonplaces of popular opinion.
    </p>
    <p>
      The prevalent conviction that the wealthy class is by nature conservative
      has been popularly accepted without much aid from any theoretical view as
      to the place and relation of that class in the cultural development. When
      an explanation of this class conservatism is offered, it is commonly the
      invidious one that the wealthy class opposes innovation because it has a
      vested interest, of an unworthy sort, in maintaining the present
      conditions. The explanation here put forward imputes no unworthy motive.
      The opposition of the class to changes in the cultural scheme is
      instinctive, and does not rest primarily on an interested calculation of
      material advantages; it is an instinctive revulsion at any departure from
      the accepted way of doing and of looking at things&mdash;a revulsion
      common to all men and only to be overcome by stress of circumstances. All
      change in habits of life and of thought is irksome. The difference in this
      respect between the wealthy and the common run of mankind lies not so much
      in the motive which prompts to conservatism as in the degree of exposure
      to the economic forces that urge a change. The members of the wealthy
      class do not yield to the demand for innovation as readily as other men
      because they are not constrained to do so.
    </p>
    <p>
      This conservatism of the wealthy class is so obvious a feature that it has
      even come to be recognized as a mark of respectability. Since conservatism
      is a characteristic of the wealthier and therefore more reputable portion
      of the community, it has acquired a certain honorific or decorative value.
      It has become prescriptive to such an extent that an adherence to
      conservative views is comprised as a matter of course in our notions of
      respectability; and it is imperatively incumbent on all who would lead a
      blameless life in point of social repute. Conservatism, being an
      upper-class characteristic, is decorous; and conversely, innovation, being
      a lower-class phenomenon, is vulgar. The first and most unreflected
      element in that instinctive revulsion and reprobation with which we turn
      from all social innovators is this sense of the essential vulgarity of the
      thing. So that even in cases where one recognizes the substantial merits
      of the case for which the innovator is spokesman&mdash;as may easily
      happen if the evils which he seeks to remedy are sufficiently remote in
      point of time or space or personal contact&mdash;still one cannot but be
      sensible of the fact that the innovator is a person with whom it is at
      least distasteful to be associated, and from whose social contact one must
      shrink. Innovation is bad form.
    </p>
    <p>
      The fact that the usages, actions, and views of the well-to-do leisure
      class acquire the character of a prescriptive canon of conduct for the
      rest of society, gives added weight and reach to the conservative
      influence of that class. It makes it incumbent upon all reputable people
      to follow their lead. So that, by virtue of its high position as the
      avatar of good form, the wealthier class comes to exert a retarding
      influence upon social development far in excess of that which the simple
      numerical strength of the class would assign it. Its prescriptive example
      acts to greatly stiffen the resistance of all other classes against any
      innovation, and to fix men's affections upon the good institutions handed
      down from an earlier generation. There is a second way in which the
      influence of the leisure class acts in the same direction, so far as
      concerns hindrance to the adoption of a conventional scheme of life more
      in accord with the exigencies of the time. This second method of
      upper-class guidance is not in strict consistency to be brought under the
      same category as the instinctive conservatism and aversion to new modes of
      thought just spoken of; but it may as well be dealt with here, since it
      has at least this much in common with the conservative habit of mind that
      it acts to retard innovation and the growth of social structure. The code
      of proprieties, conventionalities, and usages in vogue at any given time
      and among any given people has more or less of the character of an organic
      whole; so that any appreciable change in one point of the scheme involves
      something of a change or readjustment at other points also, if not a
      reorganization all along the line. When a change is made which immediately
      touches only a minor point in the scheme, the consequent derangement of
      the structure of conventionalities may be inconspicuous; but even in such
      a case it is safe to say that some derangement of the general scheme, more
      or less far-reaching, will follow. On the other hand, when an attempted
      reform involves the suppression or thorough-going remodelling of an
      institution of first-rate importance in the conventional scheme, it is
      immediately felt that a serious derangement of the entire scheme would
      result; it is felt that a readjustment of the structure to the new form
      taken on by one of its chief elements would be a painful and tedious, if
      not a doubtful process.
    </p>
    <p>
      In order to realize the difficulty which such a radical change in any one
      feature of the conventional scheme of life would involve, it is only
      necessary to suggest the suppression of the monogamic family, or of the
      agnatic system of consanguinity, or of private property, or of the
      theistic faith, in any country of the Western civilization; or suppose the
      suppression of ancestor worship in China, or of the caste system in india,
      or of slavery in Africa, or the establishment of equality of the sexes in
      Mohammedan countries. It needs no argument to show that the derangement of
      the general structure of conventionalities in any of these cases would be
      very considerable. In order to effect such an innovation a very
      far-reaching alteration of men's habits of thought would be involved also
      at other points of the scheme than the one immediately in question. The
      aversion to any such innovation amounts to a shrinking from an essentially
      alien scheme of life.
    </p>
    <p>
      The revulsion felt by good people at any proposed departure from the
      accepted methods of life is a familiar fact of everyday experience. It is
      not unusual to hear those persons who dispense salutary advice and
      admonition to the community express themselves forcibly upon the
      far-reaching pernicious effects which the community would suffer from such
      relatively slight changes as the disestablishment of the Anglican Church,
      an increased facility of divorce, adoption of female suffrage, prohibition
      of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages, abolition or
      restriction of inheritances, etc. Any one of these innovations would, we
      are told, "shake the social structure to its base," "reduce society to
      chaos," "subvert the foundations of morality," "make life intolerable,"
      "confound the order of nature," etc. These various locutions are, no
      doubt, of the nature of hyperbole; but, at the same time, like all
      overstatement, they are evidence of a lively sense of the gravity of the
      consequences which they are intended to describe. The effect of these and
      like innovations in deranging the accepted scheme of life is felt to be of
      much graver consequence than the simple alteration of an isolated item in
      a series of contrivances for the convenience of men in society. What is
      true in so obvious a degree of innovations of first-rate importance is
      true in a less degree of changes of a smaller immediate importance. The
      aversion to change is in large part an aversion to the bother of making
      the readjustment which any given change will necessitate; and this
      solidarity of the system of institutions of any given culture or of any
      given people strengthens the instinctive resistance offered to any change
      in men's habits of thought, even in matters which, taken by themselves,
      are of minor importance. A consequence of this increased reluctance, due
      to the solidarity of human institutions, is that any innovation calls for
      a greater expenditure of nervous energy in making the necessary
      readjustment than would otherwise be the case. It is not only that a
      change in established habits of thought is distasteful. The process of
      readjustment of the accepted theory of life involves a degree of mental
      effort&mdash;a more or less protracted and laborious effort to find and to
      keep one's bearings under the altered circumstances. This process requires
      a certain expenditure of energy, and so presumes, for its successful
      accomplishment, some surplus of energy beyond that absorbed in the daily
      struggle for subsistence. Consequently it follows that progress is
      hindered by underfeeding and excessive physical hardship, no less
      effectually than by such a luxurious life as will shut out discontent by
      cutting off the occasion for it. The abjectly poor, and all those persons
      whose energies are entirely absorbed by the struggle for daily sustenance,
      are conservative because they cannot afford the effort of taking thought
      for the day after tomorrow; just as the highly prosperous are conservative
      because they have small occasion to be discontented with the situation as
      it stands today.
    </p>
    <p>
      From this proposition it follows that the institution of a leisure class
      acts to make the lower classes conservative by withdrawing from them as
      much as it may of the means of sustenance, and so reducing their
      consumption, and consequently their available energy, to such a point as
      to make them incapable of the effort required for the learning and
      adoption of new habits of thought. The accumulation of wealth at the upper
      end of the pecuniary scale implies privation at the lower end of the
      scale. It is a commonplace that, wherever it occurs, a considerable degree
      of privation among the body of the people is a serious obstacle to any
      innovation.
    </p>
    <p>
      This direct inhibitory effect of the unequal distribution of wealth is
      seconded by an indirect effect tending to the same result. As has already
      been seen, the imperative example set by the upper class in fixing the
      canons of reputability fosters the practice of conspicuous consumption.
      The prevalence of conspicuous consumption as one of the main elements in
      the standard of decency among all classes is of course not traceable
      wholly to the example of the wealthy leisure class, but the practice and
      the insistence on it are no doubt strengthened by the example of the
      leisure class. The requirements of decency in this matter are very
      considerable and very imperative; so that even among classes whose
      pecuniary position is sufficiently strong to admit a consumption of goods
      considerably in excess of the subsistence minimum, the disposable surplus
      left over after the more imperative physical needs are satisfied is not
      infrequently diverted to the purpose of a conspicuous decency, rather than
      to added physical comfort and fullness of life. Moreover, such surplus
      energy as is available is also likely to be expended in the acquisition of
      goods for conspicuous consumption or conspicuous boarding. The result is
      that the requirements of pecuniary reputability tend (1) to leave but a
      scanty subsistence minimum available for other than conspicuous
      consumption, and (2) to absorb any surplus energy which may be available
      after the bare physical necessities of life have been provided for. The
      outcome of the whole is a strengthening of the general conservative
      attitude of the community. The institution of a leisure class hinders
      cultural development immediately (1) by the inertia proper to the class
      itself, (2) through its prescriptive example of conspicuous waste and of
      conservatism, and (3) indirectly through that system of unequal
      distribution of wealth and sustenance on which the institution itself
      rests. To this is to be added that the leisure class has also a material
      interest in leaving things as they are. Under the circumstances prevailing
      at any given time this class is in a privileged position, and any
      departure from the existing order may be expected to work to the detriment
      of the class rather than the reverse. The attitude of the class, simply as
      influenced by its class interest, should therefore be to let well-enough
      alone. This interested motive comes in to supplement the strong
      instinctive bias of the class, and so to render it even more consistently
      conservative than it otherwise would be.
    </p>
    <p>
      All this, of course, has nothing to say in the way of eulogy or
      deprecation of the office of the leisure class as an exponent and vehicle
      of conservatism or reversion in social structure. The inhibition which it
      exercises may be salutary or the reverse. Wether it is the one or the
      other in any given case is a question of casuistry rather than of general
      theory. There may be truth in the view (as a question of policy) so often
      expressed by the spokesmen of the conservative element, that without some
      such substantial and consistent resistance to innovation as is offered by
      the conservative well-to-do classes, social innovation and experiment
      would hurry the community into untenable and intolerable situations; the
      only possible result of which would be discontent and disastrous reaction.
      All this, however, is beside the present argument.
    </p>
    <p>
      But apart from all deprecation, and aside from all question as to the
      indispensability of some such check on headlong innovation, the leisure
      class, in the nature of things, consistently acts to retard that
      adjustment to the environment which is called social advance or
      development. The characteristic attitude of the class may be summed up in
      the maxim: "Whatever is, is right" whereas the law of natural selection,
      as applied to human institutions, gives the axiom: "Whatever is, is
      wrong." Not that the institutions of today are wholly wrong for the
      purposes of the life of today, but they are, always and in the nature of
      things, wrong to some extent. They are the result of a more or less
      inadequate adjustment of the methods of living to a situation which
      prevailed at some point in the past development; and they are therefore
      wrong by something more than the interval which separates the present
      situation from that of the past. "Right" and "wrong" are of course here
      used without conveying any rejection as to what ought or ought not to be.
      They are applied simply from the (morally colorless) evolutionary
      standpoint, and are intended to designate compatibility or incompatibility
      with the effective evolutionary process. The institution of a leisure
      class, by force or class interest and instinct, and by precept and
      prescriptive example, makes for the perpetuation of the existing
      maladjustment of institutions, and even favors a reversion to a somewhat
      more archaic scheme of life; a scheme which would be still farther out of
      adjustment with the exigencies of life under the existing situation even
      than the accredited, obsolescent scheme that has come down from the
      immediate past.
    </p>
    <p>
      But after all has been said on the head of conservation of the good old
      ways, it remains true that institutions change and develop. There is a
      cumulative growth of customs and habits of thought; a selective adaptation
      of conventions and methods of life. Something is to be said of the office
      of the leisure class in guiding this growth as well as in retarding it;
      but little can be said here of its relation to institutional growth except
      as it touches the institutions that are primarily and immediately of an
      economic character. These institutions&mdash;the economic structure&mdash;may
      be roughly distinguished into two classes or categories, according as they
      serve one or the other of two divergent purposes of economic life.
    </p>
    <p>
      To adapt the classical terminology, they are institutions of acquisition
      or of production; or to revert to terms already employed in a different
      connection in earlier chapters, they are pecuniary or industrial
      institutions; or in still other terms, they are institutions serving
      either the invidious or the non-invidious economic interest. The former
      category have to do with "business," the latter with industry, taking the
      latter word in the mechanical sense. The latter class are not often
      recognized as institutions, in great part because they do not immediately
      concern the ruling class, and are, therefore, seldom the subject of
      legislation or of deliberate convention. When they do receive attention
      they are commonly approached from the pecuniary or business side; that
      being the side or phase of economic life that chiefly occupies men's
      deliberations in our time, especially the deliberations of the upper
      classes. These classes have little else than a business interest in things
      economic, and on them at the same time it is chiefly incumbent to
      deliberate upon the community's affairs.
    </p>
    <p>
      The relation of the leisure (that is, propertied non-industrial) class to
      the economic process is a pecuniary relation&mdash;a relation of
      acquisition, not of production; of exploitation, not of serviceability.
      Indirectly their economic office may, of course, be of the utmost
      importance to the economic life process; and it is by no means here
      intended to depreciate the economic function of the propertied class or of
      the captains of industry. The purpose is simply to point out what is the
      nature of the relation of these classes to the industrial process and to
      economic institutions. Their office is of a parasitic character, and their
      interest is to divert what substance they may to their own use, and to
      retain whatever is under their hand. The conventions of the business world
      have grown up under the selective surveillance of this principle of
      predation or parasitism. They are conventions of ownership; derivatives,
      more or less remote, of the ancient predatory culture. But these pecuniary
      institutions do not entirely fit the situation of today, for they have
      grown up under a past situation differing somewhat from the present. Even
      for effectiveness in the pecuniary way, therefore, they are not as apt as
      might be. The changed industrial life requires changed methods of
      acquisition; and the pecuniary classes have some interest in so adapting
      the pecuniary institutions as to give them the best effect for acquisition
      of private gain that is compatible with the continuance of the industrial
      process out of which this gain arises. Hence there is a more or less
      consistent trend in the leisure-class guidance of institutional growth,
      answering to the pecuniary ends which shape leisure-class economic life.
    </p>
    <p>
      The effect of the pecuniary interest and the pecuniary habit of mind upon
      the growth of institutions is seen in those enactments and conventions
      that make for security of property, enforcement of contracts, facility of
      pecuniary transactions, vested interests. Of such bearing are changes
      affecting bankruptcy and receiverships, limited liability, banking and
      currency, coalitions of laborers or employers, trusts and pools. The
      community's institutional furniture of this kind is of immediate
      consequence only to the propertied classes, and in proportion as they are
      propertied; that is to say, in proportion as they are to be ranked with
      the leisure class. But indirectly these conventions of business life are
      of the gravest consequence for the industrial process and for the life of
      the community. And in guiding the institutional growth in this respect,
      the pecuniary classes, therefore, serve a purpose of the most serious
      importance to the community, not only in the conservation of the accepted
      social scheme, but also in shaping the industrial process proper. The
      immediate end of this pecuniary institutional structure and of its
      amelioration is the greater facility of peaceable and orderly
      exploitation; but its remoter effects far outrun this immediate object.
      Not only does the more facile conduct of business permit industry and
      extra-industrial life to go on with less perturbation; but the resulting
      elimination of disturbances and complications calling for an exercise of
      astute discrimination in everyday affairs acts to make the pecuniary class
      itself superfluous. As fast as pecuniary transactions are reduced to
      routine, the captain of industry can be dispensed with. This consummation,
      it is needless to say, lies yet in the indefinite future. The
      ameliorations wrought in favor of the pecuniary interest in modern
      institutions tend, in another field, to substitute the "soulless"
      joint-stock corporation for the captain, and so they make also for the
      dispensability, of the great leisure-class function of ownership.
      Indirectly, therefore, the bent given to the growth of economic
      institutions by the leisure-class influence is of very considerable
      industrial consequence.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0009" id="link2HCH0009">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Nine ~~ The Conservation of Archaic Traits
    </h2>
    <p>
      The institution of a leisure class has an effect not only upon social
      structure but also upon the individual character of the members of
      society. So soon as a given proclivity or a given point of view has won
      acceptance as an authoritative standard or norm of life it will react upon
      the character of the members of the society which has accepted it as a
      norm. It will to some extent shape their habits of thought and will
      exercise a selective surveillance over the development of men's aptitudes
      and inclinations. This effect is wrought partly by a coercive, educational
      adaptation of the habits of all individuals, partly by a selective
      elimination of the unfit individuals and lines of descent. Such human
      material as does not lend itself to the methods of life imposed by the
      accepted scheme suffers more or less elimination as well as repression.
      The principles of pecuniary emulation and of industrial exemption have in
      this way been erected into canons of life, and have become coercive
      factors of some importance in the situation to which men have to adapt
      themselves.
    </p>
    <p>
      These two broad principles of conspicuous waste and industrial exemption
      affect the cultural development both by guiding men's habits of thought,
      and so controlling the growth of institutions, and by selectively
      conserving certain traits of human nature that conduce to facility of life
      under the leisure-class scheme, and so controlling the effective temper of
      the community. The proximate tendency of the institution of a leisure
      class in shaping human character runs in the direction of spiritual
      survival and reversion. Its effect upon the temper of a community is of
      the nature of an arrested spiritual development. In the later culture
      especially, the institution has, on the whole, a conservative trend. This
      proposition is familiar enough in substance, but it may to many have the
      appearance of novelty in its present application. Therefore a summary
      review of its logical grounds may not be uncalled for, even at the risk of
      some tedious repetition and formulation of commonplaces.
    </p>
    <p>
      Social evolution is a process of selective adaptation of temperament and
      habits of thought under the stress of the circumstances of associated
      life. The adaptation of habits of thought is the growth of institutions.
      But along with the growth of institutions has gone a change of a more
      substantial character. Not only have the habits of men changed with the
      changing exigencies of the situation, but these changing exigencies have
      also brought about a correlative change in human nature. The human
      material of society itself varies with the changing conditions of life.
      This variation of human nature is held by the later ethnologists to be a
      process of selection between several relatively stable and persistent
      ethnic types or ethnic elements. Men tend to revert or to breed true, more
      or less closely, to one or another of certain types of human nature that
      have in their main features been fixed in approximate conformity to a
      situation in the past which differed from the situation of today. There
      are several of these relatively stable ethnic types of mankind comprised
      in the populations of the Western culture. These ethnic types survive in
      the race inheritance today, not as rigid and invariable moulds, each of a
      single precise and specific pattern, but in the form of a greater or
      smaller number of variants. Some variation of the ethnic types has
      resulted under the protracted selective process to which the several types
      and their hybrids have been subjected during the prehistoric and historic
      growth of culture.
    </p>
    <p>
      This necessary variation of the types themselves, due to a selective
      process of considerable duration and of a consistent trend, has not been
      sufficiently noticed by the writers who have discussed ethnic survival.
      The argument is here concerned with two main divergent variants of human
      nature resulting from this, relatively late, selective adaptation of the
      ethnic types comprised in the Western culture; the point of interest being
      the probable effect of the situation of today in furthering variation
      along one or the other of these two divergent lines.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ethnological position may be briefly summed up; and in order to avoid
      any but the most indispensable detail the schedule of types and variants
      and the scheme of reversion and survival in which they are concerned are
      here presented with a diagrammatic meagerness and simplicity which would
      not be admissible for any other purpose. The man of our industrial
      communities tends to breed true to one or the other of three main ethic
      types; the dolichocephalic-blond, the brachycephalic-brunette, and the
      Mediterranean&mdash;disregarding minor and outlying elements of our
      culture. But within each of these main ethnic types the reversion tends to
      one or the other of at least two main directions of variation; the
      peaceable or antepredatory variant and the predatory variant. The former
      of these two characteristic variants is nearer to the generic type in each
      case, being the reversional representative of its type as it stood at the
      earliest stage of associated life of which there is available evidence,
      either archaeological or psychological. This variant is taken to represent
      the ancestors of existing civilized man at the peaceable, savage phase of
      life which preceded the predatory culture, the regime of status, and the
      growth of pecuniary emulation. The second or predatory variant of the
      types is taken to be a survival of a more recent modification of the main
      ethnic types and their hybrids&mdash;of these types as they were modified,
      mainly by a selective adaptation, under the discipline of the predatory
      culture and the latter emulative culture of the quasi-peaceable stage, or
      the pecuniary culture proper.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under the recognized laws of heredity there may be a survival from a more
      or less remote past phase. In the ordinary, average, or normal case, if
      the type has varied, the traits of the type are transmitted approximately
      as they have stood in the recent past&mdash;which may be called the
      hereditary present. For the purpose in hand this hereditary present is
      represented by the later predatory and the quasi-peaceable culture.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is to the variant of human nature which is characteristic of this
      recent&mdash;hereditarily still existing&mdash;predatory or
      quasi-predatory culture that the modern civilized man tends to breed true
      in the common run of cases. This proposition requires some qualification
      so far as concerns the descendants of the servile or repressed classes of
      barbarian times, but the qualification necessary is probably not so great
      as might at first thought appear. Taking the population as a whole, this
      predatory, emulative variant does not seem to have attained a high degree
      of consistency or stability. That is to say, the human nature inherited by
      modern Occidental man is not nearly uniform in respect of the range or the
      relative strength of the various aptitudes and propensities which go to
      make it up. The man of the hereditary present is slightly archaic as
      judged for the purposes of the latest exigencies of associated life. And
      the type to which the modern man chiefly tends to revert under the law of
      variation is a somewhat more archaic human nature. On the other hand, to
      judge by the reversional traits which show themselves in individuals that
      vary from the prevailing predatory style of temperament, the
      ante-predatory variant seems to have a greater stability and greater
      symmetry in the distribution or relative force of its temperamental
      elements.
    </p>
    <p>
      This divergence of inherited human nature, as between an earlier and a
      later variant of the ethnic type to which the individual tends to breed
      true, is traversed and obscured by a similar divergence between the two or
      three main ethnic types that go to make up the Occidental populations. The
      individuals in these communities are conceived to be, in virtually every
      instance, hybrids of the prevailing ethnic elements combined in the most
      varied proportions; with the result that they tend to take back to one or
      the other of the component ethnic types. These ethnic types differ in
      temperament in a way somewhat similar to the difference between the
      predatory and the antepredatory variants of the types; the dolicho-blond
      type showing more of the characteristics of the predatory temperament&mdash;or
      at least more of the violent disposition&mdash;than the
      brachycephalic-brunette type, and especially more than the Mediterranean.
      When the growth of institutions or of the effective sentiment of a given
      community shows a divergence from the predatory human nature, therefore,
      it is impossible to say with certainty that such a divergence indicates a
      reversion to the ante-predatory variant. It may be due to an increasing
      dominance of the one or the other of the "lower" ethnic elements in the
      population. Still, although the evidence is not as conclusive as might be
      desired, there are indications that the variations in the effective
      temperament of modern communities is not altogether due to a selection
      between stable ethnic types. It seems to be to some appreciable extent a
      selection between the predatory and the peaceable variants of the several
      types. This conception of contemporary human evolution is not
      indispensable to the discussion. The general conclusions reached by the
      use of these concepts of selective adaptation would remain substantially
      true if the earlier, Darwinian and Spencerian, terms and concepts were
      substituted. Under the circumstances, some latitude may be admissible in
      the use of terms. The word "type" is used loosely, to denote variations of
      temperament which the ethnologists would perhaps recognize only as trivial
      variants of the type rather than as distinct ethnic types. Wherever a
      closer discrimination seems essential to the argument, the effort to make
      such a closer discrimination will be evident from the context.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ethnic types of today, then, are variants of the primitive racial
      types. They have suffered some alteration, and have attained some degree
      of fixity in their altered form, under the discipline of the barbarian
      culture. The man of the hereditary present is the barbarian variant,
      servile or aristocratic, of the ethnic elements that constitute him. But
      this barbarian variant has not attained the highest degree of homogeneity
      or of stability. The barbarian culture&mdash;the predatory and
      quasi-peaceable cultural stages&mdash;though of great absolute duration,
      has been neither protracted enough nor invariable enough in character to
      give an extreme fixity of type. Variations from the barbarian human nature
      occur with some frequency, and these cases of variation are becoming more
      noticeable today, because the conditions of modern life no longer act
      consistently to repress departures from the barbarian normal. The
      predatory temperament does not lead itself to all the purposes of modern
      life, and more especially not to modern industry.
    </p>
    <p>
      Departures from the human nature of the hereditary present are most
      frequently of the nature of reversions to an earlier variant of the type.
      This earlier variant is represented by the temperament which characterizes
      the primitive phase of peaceable savagery. The circumstances of life and
      the ends of effort that prevailed before the advent of the barbarian
      culture, shaped human nature and fixed it as regards certain fundamental
      traits. And it is to these ancient, generic features that modern men are
      prone to take back in case of variation from the human nature of the
      hereditary present. The conditions under which men lived in the most
      primitive stages of associated life that can properly be called human,
      seem to have been of a peaceful kind; and the character&mdash;the
      temperament and spiritual attitude of men under these early conditions or
      environment and institutions seems to have been of a peaceful and
      unaggressive, not to say an indolent, cast. For the immediate purpose this
      peaceable cultural stage may be taken to mark the initial phase of social
      development. So far as concerns the present argument, the dominant
      spiritual feature of this presumptive initial phase of culture seems to
      have been an unreflecting, unformulated sense of group solidarity, largely
      expressing itself in a complacent, but by no means strenuous, sympathy
      with all facility of human life, and an uneasy revulsion against
      apprehended inhibition or futility of life. Through its ubiquitous
      presence in the habits of thought of the ante-predatory savage man, this
      pervading but uneager sense of the generically useful seems to have
      exercised an appreciable constraining force upon his life and upon the
      manner of his habitual contact with other members of the group.
    </p>
    <p>
      The traces of this initial, undifferentiated peaceable phase of culture
      seem faint and doubtful if we look merely to such categorical evidence of
      its existence as is afforded by usages and views in vogue within the
      historical present, whether in civilized or in rude communities; but less
      dubious evidence of its existence is to be found in psychological
      survivals, in the way of persistent and pervading traits of human
      character. These traits survive perhaps in an especial degree among those
      ethic elements which were crowded into the background during the predatory
      culture. Traits that were suited to the earlier habits of life then became
      relatively useless in the individual struggle for existence. And those
      elements of the population, or those ethnic groups, which were by
      temperament less fitted to the predatory life were repressed and pushed
      into the background. On the transition to the predatory culture the
      character of the struggle for existence changed in some degree from a
      struggle of the group against a non-human environment to a struggle
      against a human environment. This change was accompanied by an increasing
      antagonism and consciousness of antagonism between the individual members
      of the group. The conditions of success within the group, as well as the
      conditions of the survival of the group, changed in some measure; and the
      dominant spiritual attitude for the group gradually changed, and brought a
      different range of aptitudes and propensities into the position of
      legitimate dominance in the accepted scheme of life. Among these archaic
      traits that are to be regarded as survivals from the peaceable cultural
      phase, are that instinct of race solidarity which we call conscience,
      including the sense of truthfulness and equity, and the instinct of
      workmanship, in its naive, non-invidious expression.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under the guidance of the later biological and psychological science,
      human nature will have to be restated in terms of habit; and in the
      restatement, this, in outline, appears to be the only assignable place and
      ground of these traits. These habits of life are of too pervading a
      character to be ascribed to the influence of a late or brief discipline.
      The ease with which they are temporarily overborne by the special
      exigencies of recent and modern life argues that these habits are the
      surviving effects of a discipline of extremely ancient date, from the
      teachings of which men have frequently been constrained to depart in
      detail under the altered circumstances of a later time; and the almost
      ubiquitous fashion in which they assert themselves whenever the pressure
      of special exigencies is relieved, argues that the process by which the
      traits were fixed and incorporated into the spiritual make-up of the type
      must have lasted for a relatively very long time and without serious
      intermission. The point is not seriously affected by any question as to
      whether it was a process of habituation in the old-fashioned sense of the
      word or a process of selective adaptation of the race.
    </p>
    <p>
      The character and exigencies of life, under that regime of status and of
      individual and class antithesis which covers the entire interval from the
      beginning of predatory culture to the present, argue that the traits of
      temperament here under discussion could scarcely have arisen and acquired
      fixity during that interval. It is entirely probable that these traits
      have come down from an earlier method of life, and have survived through
      the interval of predatory and quasi-peaceable culture in a condition of
      incipient, or at least imminent, desuetude, rather than that they have
      been brought out and fixed by this later culture. They appear to be
      hereditary characteristics of the race, and to have persisted in spite of
      the altered requirements of success under the predatory and the later
      pecuniary stages of culture. They seem to have persisted by force of the
      tenacity of transmission that belongs to an hereditary trait that is
      present in some degree in every member of the species, and which therefore
      rests on a broad basis of race continuity.
    </p>
    <p>
      Such a generic feature is not readily eliminated, even under a process of
      selection so severe and protracted as that to which the traits here under
      discussion were subjected during the predatory and quasi-peaceable stages.
      These peaceable traits are in great part alien to the methods and the
      animus of barbarian life. The salient characteristic of the barbarian
      culture is an unremitting emulation and antagonism between classes and
      between individuals. This emulative discipline favors those individuals
      and lines of descent which possess the peaceable savage traits in a
      relatively slight degree. It therefore tends to eliminate these traits,
      and it has apparently weakened them, in an appreciable degree, in the
      populations that have been subject to it. Even where the extreme penalty
      for non-conformity to the barbarian type of temperament is not paid, there
      results at least a more or less consistent repression of the
      non-conforming individuals and lines of descent. Where life is largely a
      struggle between individuals within the group, the possession of the
      ancient peaceable traits in a marked degree would hamper an individual in
      the struggle for life.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under any known phase of culture, other or later than the presumptive
      initial phase here spoken of, the gifts of good-nature, equity, and
      indiscriminate sympathy do not appreciably further the life of the
      individual. Their possession may serve to protect the individual from hard
      usage at the hands of a majority that insists on a modicum of these
      ingredients in their ideal of a normal man; but apart from their indirect
      and negative effect in this way, the individual fares better under the
      regime of competition in proportion as he has less of these gifts. Freedom
      from scruple, from sympathy, honesty and regard for life, may, within
      fairly wide limits, be said to further the success of the individual in
      the pecuniary culture. The highly successful men of all times have
      commonly been of this type; except those whose success has not been scored
      in terms of either wealth or power. It is only within narrow limits, and
      then only in a Pickwickian sense, that honesty is the best policy.
    </p>
    <p>
      As seen from the point of view of life under modern civilized conditions
      in an enlightened community of the Western culture, the primitive,
      ante-predatory savage, whose character it has been attempted to trace in
      outline above, was not a great success. Even for the purposes of that
      hypothetical culture to which his type of human nature owes what stability
      it has&mdash;even for the ends of the peaceable savage group&mdash;this
      primitive man has quite as many and as conspicuous economic failings as he
      has economic virtues&mdash;as should be plain to any one whose sense of
      the case is not biased by leniency born of a fellow-feeling. At his best
      he is "a clever, good-for-nothing fellow." The shortcomings of this
      presumptively primitive type of character are weakness, inefficiency, lack
      of initiative and ingenuity, and a yielding and indolent amiability,
      together with a lively but inconsequential animistic sense. Along with
      these traits go certain others which have some value for the collective
      life process, in the sense that they further the facility of life in the
      group. These traits are truthfulness, peaceableness, good-will, and a
      non-emulative, non-invidious interest in men and things.
    </p>
    <p>
      With the advent of the predatory stage of life there comes a change in the
      requirements of the successful human character. Men's habits of life are
      required to adapt themselves to new exigencies under a new scheme of human
      relations. The same unfolding of energy, which had previously found
      expression in the traits of savage life recited above, is now required to
      find expression along a new line of action, in a new group of habitual
      responses to altered stimuli. The methods which, as counted in terms of
      facility of life, answered measurably under the earlier conditions, are no
      longer adequate under the new conditions. The earlier situation was
      characterized by a relative absence of antagonism or differentiation of
      interests, the later situation by an emulation constantly increasing in
      relative absence of antagonism or differentiation of interests, the later
      situation by an emulation constantly increasing in intensity and narrowing
      in scope. The traits which characterize the predatory and subsequent
      stages of culture, and which indicate the types of man best fitted to
      survive under the regime of status, are (in their primary expression)
      ferocity, self-seeking, clannishness, and disingenuousness&mdash;a free
      resort to force and fraud.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under the severe and protracted discipline of the regime of competition,
      the selection of ethnic types has acted to give a somewhat pronounced
      dominance to these traits of character, by favoring the survival of those
      ethnic elements which are most richly endowed in these respects. At the
      same time the earlier&mdash;acquired, more generic habits of the race have
      never ceased to have some usefulness for the purpose of the life of the
      collectivity and have never fallen into definitive abeyance. It may be
      worth while to point out that the dolicho-blond type of European man seems
      to owe much of its dominating influence and its masterful position in the
      recent culture to its possessing the characteristics of predatory man in
      an exceptional degree. These spiritual traits, together with a large
      endowment of physical energy&mdash;itself probably a result of selection
      between groups and between lines of descent&mdash;chiefly go to place any
      ethnic element in the position of a leisure or master class, especially
      during the earlier phases of the development of the institution of a
      leisure class. This need not mean that precisely the same complement of
      aptitudes in any individual would insure him an eminent personal success.
      Under the competitive regime, the conditions of success for the individual
      are not necessarily the same as those for a class. The success of a class
      or party presumes a strong element of clannishness, or loyalty to a chief,
      or adherence to a tenet; whereas the competitive individual can best
      achieve his ends if he combines the barbarian's energy, initiative,
      self-seeking and disingenuousness with the savage's lack of loyalty or
      clannishness. It may be remarked by the way, that the men who have scored
      a brilliant (Napoleonic) success on the basis of an impartial self-seeking
      and absence of scruple, have not uncommonly shown more of the physical
      characteristics of the brachycephalic-brunette than of the dolicho-blond.
      The greater proportion of moderately successful individuals, in a
      self-seeking way, however, seem, in physique, to belong to the last-named
      ethnic element.
    </p>
    <p>
      The temperament induced by the predatory habit of life makes for the
      survival and fullness of life of the individual under a regime of
      emulation; at the same time it makes for the survival and success of the
      group if the group's life as a collectivity is also predominantly a life
      of hostile competition with other groups. But the evolution of economic
      life in the industrially more mature communities has now begun to take
      such a turn that the interest of the community no longer coincides with
      the emulative interests of the individual. In their corporate capacity,
      these advanced industrial communities are ceasing to be competitors for
      the means of life or for the right to live&mdash;except in so far as the
      predatory propensities of their ruling classes keep up the tradition of
      war and rapine. These communities are no longer hostile to one another by
      force of circumstances, other than the circumstances of tradition and
      temperament. Their material interests&mdash;apart, possibly, from the
      interests of the collective good fame&mdash;are not only no longer
      incompatible, but the success of any one of the communities unquestionably
      furthers the fullness of life of any other community in the group, for the
      present and for an incalculable time to come. No one of them any longer
      has any material interest in getting the better of any other. The same is
      not true in the same degree as regards individuals and their relations to
      one another.
    </p>
    <p>
      The collective interests of any modern community center in industrial
      efficiency. The individual is serviceable for the ends of the community
      somewhat in proportion to his efficiency in the productive employments
      vulgarly so called. This collective interest is best served by honesty,
      diligence, peacefulness, good-will, an absence of self-seeking, and an
      habitual recognition and apprehension of causal sequence, without
      admixture of animistic belief and without a sense of dependence on any
      preternatural intervention in the course of events. Not much is to be said
      for the beauty, moral excellence, or general worthiness and reputability
      of such a prosy human nature as these traits imply; and there is little
      ground of enthusiasm for the manner of collective life that would result
      from the prevalence of these traits in unmitigated dominance. But that is
      beside the point. The successful working of a modern industrial community
      is best secured where these traits concur, and it is attained in the
      degree in which the human material is characterized by their possession.
      Their presence in some measure is required in order to have a tolerable
      adjustment to the circumstances of the modern industrial situation. The
      complex, comprehensive, essentially peaceable, and highly organized
      mechanism of the modern industrial community works to the best advantage
      when these traits, or most of them, are present in the highest practicable
      degree. These traits are present in a markedly less degree in the man of
      the predatory type than is useful for the purposes of the modern
      collective life.
    </p>
    <p>
      On the other hand, the immediate interest of the individual under the
      competitive regime is best served by shrewd trading and unscrupulous
      management. The characteristics named above as serving the interests of
      the community are disserviceable to the individual, rather than otherwise.
      The presence of these aptitudes in his make-up diverts his energies to
      other ends than those of pecuniary gain; and also in his pursuit of gain
      they lead him to seek gain by the indirect and ineffectual channels of
      industry, rather than by a free and unfaltering career of sharp practice.
      The industrial aptitudes are pretty consistently a hindrance to the
      individual. Under the regime of emulation the members of a modern
      industrial community are rivals, each of whom will best attain his
      individual and immediate advantage if, through an exceptional exemption
      from scruple, he is able serenely to overreach and injure his fellows when
      the chance offers.
    </p>
    <p>
      It has already been noticed that modern economic institutions fall into
      two roughly distinct categories&mdash;the pecuniary and the industrial.
      The like is true of employments. Under the former head are employments
      that have to do with ownership or acquisition; under the latter head,
      those that have to do with workmanship or production. As was found in
      speaking of the growth of institutions, so with regard to employments. The
      economic interests of the leisure class lie in the pecuniary employments;
      those of the working classes lie in both classes of employments, but
      chiefly in the industrial. Entrance to the leisure class lies through the
      pecuniary employments.
    </p>
    <p>
      These two classes of employment differ materially in respect of the
      aptitudes required for each; and the training which they give similarly
      follows two divergent lines. The discipline of the pecuniary employments
      acts to conserve and to cultivate certain of the predatory aptitudes and
      the predatory animus. It does this both by educating those individuals and
      classes who are occupied with these employments and by selectively
      repressing and eliminating those individuals and lines of descent that are
      unfit in this respect. So far as men's habits of thought are shaped by the
      competitive process of acquisition and tenure; so far as their economic
      functions are comprised within the range of ownership of wealth as
      conceived in terms of exchange value, and its management and financiering
      through a permutation of values; so far their experience in economic life
      favors the survival and accentuation of the predatory temperament and
      habits of thought. Under the modern, peaceable system, it is of course the
      peaceable range of predatory habits and aptitudes that is chiefly fostered
      by a life of acquisition. That is to say, the pecuniary employments give
      proficiency in the general line of practices comprised under fraud, rather
      than in those that belong under the more archaic method of forcible
      seizure.
    </p>
    <p>
      These pecuniary employments, tending to conserve the predatory
      temperament, are the employments which have to do with ownership&mdash;the
      immediate function of the leisure class proper&mdash;and the subsidiary
      functions concerned with acquisition and accumulation. These cover the
      class of persons and that range of duties in the economic process which
      have to do with the ownership of enterprises engaged in competitive
      industry; especially those fundamental lines of economic management which
      are classed as financiering operations. To these may be added the greater
      part of mercantile occupations. In their best and clearest development
      these duties make up the economic office of the "captain of industry." The
      captain of industry is an astute man rather than an ingenious one, and his
      captaincy is a pecuniary rather than an industrial captaincy. Such
      administration of industry as he exercises is commonly of a permissive
      kind. The mechanically effective details of production and of industrial
      organization are delegated to subordinates of a less "practical" turn of
      mind&mdash;men who are possessed of a gift for workmanship rather than
      administrative ability. So far as regards their tendency in shaping human
      nature by education and selection, the common run of non-economic
      employments are to be classed with the pecuniary employments. Such are
      politics and ecclesiastical and military employments.
    </p>
    <p>
      The pecuniary employments have also the sanction of reputability in a much
      higher degree than the industrial employments. In this way the
      leisure-class standards of good repute come in to sustain the prestige of
      those aptitudes that serve the invidious purpose; and the leisure-class
      scheme of decorous living, therefore, also furthers the survival and
      culture of the predatory traits. Employments fall into a hierarchical
      gradation of reputability. Those which have to do immediately with
      ownership on a large scale are the most reputable of economic employments
      proper. Next to these in good repute come those employments that are
      immediately subservient to ownership and financiering&mdash;such as
      banking and the law. Banking employments also carry a suggestion of large
      ownership, and this fact is doubtless accountable for a share of the
      prestige that attaches to the business. The profession of the law does not
      imply large ownership; but since no taint of usefulness, for other than
      the competitive purpose, attaches to the lawyer's trade, it grades high in
      the conventional scheme. The lawyer is exclusively occupied with the
      details of predatory fraud, either in achieving or in checkmating
      chicanery, and success in the profession is therefore accepted as marking
      a large endowment of that barbarian astuteness which has always commanded
      men's respect and fear. Mercantile pursuits are only half-way reputable,
      unless they involve a large element of ownership and a small element of
      usefulness. They grade high or low somewhat in proportion as they serve
      the higher or the lower needs; so that the business of retailing the
      vulgar necessaries of life descends to the level of the handicrafts and
      factory labor. Manual labor, or even the work of directing mechanical
      processes, is of course on a precarious footing as regards respectability.
      A qualification is necessary as regards the discipline given by the
      pecuniary employments. As the scale of industrial enterprise grows larger,
      pecuniary management comes to bear less of the character of chicanery and
      shrewd competition in detail. That is to say, for an ever-increasing
      proportion of the persons who come in contact with this phase of economic
      life, business reduces itself to a routine in which there is less
      immediate suggestion of overreaching or exploiting a competitor. The
      consequent exemption from predatory habits extends chiefly to subordinates
      employed in business. The duties of ownership and administration are
      virtually untouched by this qualification. The case is different as
      regards those individuals or classes who are immediately occupied with the
      technique and manual operations of production. Their daily life is not in
      the same degree a course of habituation to the emulative and invidious
      motives and maneuvers of the pecuniary side of industry. They are
      consistently held to the apprehension and coordination of mechanical facts
      and sequences, and to their appreciation and utilization for the purposes
      of human life. So far as concerns this portion of the population, the
      educative and selective action of the industrial process with which they
      are immediately in contact acts to adapt their habits of thought to the
      non-invidious purposes of the collective life. For them, therefore, it
      hastens the obsolescence of the distinctively predatory aptitudes and
      propensities carried over by heredity and tradition from the barbarian
      past of the race.
    </p>
    <p>
      The educative action of the economic life of the community, therefore, is
      not of a uniform kind throughout all its manifestations. That range of
      economic activities which is concerned immediately with pecuniary
      competition has a tendency to conserve certain predatory traits; while
      those industrial occupations which have to do immediately with the
      production of goods have in the main the contrary tendency. But with
      regard to the latter class of employments it is to be noticed in
      qualification that the persons engaged in them are nearly all to some
      extent also concerned with matters of pecuniary competition (as, for
      instance, in the competitive fixing of wages and salaries, in the purchase
      of goods for consumption, etc.). Therefore the distinction here made
      between classes of employments is by no means a hard and fast distinction
      between classes of persons.
    </p>
    <p>
      The employments of the leisure classes in modern industry are such as to
      keep alive certain of the predatory habits and aptitudes. So far as the
      members of those classes take part in the industrial process, their
      training tends to conserve in them the barbarian temperament. But there is
      something to be said on the other side. Individuals so placed as to be
      exempt from strain may survive and transmit their characteristics even if
      they differ widely from the average of the species both in physique and in
      spiritual make-up. The chances for a survival and transmission of
      atavistic traits are greatest in those classes that are most sheltered
      from the stress of circumstances. The leisure class is in some degree
      sheltered from the stress of the industrial situation, and should,
      therefore, afford an exceptionally great proportion of reversions to the
      peaceable or savage temperament. It should be possible for such aberrant
      or atavistic individuals to unfold their life activity on ante-predatory
      lines without suffering as prompt a repression or elimination as in the
      lower walks of life.
    </p>
    <p>
      Something of the sort seems to be true in fact. There is, for instance, an
      appreciable proportion of the upper classes whose inclinations lead them
      into philanthropic work, and there is a considerable body of sentiment in
      the class going to support efforts of reform and amelioration. And much of
      this philanthropic and reformatory effort, moreover, bears the marks of
      that amiable "cleverness" and incoherence that is characteristic of the
      primitive savage. But it may still be doubtful whether these facts are
      evidence of a larger proportion of reversions in the higher than in the
      lower strata, even if the same inclinations were present in the
      impecunious classes, it would not as easily find expression there; since
      those classes lack the means and the time and energy to give effect to
      their inclinations in this respect. The prima facie evidence of the facts
      can scarcely go unquestioned.
    </p>
    <p>
      In further qualification it is to be noted that the leisure class of today
      is recruited from those who have been successful in a pecuniary way, and
      who, therefore, are presumably endowed with more than an even complement
      of the predatory traits. Entrance into the leisure class lies through the
      pecuniary employments, and these employments, by selection and adaptation,
      act to admit to the upper levels only those lines of descent that are
      pecuniarily fit to survive under the predatory test. And so soon as a case
      of reversion to non-predatory human nature shows itself on these upper
      levels, it is commonly weeded out and thrown back to the lower pecuniary
      levels. In order to hold its place in the class, a stock must have the
      pecuniary temperament; otherwise its fortune would be dissipated and it
      would presently lose caste. Instances of this kind are sufficiently
      frequent. The constituency of the leisure class is kept up by a continual
      selective process, whereby the individuals and lines of descent that are
      eminently fitted for an aggressive pecuniary competition are withdrawn
      from the lower classes. In order to reach the upper levels the aspirant
      must have, not only a fair average complement of the pecuniary aptitudes,
      but he must have these gifts in such an eminent degree as to overcome very
      material difficulties that stand in the way of his ascent. Barring
      accidents, the nouveaux arrivés are a picked body.
    </p>
    <p>
      This process of selective admission has, of course, always been going on;
      ever since the fashion of pecuniary emulation set in&mdash;which is much
      the same as saying, ever since the institution of a leisure class was
      first installed. But the precise ground of selection has not always been
      the same, and the selective process has therefore not always given the
      same results. In the early barbarian, or predatory stage proper, the test
      of fitness was prowess, in the naive sense of the word. To gain entrance
      to the class, the candidate had to be gifted with clannishness,
      massiveness, ferocity, unscrupulousness, and tenacity of purpose. These
      were the qualities that counted toward the accumulation and continued
      tenure of wealth. The economic basis of the leisure class, then as later,
      was the possession of wealth; but the methods of accumulating wealth, and
      the gifts required for holding it, have changed in some degree since the
      early days of the predatory culture. In consequence of the selective
      process the dominant traits of the early barbarian leisure class were bold
      aggression, an alert sense of status, and a free resort to fraud. The
      members of the class held their place by tenure of prowess. In the later
      barbarian culture society attained settled methods of acquisition and
      possession under the quasi-peaceable regime of status. Simple aggression
      and unrestrained violence in great measure gave place to shrewd practice
      and chicanery, as the best approved method of accumulating wealth. A
      different range of aptitudes and propensities would then be conserved in
      the leisure class. Masterful aggression, and the correlative massiveness,
      together with a ruthlessly consistent sense of status, would still count
      among the most splendid traits of the class. These have remained in our
      traditions as the typical "aristocratic virtues." But with these were
      associated an increasing complement of the less obtrusive pecuniary
      virtues; such as providence, prudence, and chicanery. As time has gone on,
      and the modern peaceable stage of pecuniary culture has been approached,
      the last-named range of aptitudes and habits has gained in relative
      effectiveness for pecuniary ends, and they have counted for relatively
      more in the selective process under which admission is gained and place is
      held in the leisure class.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ground of selection has changed, until the aptitudes which now qualify
      for admission to the class are the pecuniary aptitudes only. What remains
      of the predatory barbarian traits is the tenacity of purpose or
      consistency of aim which distinguished the successful predatory barbarian
      from the peaceable savage whom he supplanted. But this trait can not be
      said characteristically to distinguish the pecuniarily successful
      upper-class man from the rank and file of the industrial classes. The
      training and the selection to which the latter are exposed in modern
      industrial life give a similarly decisive weight to this trait. Tenacity
      of purpose may rather be said to distinguish both these classes from two
      others; the shiftless ne'er do-well and the lower-class delinquent. In
      point of natural endowment the pecuniary man compares with the delinquent
      in much the same way as the industrial man compares with the good-natured
      shiftless dependent. The ideal pecuniary man is like the ideal delinquent
      in his unscrupulous conversion of goods and persons to his own ends, and
      in a callous disregard of the feelings and wishes of others and of the
      remoter effects of his actions; but he is unlike him in possessing a
      keener sense of status, and in working more consistently and farsightedly
      to a remoter end. The kinship of the two types of temperament is further
      shown in a proclivity to "sport" and gambling, and a relish of aimless
      emulation. The ideal pecuniary man also shows a curious kinship with the
      delinquent in one of the concomitant variations of the predatory human
      nature. The delinquent is very commonly of a superstitious habit of mind;
      he is a great believer in luck, spells, divination and destiny, and in
      omens and shamanistic ceremony. Where circumstances are favorable, this
      proclivity is apt to express itself in a certain servile devotional fervor
      and a punctilious attention to devout observances; it may perhaps be
      better characterized as devoutness than as religion. At this point the
      temperament of the delinquent has more in common with the pecuniary and
      leisure classes than with the industrial man or with the class of
      shiftless dependents.
    </p>
    <p>
      Life in a modern industrial community, or in other words life under the
      pecuniary culture, acts by a process of selection to develop and conserve
      a certain range of aptitudes and propensities. The present tendency of
      this selective process is not simply a reversion to a given, immutable
      ethnic type. It tends rather to a modification of human nature differing
      in some respects from any of the types or variants transmitted out of the
      past. The objective point of the evolution is not a single one. The
      temperament which the evolution acts to establish as normal differs from
      any one of the archaic variants of human nature in its greater stability
      of aim&mdash;greater singleness of purpose and greater persistence in
      effort. So far as concerns economic theory, the objective point of the
      selective process is on the whole single to this extent; although there
      are minor tendencies of considerable importance diverging from this line
      of development. But apart from this general trend the line of development
      is not single. As concerns economic theory, the development in other
      respects runs on two divergent lines. So far as regards the selective
      conservation of capacities or aptitudes in individuals, these two lines
      may be called the pecuniary and the industrial. As regards the
      conservation of propensities, spiritual attitude, or animus, the two may
      be called the invidious or self-regarding and the non-invidious or
      economical. As regards the intellectual or cognitive bent of the two
      directions of growth, the former may be characterized as the personal
      standpoint, of conation, qualitative relation, status, or worth; the
      latter as the impersonal standpoint, of sequence, quantitative relation,
      mechanical efficiency, or use.
    </p>
    <p>
      The pecuniary employments call into action chiefly the former of these two
      ranges of aptitudes and propensities, and act selectively to conserve them
      in the population. The industrial employments, on the other hand, chiefly
      exercise the latter range, and act to conserve them. An exhaustive
      psychological analysis will show that each of these two ranges of
      aptitudes and propensities is but the multiform expression of a given
      temperamental bent. By force of the unity or singleness of the individual,
      the aptitudes, animus, and interests comprised in the first-named range
      belong together as expressions of a given variant of human nature. The
      like is true of the latter range. The two may be conceived as alternative
      directions of human life, in such a way that a given individual inclines
      more or less consistently to the one or the other. The tendency of the
      pecuniary life is, in a general way, to conserve the barbarian
      temperament, but with the substitution of fraud and prudence, or
      administrative ability, in place of that predilection for physical damage
      that characterizes the early barbarian. This substitution of chicanery in
      place of devastation takes place only in an uncertain degree. Within the
      pecuniary employments the selective action runs pretty consistently in
      this direction, but the discipline of pecuniary life, outside the
      competition for gain, does not work consistently to the same effect. The
      discipline of modern life in the consumption of time and goods does not
      act unequivocally to eliminate the aristocratic virtues or to foster the
      bourgeois virtues. The conventional scheme of decent living calls for a
      considerable exercise of the earlier barbarian traits. Some details of
      this traditional scheme of life, bearing on this point, have been noticed
      in earlier chapters under the head of leisure, and further details will be
      shown in later chapters.
    </p>
    <p>
      From what has been said, it appears that the leisure-class life and the
      leisure-class scheme of life should further the conservation of the
      barbarian temperament; chiefly of the quasi-peaceable, or bourgeois,
      variant, but also in some measure of the predatory variant. In the absence
      of disturbing factors, therefore, it should be possible to trace a
      difference of temperament between the classes of society. The aristocratic
      and the bourgeois virtues&mdash;that is to say the destructive and
      pecuniary traits&mdash;should be found chiefly among the upper classes,
      and the industrial virtues&mdash;that is to say the peaceable traits&mdash;chiefly
      among the classes given to mechanical industry.
    </p>
    <p>
      In a general and uncertain way this holds true, but the test is not so
      readily applied nor so conclusive as might be wished. There are several
      assignable reasons for its partial failure. All classes are in a measure
      engaged in the pecuniary struggle, and in all classes the possession of
      the pecuniary traits counts towards the success and survival of the
      individual. Wherever the pecuniary culture prevails, the selective process
      by which men's habits of thought are shaped, and by which the survival of
      rival lines of descent is decided, proceeds proximately on the basis of
      fitness for acquisition. Consequently, if it were not for the fact that
      pecuniary efficiency is on the whole incompatible with industrial
      efficiency, the selective action of all occupations would tend to the
      unmitigated dominance of the pecuniary temperament. The result would be
      the installation of what has been known as the "economic man," as the
      normal and definitive type of human nature. But the "economic man," whose
      only interest is the self-regarding one and whose only human trait is
      prudence is useless for the purposes of modern industry.
    </p>
    <p>
      The modern industry requires an impersonal, non-invidious interest in the
      work in hand. Without this the elaborate processes of industry would be
      impossible, and would, indeed, never have been conceived. This interest in
      work differentiates the workman from the criminal on the one hand, and
      from the captain of industry on the other. Since work must be done in
      order to the continued life of the community, there results a qualified
      selection favoring the spiritual aptitude for work, within a certain range
      of occupations. This much, however, is to be conceded, that even within
      the industrial occupations the selective elimination of the pecuniary
      traits is an uncertain process, and that there is consequently an
      appreciable survival of the barbarian temperament even within these
      occupations. On this account there is at present no broad distinction in
      this respect between the leisure-class character and the character of the
      common run of the population.
    </p>
    <p>
      The whole question as to a class distinction in respect to spiritual
      make-up is also obscured by the presence, in all classes of society, of
      acquired habits of life that closely simulate inherited traits and at the
      same time act to develop in the entire body of the population the traits
      which they simulate. These acquired habits, or assumed traits of
      character, are most commonly of an aristocratic cast. The prescriptive
      position of the leisure class as the exemplar of reputability has imposed
      many features of the leisure-class theory of life upon the lower classes;
      with the result that there goes on, always and throughout society, a more
      or less persistent cultivation of these aristocratic traits. On this
      ground also these traits have a better chance of survival among the body
      of the people than would be the case if it were not for the precept and
      example of the leisure class. As one channel, and an important one,
      through which this transfusion of aristocratic views of life, and
      consequently more or less archaic traits of character goes on, may be
      mentioned the class of domestic servants. These have their notions of what
      is good and beautiful shaped by contact with the master class and carry
      the preconceptions so acquired back among their low-born equals, and so
      disseminate the higher ideals abroad through the community without the
      loss of time which this dissemination might otherwise suffer. The saying
      "Like master, like man," has a greater significance than is commonly
      appreciated for the rapid popular acceptance of many elements of
      upper-class culture.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is also a further range of facts that go to lessen class differences
      as regards the survival of the pecuniary virtues. The pecuniary struggle
      produces an underfed class, of large proportions. This underfeeding
      consists in a deficiency of the necessaries of life or of the necessaries
      of a decent expenditure. In either case the result is a closely enforced
      struggle for the means with which to meet the daily needs; whether it be
      the physical or the higher needs. The strain of self-assertion against
      odds takes up the whole energy of the individual; he bends his efforts to
      compass his own invidious ends alone, and becomes continually more
      narrowly self-seeking. The industrial traits in this way tend to
      obsolescence through disuse. Indirectly, therefore, by imposing a scheme
      of pecuniary decency and by withdrawing as much as may be of the means of
      life from the lower classes, the institution of a leisure class acts to
      conserve the pecuniary traits in the body of the population. The result is
      an assimilation of the lower classes to the type of human nature that
      belongs primarily to the upper classes only. It appears, therefore, that
      there is no wide difference in temperament between the upper and the lower
      classes; but it appears also that the absence of such a difference is in
      good part due to the prescriptive example of the leisure class and to the
      popular acceptance of those broad principles of conspicuous waste and
      pecuniary emulation on which the institution of a leisure class rests. The
      institution acts to lower the industrial efficiency of the community and
      retard the adaptation of human nature to the exigencies of modern
      industrial life. It affects the prevalent or effective human nature in a
      conservative direction, (1) by direct transmission of archaic traits,
      through inheritance within the class and wherever the leisure-class blood
      is transfused outside the class, and (2) by conserving and fortifying the
      traditions of the archaic regime, and so making the chances of survival of
      barbarian traits greater also outside the range of transfusion of
      leisure-class blood.
    </p>
    <p>
      But little if anything has been done towards collecting or digesting data
      that are of special significance for the question of survival or
      elimination of traits in the modern populations. Little of a tangible
      character can therefore be offered in support of the view here taken,
      beyond a discursive review of such everyday facts as lie ready to hand.
      Such a recital can scarcely avoid being commonplace and tedious, but for
      all that it seems necessary to the completeness of the argument, even in
      the meager outline in which it is here attempted. A degree of indulgence
      may therefore fairly be bespoken for the succeeding chapters, which offer
      a fragmentary recital of this kind.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0010" id="link2HCH0010">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Ten ~~ Modern Survivals of Prowess
    </h2>
    <p>
      The leisure class lives by the industrial community rather than in it. Its
      relations to industry are of a pecuniary rather than an industrial kind.
      Admission to the class is gained by exercise of the pecuniary aptitudes&mdash;aptitudes
      for acquisition rather than for serviceability. There is, therefore, a
      continued selective sifting of the human material that makes up the
      leisure class, and this selection proceeds on the ground of fitness for
      pecuniary pursuits. But the scheme of life of the class is in large part a
      heritage from the past, and embodies much of the habits and ideals of the
      earlier barbarian period. This archaic, barbarian scheme of life imposes
      itself also on the lower orders, with more or less mitigation. In its turn
      the scheme of life, of conventions, acts selectively and by education to
      shape the human material, and its action runs chiefly in the direction of
      conserving traits, habits, and ideals that belong to the early barbarian
      age&mdash;the age of prowess and predatory life.
    </p>
    <p>
      The most immediate and unequivocal expression of that archaic human nature
      which characterizes man in the predatory stage is the fighting propensity
      proper. In cases where the predatory activity is a collective one, this
      propensity is frequently called the martial spirit, or, latterly,
      patriotism. It needs no insistence to find assent to the proposition that
      in the countries of civilized Europe the hereditary leisure class is
      endowed with this martial spirit in a higher degree than the middle
      classes. Indeed, the leisure class claims the distinction as a matter of
      pride, and no doubt with some grounds. War is honorable, and warlike
      prowess is eminently honorific in the eyes of the generality of men; and
      this admiration of warlike prowess is itself the best voucher of a
      predatory temperament in the admirer of war. The enthusiasm for war, and
      the predatory temper of which it is the index, prevail in the largest
      measure among the upper classes, especially among the hereditary leisure
      class. Moreover, the ostensible serious occupation of the upper class is
      that of government, which, in point of origin and developmental content,
      is also a predatory occupation.
    </p>
    <p>
      The only class which could at all dispute with the hereditary leisure
      class the honor of an habitual bellicose frame of mind is that of the
      lower-class delinquents. In ordinary times, the large body of the
      industrial classes is relatively apathetic touching warlike interests.
      When unexcited, this body of the common people, which makes up the
      effective force of the industrial community, is rather averse to any other
      than a defensive fight; indeed, it responds a little tardily even to a
      provocation which makes for an attitude of defense. In the more civilized
      communities, or rather in the communities which have reached an advanced
      industrial development, the spirit of warlike aggression may be said to be
      obsolescent among the common people. This does not say that there is not
      an appreciable number of individuals among the industrial classes in whom
      the martial spirit asserts itself obtrusively. Nor does it say that the
      body of the people may not be fired with martial ardor for a time under
      the stimulus of some special provocation, such as is seen in operation
      today in more than one of the countries of Europe, and for the time in
      America. But except for such seasons of temporary exaltation, and except
      for those individuals who are endowed with an archaic temperament of the
      predatory type, together with the similarly endowed body of individuals
      among the higher and the lowest classes, the inertness of the mass of any
      modern civilized community in this respect is probably so great as would
      make war impracticable, except against actual invasion. The habits and
      aptitudes of the common run of men make for an unfolding of activity in
      other, less picturesque directions than that of war.
    </p>
    <p>
      This class difference in temperament may be due in part to a difference in
      the inheritance of acquired traits in the several classes, but it seems
      also, in some measure, to correspond with a difference in ethnic
      derivation. The class difference is in this respect visibly less in those
      countries whose population is relatively homogeneous, ethnically, than in
      the countries where there is a broader divergence between the ethnic
      elements that make up the several classes of the community. In the same
      connection it may be noted that the later accessions to the leisure class
      in the latter countries, in a general way, show less of the martial spirit
      than contemporary representatives of the aristocracy of the ancient line.
      These nouveaux arrivés have recently emerged from the commonplace body of
      the population and owe their emergence into the leisure class to the
      exercise of traits and propensities which are not to be classed as prowess
      in the ancient sense.
    </p>
    <p>
      Apart from warlike activity proper, the institution of the duel is also an
      expression of the same superior readiness for combat; and the duel is a
      leisure-class institution. The duel is in substance a more or less
      deliberate resort to a fight as a final settlement of a difference of
      opinion. In civilized communities it prevails as a normal phenomenon only
      where there is an hereditary leisure class, and almost exclusively among
      that class. The exceptions are (1) military and naval officers who are
      ordinarily members of the leisure class, and who are at the same time
      specially trained to predatory habits of mind and (2) the lower-class
      delinquents&mdash;who are by inheritance, or training, or both, of a
      similarly predatory disposition and habit. It is only the high-bred
      gentleman and the rowdy that normally resort to blows as the universal
      solvent of differences of opinion. The plain man will ordinarily fight
      only when excessive momentary irritation or alcoholic exaltation act to
      inhibit the more complex habits of response to the stimuli that make for
      provocation. He is then thrown back upon the simpler, less differentiated
      forms of the instinct of self-assertion; that is to say, he reverts
      temporarily and without reflection to an archaic habit of mind.
    </p>
    <p>
      This institution of the duel as a mode of finally settling disputes and
      serious questions of precedence shades off into the obligatory, unprovoked
      private fight, as a social obligation due to one's good repute. As a
      leisure-class usage of this kind we have, particularly, that bizarre
      survival of bellicose chivalry, the German student duel. In the lower or
      spurious leisure class of the delinquents there is in all countries a
      similar, though less formal, social obligation incumbent on the rowdy to
      assert his manhood in unprovoked combat with his fellows. And spreading
      through all grades of society, a similar usage prevails among the boys of
      the community. The boy usually knows to nicety, from day to day, how he
      and his associates grade in respect of relative fighting capacity; and in
      the community of boys there is ordinarily no secure basis of reputability
      for any one who, by exception, will not or can not fight on invitation.
    </p>
    <p>
      All this applies especially to boys above a certain somewhat vague limit
      of maturity. The child's temperament does not commonly answer to this
      description during infancy and the years of close tutelage, when the child
      still habitually seeks contact with its mother at every turn of its daily
      life. During this earlier period there is little aggression and little
      propensity for antagonism. The transition from this peaceable temper to
      the predaceous, and in extreme cases malignant, mischievousness of the boy
      is a gradual one, and it is accomplished with more completeness, covering
      a larger range of the individual's aptitudes, in some cases than in
      others. In the earlier stage of his growth, the child, whether boy or
      girl, shows less of initiative and aggressive self-assertion and less of
      an inclination to isolate himself and his interests from the domestic
      group in which he lives, and he shows more of sensitiveness to rebuke,
      bashfulness, timidity, and the need of friendly human contact. In the
      common run of cases this early temperament passes, by a gradual but
      somewhat rapid obsolescence of the infantile features, into the
      temperament of the boy proper; though there are also cases where the
      predaceous futures of boy life do not emerge at all, or at the most emerge
      in but a slight and obscure degree.
    </p>
    <p>
      In girls the transition to the predaceous stage is seldom accomplished
      with the same degree of completeness as in boys; and in a relatively large
      proportion of cases it is scarcely undergone at all. In such cases the
      transition from infancy to adolescence and maturity is a gradual and
      unbroken process of the shifting of interest from infantile purposes and
      aptitudes to the purposes, functions, and relations of adult life. In the
      girls there is a less general prevalence of a predaceous interval in the
      development; and in the cases where it occurs, the predaceous and
      isolating attitude during the interval is commonly less accentuated.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the male child the predaceous interval is ordinarily fairly well marked
      and lasts for some time, but it is commonly terminated (if at all) with
      the attainment of maturity. This last statement may need very material
      qualification. The cases are by no means rare in which the transition from
      the boyish to the adult temperament is not made, or is made only partially&mdash;understanding
      by the "adult" temperament the average temperament of those adult
      individuals in modern industrial life who have some serviceability for the
      purposes of the collective life process, and who may therefore be said to
      make up the effective average of the industrial community.
    </p>
    <p>
      The ethnic composition of the European populations varies. In some cases
      even the lower classes are in large measure made up of the
      peace-disturbing dolicho-blond; while in others this ethnic element is
      found chiefly among the hereditary leisure class. The fighting habit seems
      to prevail to a less extent among the working-class boys in the latter
      class of populations than among the boys of the upper classes or among
      those of the populations first named.
    </p>
    <p>
      If this generalization as to the temperament of the boy among the working
      classes should be found true on a fuller and closer scrutiny of the field,
      it would add force to the view that the bellicose temperament is in some
      appreciable degree a race characteristic; it appears to enter more largely
      into the make-up of the dominant, upper-class ethnic type&mdash;the
      dolicho-blond&mdash;of the European countries than into the subservient,
      lower-class types of man which are conceived to constitute the body of the
      population of the same communities.
    </p>
    <p>
      The case of the boy may seem not to bear seriously on the question of the
      relative endowment of prowess with which the several classes of society
      are gifted; but it is at least of some value as going to show that this
      fighting impulse belongs to a more archaic temperament than that possessed
      by the average adult man of the industrious classes. In this, as in many
      other features of child life, the child reproduces, temporarily and in
      miniature, some of the earlier phases of the development of adult man.
      Under this interpretation, the boy's predilection for exploit and for
      isolation of his own interest is to be taken as a transient reversion to
      the human nature that is normal to the early barbarian culture&mdash;the
      predatory culture proper. In this respect, as in much else, the
      leisure-class and the delinquent-class character shows a persistence into
      adult life of traits that are normal to childhood and youth, and that are
      likewise normal or habitual to the earlier stages of culture. Unless the
      difference is traceable entirely to a fundamental difference between
      persistent ethnic types, the traits that distinguish the swaggering
      delinquent and the punctilious gentleman of leisure from the common crowd
      are, in some measure, marks of an arrested spiritual development. They
      mark an immature phase, as compared with the stage of development attained
      by the average of the adults in the modern industrial community. And it
      will appear presently that the puerile spiritual make-up of these
      representatives of the upper and the lowest social strata shows itself
      also in the presence of other archaic traits than this proclivity to
      ferocious exploit and isolation.
    </p>
    <p>
      As if to leave no doubt about the essential immaturity of the fighting
      temperament, we have, bridging the interval between legitimate boyhood and
      adult manhood, the aimless and playful, but more or less systematic and
      elaborate, disturbances of the peace in vogue among schoolboys of a
      slightly higher age. In the common run of cases, these disturbances are
      confined to the period of adolescence. They recur with decreasing
      frequency and acuteness as youth merges into adult life, and so they
      reproduce, in a general way, in the life of the individual, the sequence
      by which the group has passed from the predatory to a more settled habit
      of life. In an appreciable number of cases the spiritual growth of the
      individual comes to a close before he emerges from this puerile phase; in
      these cases the fighting temper persists through life. Those individuals
      who in spiritual development eventually reach man's estate, therefore,
      ordinarily pass through a temporary archaic phase corresponding to the
      permanent spiritual level of the fighting and sporting men. Different
      individuals will, of course, achieve spiritual maturity and sobriety in
      this respect in different degrees; and those who fail of the average
      remain as an undissolved residue of crude humanity in the modern
      industrial community and as a foil for that selective process of
      adaptation which makes for a heightened industrial efficiency and the
      fullness of life of the collectivity. This arrested spiritual development
      may express itself not only in a direct participation by adults in
      youthful exploits of ferocity, but also indirectly in aiding and abetting
      disturbances of this kind on the part of younger persons. It thereby
      furthers the formation of habits of ferocity which may persist in the
      later life of the growing generation, and so retard any movement in the
      direction of a more peaceable effective temperament on the part of the
      community. If a person so endowed with a proclivity for exploits is in a
      position to guide the development of habits in the adolescent members of
      the community, the influence which he exerts in the direction of
      conservation and reversion to prowess may be very considerable. This is
      the significance, for instance, of the fostering care latterly bestowed by
      many clergymen and other pillars of society upon "boys' brigades" and
      similar pseudo-military organizations. The same is true of the
      encouragement given to the growth of "college spirit," college athletics,
      and the like, in the higher institutions of learning.
    </p>
    <p>
      These manifestations of the predatory temperament are all to be classed
      under the head of exploit. They are partly simple and unreflected
      expressions of an attitude of emulative ferocity, partly activities
      deliberately entered upon with a view to gaining repute for prowess.
      Sports of all kinds are of the same general character, including
      prize-fights, bull-fights, athletics, shooting, angling, yachting, and
      games of skill, even where the element of destructive physical efficiency
      is not an obtrusive feature. Sports shade off from the basis of hostile
      combat, through skill, to cunning and chicanery, without its being
      possible to draw a line at any point. The ground of an addiction to sports
      is an archaic spiritual constitution&mdash;the possession of the predatory
      emulative propensity in a relatively high potency, a strong proclivity to
      adventuresome exploit and to the infliction of damage is especially
      pronounced in those employments which are in colloquial usage specifically
      called sportsmanship.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is perhaps truer, or at least more evident, as regards sports than as
      regards the other expressions of predatory emulation already spoken of,
      that the temperament which inclines men to them is essentially a boyish
      temperament. The addiction to sports, therefore, in a peculiar degree
      marks an arrested development of the man's moral nature. This peculiar
      boyishness of temperament in sporting men immediately becomes apparent
      when attention is directed to the large element of make-believe that is
      present in all sporting activity. Sports share this character of
      make-believe with the games and exploits to which children, especially
      boys, are habitually inclined. Make-believe does not enter in the same
      proportion into all sports, but it is present in a very appreciable degree
      in all. It is apparently present in a larger measure in sportsmanship
      proper and in athletic contests than in set games of skill of a more
      sedentary character; although this rule may not be found to apply with any
      great uniformity. It is noticeable, for instance, that even very
      mild-mannered and matter-of-fact men who go out shooting are apt to carry
      an excess of arms and accoutrements in order to impress upon their own
      imagination the seriousness of their undertaking. These huntsmen are also
      prone to a histrionic, prancing gait and to an elaborate exaggeration of
      the motions, whether of stealth or of onslaught, involved in their deeds
      of exploit. Similarly in athletic sports there is almost invariably
      present a good share of rant and swagger and ostensible mystification&mdash;features
      which mark the histrionic nature of these employments. In all this, of
      course, the reminder of boyish make-believe is plain enough. The slang of
      athletics, by the way, is in great part made up of extremely sanguinary
      locutions borrowed from the terminology of warfare. Except where it is
      adopted as a necessary means of secret communication, the use of a special
      slang in any employment is probably to be accepted as evidence that the
      occupation in question is substantially make-believe.
    </p>
    <p>
      A further feature in which sports differ from the duel and similar
      disturbances of the peace is the peculiarity that they admit of other
      motives being assigned for them besides the impulses of exploit and
      ferocity. There is probably little if any other motive present in any
      given case, but the fact that other reasons for indulging in sports are
      frequently assigned goes to say that other grounds are sometimes present
      in a subsidiary way. Sportsmen&mdash;hunters and anglers&mdash;are more or
      less in the habit of assigning a love of nature, the need of recreation,
      and the like, as the incentives to their favorite pastime. These motives
      are no doubt frequently present and make up a part of the attractiveness
      of the sportsman's life; but these can not be the chief incentives. These
      ostensible needs could be more readily and fully satisfied without the
      accompaniment of a systematic effort to take the life of those creatures
      that make up an essential feature of that "nature" that is beloved by the
      sportsman. It is, indeed, the most noticeable effect of the sportsman's
      activity to keep nature in a state of chronic desolation by killing off
      all living thing whose destruction he can compass.
    </p>
    <p>
      Still, there is ground for the sportsman's claim that under the existing
      conventionalities his need of recreation and of contact with nature can
      best be satisfied by the course which he takes. Certain canons of good
      breeding have been imposed by the prescriptive example of a predatory
      leisure class in the past and have been somewhat painstakingly conserved
      by the usage of the latter-day representatives of that class; and these
      canons will not permit him, without blame, to seek contact with nature on
      other terms. From being an honorable employment handed down from the
      predatory culture as the highest form of everyday leisure, sports have
      come to be the only form of outdoor activity that has the full sanction of
      decorum. Among the proximate incentives to shooting and angling, then, may
      be the need of recreation and outdoor life. The remoter cause which
      imposes the necessity of seeking these objects under the cover of
      systematic slaughter is a prescription that can not be violated except at
      the risk of disrepute and consequent lesion to one's self-respect.
    </p>
    <p>
      The case of other kinds of sport is somewhat similar. Of these, athletic
      games are the best example. Prescriptive usage with respect to what forms
      of activity, exercise, and recreation are permissible under the code of
      reputable living is of course present here also. Those who are addicted to
      athletic sports, or who admire them, set up the claim that these afford
      the best available means of recreation and of "physical culture." And
      prescriptive usage gives countenance to the claim. The canons of reputable
      living exclude from the scheme of life of the leisure class all activity
      that can not be classed as conspicuous leisure. And consequently they tend
      by prescription to exclude it also from the scheme of life of the
      community generally. At the same time purposeless physical exertion is
      tedious and distasteful beyond tolerance. As has been noticed in another
      connection, recourse is in such a case had to some form of activity which
      shall at least afford a colorable pretense of purpose, even if the object
      assigned be only a make-believe. Sports satisfy these requirements of
      substantial futility together with a colorable make-believe of purpose. In
      addition to this they afford scope for emulation, and are attractive also
      on that account. In order to be decorous, an employment must conform to
      the leisure-class canon of reputable waste; at the same time all activity,
      in order to be persisted in as an habitual, even if only partial,
      expression of life, must conform to the generically human canon of
      efficiency for some serviceable objective end. The leisure-class canon
      demands strict and comprehensive futility, the instinct of workmanship
      demands purposeful action. The leisure-class canon of decorum acts slowly
      and pervasively, by a selective elimination of all substantially useful or
      purposeful modes of action from the accredited scheme of life; the
      instinct of workmanship acts impulsively and may be satisfied,
      provisionally, with a proximate purpose. It is only as the apprehended
      ulterior futility of a given line of action enters the reflective complex
      of consciousness as an element essentially alien to the normally
      purposeful trend of the life process that its disquieting and deterrent
      effect on the consciousness of the agent is wrought.
    </p>
    <p>
      The individual's habits of thought make an organic complex, the trend of
      which is necessarily in the direction of serviceability to the life
      process. When it is attempted to assimilate systematic waste or futility,
      as an end in life, into this organic complex, there presently supervenes a
      revulsion. But this revulsion of the organism may be avoided if the
      attention can be confined to the proximate, unreflected purpose of
      dexterous or emulative exertion. Sports&mdash;hunting, angling, athletic
      games, and the like&mdash;afford an exercise for dexterity and for the
      emulative ferocity and astuteness characteristic of predatory life. So
      long as the individual is but slightly gifted with reflection or with a
      sense of the ulterior trend of his actions so long as his life is
      substantially a life of naive impulsive action&mdash;so long the immediate
      and unreflected purposefulness of sports, in the way of an expression of
      dominance, will measurably satisfy his instinct of workmanship. This is
      especially true if his dominant impulses are the unreflecting emulative
      propensities of the predaceous temperament. At the same time the canons of
      decorum will commend sports to him as expressions of a pecuniarily
      blameless life. It is by meeting these two requirements, of ulterior
      wastefulness and proximate purposefulness, that any given employment holds
      its place as a traditional and habitual mode of decorous recreation. In
      the sense that other forms of recreation and exercise are morally
      impossible to persons of good breeding and delicate sensibilities, then,
      sports are the best available means of recreation under existing
      circumstances.
    </p>
    <p>
      But those members of respectable society who advocate athletic games
      commonly justify their attitude on this head to themselves and to their
      neighbors on the ground that these games serve as an invaluable means of
      development. They not only improve the contestant's physique, but it is
      commonly added that they also foster a manly spirit, both in the
      participants and in the spectators. Football is the particular game which
      will probably first occur to any one in this community when the question
      of the serviceability of athletic games is raised, as this form of
      athletic contest is at present uppermost in the mind of those who plead
      for or against games as a means of physical or moral salvation. This
      typical athletic sport may, therefore, serve to illustrate the bearing of
      athletics upon the development of the contestant's character and physique.
      It has been said, not inaptly, that the relation of football to physical
      culture is much the same as that of the bull-fight to agriculture.
      Serviceability for these lusory institutions requires sedulous training or
      breeding. The material used, whether brute or human, is subjected to
      careful selection and discipline, in order to secure and accentuate
      certain aptitudes and propensities which are characteristic of the ferine
      state, and which tend to obsolescence under domestication. This does not
      mean that the result in either case is an all around and consistent
      rehabilitation of the ferine or barbarian habit of mind and body. The
      result is rather a one-sided return to barbarism or to the feroe natura&mdash;a
      rehabilitation and accentuation of those ferine traits which make for
      damage and desolation, without a corresponding development of the traits
      which would serve the individual's self-preservation and fullness of life
      in a ferine environment. The culture bestowed in football gives a product
      of exotic ferocity and cunning. It is a rehabilitation of the early
      barbarian temperament, together with a suppression of those details of
      temperament, which, as seen from the standpoint of the social and economic
      exigencies, are the redeeming features of the savage character.
    </p>
    <p>
      The physical vigor acquired in the training for athletic games&mdash;so
      far as the training may be said to have this effect&mdash;is of advantage
      both to the individual and to the collectivity, in that, other things
      being equal, it conduces to economic serviceability. The spiritual traits
      which go with athletic sports are likewise economically advantageous to
      the individual, as contradistinguished from the interests of the
      collectivity. This holds true in any community where these traits are
      present in some degree in the population. Modern competition is in large
      part a process of self-assertion on the basis of these traits of predatory
      human nature. In the sophisticated form in which they enter into the
      modern, peaceable emulation, the possession of these traits in some
      measure is almost a necessary of life to the civilized man. But while they
      are indispensable to the competitive individual, they are not directly
      serviceable to the community. So far as regards the serviceability of the
      individual for the purposes of the collective life, emulative efficiency
      is of use only indirectly if at all. Ferocity and cunning are of no use to
      the community except in its hostile dealings with other communities; and
      they are useful to the individual only because there is so large a
      proportion of the same traits actively present in the human environment to
      which he is exposed. Any individual who enters the competitive struggle
      without the due endowment of these traits is at a disadvantage, somewhat
      as a hornless steer would find himself at a disadvantage in a drove of
      horned cattle.
    </p>
    <p>
      The possession and the cultivation of the predatory traits of character
      may, of course, be desirable on other than economic grounds. There is a
      prevalent aesthetic or ethical predilection for the barbarian aptitudes,
      and the traits in question minister so effectively to this predilection
      that their serviceability in the aesthetic or ethical respect probably
      offsets any economic unserviceability which they may give. But for the
      present purpose that is beside the point. Therefore nothing is said here
      as to the desirability or advisability of sports on the whole, or as to
      their value on other than economic grounds.
    </p>
    <p>
      In popular apprehension there is much that is admirable in the type of
      manhood which the life of sport fosters. There is self-reliance and
      good-fellowship, so termed in the somewhat loose colloquial use of the
      words. From a different point of view the qualities currently so
      characterized might be described as truculence and clannishness. The
      reason for the current approval and admiration of these manly qualities,
      as well as for their being called manly, is the same as the reason for
      their usefulness to the individual. The members of the community, and
      especially that class of the community which sets the pace in canons of
      taste, are endowed with this range of propensities in sufficient measure
      to make their absence in others felt as a shortcoming, and to make their
      possession in an exceptional degree appreciated as an attribute of
      superior merit. The traits of predatory man are by no means obsolete in
      the common run of modern populations. They are present and can be called
      out in bold relief at any time by any appeal to the sentiments in which
      they express themselves&mdash;unless this appeal should clash with the
      specific activities that make up our habitual occupations and comprise the
      general range of our everyday interests. The common run of the population
      of any industrial community is emancipated from these, economically
      considered, untoward propensities only in the sense that, through partial
      and temporary disuse, they have lapsed into the background of
      sub-conscious motives. With varying degrees of potency in different
      individuals, they remain available for the aggressive shaping of men's
      actions and sentiments whenever a stimulus of more than everyday intensity
      comes in to call them forth. And they assert themselves forcibly in any
      case where no occupation alien to the predatory culture has usurped the
      individual's everyday range of interest and sentiment. This is the case
      among the leisure class and among certain portions of the population which
      are ancillary to that class. Hence the facility with which any new
      accessions to the leisure class take to sports; and hence the rapid growth
      of sports and of the sporting sentient in any industrial community where
      wealth has accumulated sufficiently to exempt a considerable part of the
      population from work.
    </p>
    <p>
      A homely and familiar fact may serve to show that the predaceous impulse
      does not prevail in the same degree in all classes. Taken simply as a
      feature of modern life, the habit of carrying a walking-stick may seem at
      best a trivial detail; but the usage has a significance for the point in
      question. The classes among whom the habit most prevails&mdash;the classes
      with whom the walking-stick is associated in popular apprehension&mdash;are
      the men of the leisure class proper, sporting men, and the lower-class
      delinquents. To these might perhaps be added the men engaged in the
      pecuniary employments. The same is not true of the common run of men
      engaged in industry and it may be noted by the way that women do not carry
      a stick except in case of infirmity, where it has a use of a different
      kind. The practice is of course in great measure a matter of polite usage;
      but the basis of polite usage is, in turn, the proclivities of the class
      which sets the pace in polite usage. The walking-stick serves the purpose
      of an advertisement that the bearer's hands are employed otherwise than in
      useful effort, and it therefore has utility as an evidence of leisure. But
      it is also a weapon, and it meets a felt need of barbarian man on that
      ground. The handling of so tangible and primitive a means of offense is
      very comforting to any one who is gifted with even a moderate share of
      ferocity. The exigencies of the language make it impossible to avoid an
      apparent implication of disapproval of the aptitudes, propensities, and
      expressions of life here under discussion. It is, however, not intended to
      imply anything in the way of deprecation or commendation of any one of
      these phases of human character or of the life process. The various
      elements of the prevalent human nature are taken up from the point of view
      of economic theory, and the traits discussed are gauged and graded with
      regard to their immediate economic bearing on the facility of the
      collective life process. That is to say, these phenomena are here
      apprehended from the economic point of view and are valued with respect to
      their direct action in furtherance or hindrance of a more perfect
      adjustment of the human collectivity to the environment and to the
      institutional structure required by the economic situation of the
      collectivity for the present and for the immediate future. For these
      purposes the traits handed down from the predatory culture are less
      serviceable than might be. Although even in this connection it is not to
      be overlooked that the energetic aggressiveness and pertinacity of
      predatory man is a heritage of no mean value. The economic value&mdash;with
      some regard also to the social value in the narrower sense&mdash;of these
      aptitudes and propensities is attempted to be passed upon without
      reflecting on their value as seen from another point of view. When
      contrasted with the prosy mediocrity of the latter-day industrial scheme
      of life, and judged by the accredited standards of morality, and more
      especially by the standards of aesthetics and of poetry, these survivals
      from a more primitive type of manhood may have a very different value from
      that here assigned them. But all this being foreign to the purpose in
      hand, no expression of opinion on this latter head would be in place here.
      All that is admissible is to enter the caution that these standards of
      excellence, which are alien to the present purpose, must not be allowed to
      influence our economic appreciation of these traits of human character or
      of the activities which foster their growth. This applies both as regards
      those persons who actively participate in sports and those whose sporting
      experience consists in contemplation only. What is here said of the
      sporting propensity is likewise pertinent to sundry reflections presently
      to be made in this connection on what would colloquially be known as the
      religious life.
    </p>
    <p>
      The last paragraph incidentally touches upon the fact that everyday speech
      can scarcely be employed in discussing this class of aptitudes and
      activities without implying deprecation or apology. The fact is
      significant as showing the habitual attitude of the dispassionate common
      man toward the propensities which express themselves in sports and in
      exploit generally. And this is perhaps as convenient a place as any to
      discuss that undertone of deprecation which runs through all the
      voluminous discourse in defense or in laudation of athletic sports, as
      well as of other activities of a predominantly predatory character. The
      same apologetic frame of mind is at least beginning to be observable in
      the spokesmen of most other institutions handed down from the barbarian
      phase of life. Among these archaic institutions which are felt to need
      apology are comprised, with others, the entire existing system of the
      distribution of wealth, together with the resulting class distinction of
      status; all or nearly all forms of consumption that come under the head of
      conspicuous waste; the status of women under the patriarchal system; and
      many features of the traditional creeds and devout observances, especially
      the exoteric expressions of the creed and the naive apprehension of
      received observances. What is to be said in this connection of the
      apologetic attitude taken in commending sports and the sporting character
      will therefore apply, with a suitable change in phraseology, to the
      apologies offered in behalf of these other, related elements of our social
      heritage.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is a feeling&mdash;usually vague and not commonly avowed in so many
      words by the apologist himself, but ordinarily perceptible in the manner
      of his discourse&mdash;that these sports, as well as the general range of
      predaceous impulses and habits of thought which underlie the sporting
      character, do not altogether commend themselves to common sense. "As to
      the majority of murderers, they are very incorrect characters." This
      aphorism offers a valuation of the predaceous temperament, and of the
      disciplinary effects of its overt expression and exercise, as seen from
      the moralist's point of view. As such it affords an indication of what is
      the deliverance of the sober sense of mature men as to the degree of
      availability of the predatory habit of mind for the purposes of the
      collective life. It is felt that the presumption is against any activity
      which involves habituation to the predatory attitude, and that the burden
      of proof lies with those who speak for the rehabilitation of the
      predaceous temper and for the practices which strengthen it. There is a
      strong body of popular sentiment in favor of diversions and enterprises of
      the kind in question; but there is at the same time present in the
      community a pervading sense that this ground of sentiment wants
      legitimation. The required legitimation is ordinarily sought by showing
      that although sports are substantially of a predatory, socially
      disintegrating effect; although their proximate effect runs in the
      direction of reversion to propensities that are industrially
      disserviceable; yet indirectly and remotely&mdash;by some not readily
      comprehensible process of polar induction, or counter-irritation perhaps&mdash;sports
      are conceived to foster a habit of mind that is serviceable for the social
      or industrial purpose. That is to say, although sports are essentially of
      the nature of invidious exploit, it is presumed that by some remote and
      obscure effect they result in the growth of a temperament conducive to
      non-invidious work. It is commonly attempted to show all this empirically
      or it is rather assumed that this is the empirical generalization which
      must be obvious to any one who cares to see it. In conducting the proof of
      this thesis the treacherous ground of inference from cause to effect is
      somewhat shrewdly avoided, except so far as to show that the "manly
      virtues" spoken of above are fostered by sports. But since it is these
      manly virtues that are (economically) in need of legitimation, the chain
      of proof breaks off where it should begin. In the most general economic
      terms, these apologies are an effort to show that, in spite of the logic
      of the thing, sports do in fact further what may broadly be called
      workmanship. So long as he has not succeeded in persuading himself or
      others that this is their effect the thoughtful apologist for sports will
      not rest content, and commonly, it is to be admitted, he does not rest
      content. His discontent with his own vindication of the practice in
      question is ordinarily shown by his truculent tone and by the eagerness
      with which he heaps up asseverations in support of his position. But why
      are apologies needed? If there prevails a body of popular sentient in
      favor of sports, why is not that fact a sufficient legitimation? The
      protracted discipline of prowess to which the race has been subjected
      under the predatory and quasi-peaceable culture has transmitted to the men
      of today a temperament that finds gratification in these expressions of
      ferocity and cunning. So, why not accept these sports as legitimate
      expressions of a normal and wholesome human nature? What other norm is
      there that is to be lived up to than that given in the aggregate range of
      propensities that express themselves in the sentiments of this generation,
      including the hereditary strain of prowess? The ulterior norm to which
      appeal is taken is the instinct of workmanship, which is an instinct more
      fundamental, of more ancient prescription, than the propensity to
      predatory emulation. The latter is but a special development of the
      instinct of workmanship, a variant, relatively late and ephemeral in spite
      of its great absolute antiquity. The emulative predatory impulse&mdash;or
      the instinct of sportsmanship, as it might well be called&mdash;is
      essentially unstable in comparison with the primordial instinct of
      workmanship out of which it has been developed and differentiated. Tested
      by this ulterior norm of life, predatory emulation, and therefore the life
      of sports, falls short.
    </p>
    <p>
      The manner and the measure in which the institution of a leisure class
      conduces to the conservation of sports and invidious exploit can of course
      not be succinctly stated. From the evidence already recited it appears
      that, in sentient and inclinations, the leisure class is more favorable to
      a warlike attitude and animus than the industrial classes. Something
      similar seems to be true as regards sports. But it is chiefly in its
      indirect effects, though the canons of decorous living, that the
      institution has its influence on the prevalent sentiment with respect to
      the sporting life. This indirect effect goes almost unequivocally in the
      direction of furthering a survival of the predatory temperament and
      habits; and this is true even with respect to those variants of the
      sporting life which the higher leisure-class code of proprieties
      proscribes; as, e.g., prize-fighting, cock-fighting, and other like vulgar
      expressions of the sporting temper. Whatever the latest authenticated
      schedule of detail proprieties may say, the accredited canons of decency
      sanctioned by the institution say without equivocation that emulation and
      waste are good and their opposites are disreputable. In the crepuscular
      light of the social nether spaces the details of the code are not
      apprehended with all the facility that might be desired, and these broad
      underlying canons of decency are therefore applied somewhat
      unreflectingly, with little question as to the scope of their competence
      or the exceptions that have been sanctioned in detail.
    </p>
    <p>
      Addiction to athletic sports, not only in the way of direct participation,
      but also in the way of sentiment and moral support, is, in a more or less
      pronounced degree, a characteristic of the leisure class; and it is a
      trait which that class shares with the lower-class delinquents, and with
      such atavistic elements throughout the body of the community as are
      endowed with a dominant predaceous trend. Few individuals among the
      populations of Western civilized countries are so far devoid of the
      predaceous instinct as to find no diversion in contemplating athletic
      sports and games, but with the common run of individuals among the
      industrial classes the inclination to sports does not assert itself to the
      extent of constituting what may fairly be called a sporting habit. With
      these classes sports are an occasional diversion rather than a serious
      feature of life. This common body of the people can therefore not be said
      to cultivate the sporting propensity. Although it is not obsolete in the
      average of them, or even in any appreciable number of individuals, yet the
      predilection for sports in the commonplace industrial classes is of the
      nature of a reminiscence, more or less diverting as an occasional
      interest, rather than a vital and permanent interest that counts as a
      dominant factor in shaping the organic complex of habits of thought into
      which it enters. As it manifests itself in the sporting life of today,
      this propensity may not appear to be an economic factor of grave
      consequence. Taken simply by itself it does not count for a great deal in
      its direct effects on the industrial efficiency or the consumption of any
      given individual; but the prevalence and the growth of the type of human
      nature of which this propensity is a characteristic feature is a matter of
      some consequence. It affects the economic life of the collectivity both as
      regards the rate of economic development and as regards the character of
      the results attained by the development. For better or worse, the fact
      that the popular habits of thought are in any degree dominated by this
      type of character can not but greatly affect the scope, direction,
      standards, and ideals of the collective economic life, as well as the
      degree of adjustment of the collective life to the environment.
    </p>
    <p>
      Something to a like effect is to be said of other traits that go to make
      up the barbarian character. For the purposes of economic theory, these
      further barbarian traits may be taken as concomitant variations of that
      predaceous temper of which prowess is an expression. In great measure they
      are not primarily of an economic character, nor do they have much direct
      economic bearing. They serve to indicate the stage of economic evolution
      to which the individual possessed of them is adapted. They are of
      importance, therefore, as extraneous tests of the degree of adaptation of
      the character in which they are comprised to the economic exigencies of
      today, but they are also to some extent important as being aptitudes which
      themselves go to increase or diminish the economic serviceability of the
      individual.
    </p>
    <p>
      As it finds expression in the life of the barbarian, prowess manifests
      itself in two main directions&mdash;force and fraud. In varying degrees
      these two forms of expression are similarly present in modern warfare, in
      the pecuniary occupations, and in sports and games. Both lines of
      aptitudes are cultivated and strengthened by the life of sport as well as
      by the more serious forms of emulative life. Strategy or cunning is an
      element invariably present in games, as also in warlike pursuits and in
      the chase. In all of these employments strategy tends to develop into
      finesse and chicanery. Chicanery, falsehood, browbeating, hold a
      well-secured place in the method of procedure of any athletic contest and
      in games generally. The habitual employment of an umpire, and the minute
      technical regulations governing the limits and details of permissible
      fraud and strategic advantage, sufficiently attest the fact that
      fraudulent practices and attempts to overreach one's opponents are not
      adventitious features of the game. In the nature of the case habituation
      to sports should conduce to a fuller development of the aptitude for
      fraud; and the prevalence in the community of that predatory temperament
      which inclines men to sports connotes a prevalence of sharp practice and
      callous disregard of the interests of others, individually and
      collectively. Resort to fraud, in any guise and under any legitimation of
      law or custom, is an expression of a narrowly self-regarding habit of
      mind. It is needless to dwell at any length on the economic value of this
      feature of the sporting character.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this connection it is to be noted that the most obvious characteristic
      of the physiognomy affected by athletic and other sporting men is that of
      an extreme astuteness. The gifts and exploits of Ulysses are scarcely
      second to those of Achilles, either in their substantial furtherance of
      the game or in the éclat which they give the astute sporting man among his
      associates. The pantomime of astuteness is commonly the first step in that
      assimilation to the professional sporting man which a youth undergoes
      after matriculation in any reputable school, of the secondary or the
      higher education, as the case may be. And the physiognomy of astuteness,
      as a decorative feature, never ceases to receive the thoughtful attention
      of men whose serious interest lies in athletic games, races, or other
      contests of a similar emulative nature. As a further indication of their
      spiritual kinship, it may be pointed out that the members of the lower
      delinquent class usually show this physiognomy of astuteness in a marked
      degree, and that they very commonly show the same histrionic exaggeration
      of it that is often seen in the young candidate for athletic honors. This,
      by the way, is the most legible mark of what is vulgarly called
      "toughness" in youthful aspirants for a bad name.
    </p>
    <p>
      The astute man, it may be remarked, is of no economic value to the
      community&mdash;unless it be for the purpose of sharp practice in dealings
      with other communities. His functioning is not a furtherance of the
      generic life process. At its best, in its direct economic bearing, it is a
      conversion of the economic substance of the collectivity to a growth alien
      to the collective life process&mdash;very much after the analogy of what
      in medicine would be called a benign tumor, with some tendency to
      transgress the uncertain line that divides the benign from the malign
      growths. The two barbarian traits, ferocity and astuteness, go to make up
      the predaceous temper or spiritual attitude. They are the expressions of a
      narrowly self-regarding habit of mind. Both are highly serviceable for
      individual expediency in a life looking to invidious success. Both also
      have a high aesthetic value. Both are fostered by the pecuniary culture.
      But both alike are of no use for the purposes of the collective life.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0011" id="link2HCH0011">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Eleven ~~ The Belief in Luck
    </h2>
    <p>
      The gambling propensity is another subsidiary trait of the barbarian
      temperament. It is a concomitant variation of character of almost
      universal prevalence among sporting men and among men given to warlike and
      emulative activities generally. This trait also has a direct economic
      value. It is recognized to be a hindrance to the highest industrial
      efficiency of the aggregate in any community where it prevails in an
      appreciable degree. The gambling proclivity is doubtfully to be classed as
      a feature belonging exclusively to the predatory type of human nature. The
      chief factor in the gambling habit is the belief in luck; and this belief
      is apparently traceable, at least in its elements, to a stage in human
      evolution antedating the predatory culture. It may well have been under
      the predatory culture that the belief in luck was developed into the form
      in which it is present, as the chief element of the gambling proclivity,
      in the sporting temperament. It probably owes the specific form under
      which it occurs in the modern culture to the predatory discipline. But the
      belief in luck is in substance a habit of more ancient date than the
      predatory culture. It is one form of the artistic apprehension of things.
      The belief seems to be a trait carried over in substance from an earlier
      phase into the barbarian culture, and transmuted and transmitted through
      that culture to a later stage of human development under a specific form
      imposed by the predatory discipline. But in any case, it is to be taken as
      an archaic trait, inherited from a more or less remote past, more or less
      incompatible with the requirements of the modern industrial process, and
      more or less of a hindrance to the fullest efficiency of the collective
      economic life of the present.
    </p>
    <p>
      While the belief in luck is the basis of the gambling habit, it is not the
      only element that enters into the habit of betting. Betting on the issue
      of contests of strength and skill proceeds on a further motive, without
      which the belief in luck would scarcely come in as a prominent feature of
      sporting life. This further motive is the desire of the anticipated
      winner, or the partisan of the anticipated winning side, to heighten his
      side's ascendency at the cost of the loser. Not only does the stronger
      side score a more signal victory, and the losing side suffer a more
      painful and humiliating defeat, in proportion as the pecuniary gain and
      loss in the wager is large; although this alone is a consideration of
      material weight. But the wager is commonly laid also with a view, not
      avowed in words nor even recognized in set terms in petto, to enhancing
      the chances of success for the contestant on which it is laid. It is felt
      that substance and solicitude expended to this end can not go for naught
      in the issue. There is here a special manifestation of the instinct of
      workmanship, backed by an even more manifest sense that the animistic
      congruity of things must decide for a victorious outcome for the side in
      whose behalf the propensity inherent in events has been propitiated and
      fortified by so much of conative and kinetic urging. This incentive to the
      wager expresses itself freely under the form of backing one's favorite in
      any contest, and it is unmistakably a predatory feature. It is as
      ancillary to the predaceous impulse proper that the belief in luck
      expresses itself in a wager. So that it may be set down that in so far as
      the belief in luck comes to expression in the form of laying a wager, it
      is to be accounted an integral element of the predatory type of character.
      The belief is, in its elements, an archaic habit which belongs
      substantially to early, undifferentiated human nature; but when this
      belief is helped out by the predatory emulative impulse, and so is
      differentiated into the specific form of the gambling habit, it is, in
      this higher-developed and specific form, to be classed as a trait of the
      barbarian character.
    </p>
    <p>
      The belief in luck is a sense of fortuitous necessity in the sequence of
      phenomena. In its various mutations and expressions, it is of very serious
      importance for the economic efficiency of any community in which it
      prevails to an appreciable extent. So much so as to warrant a more
      detailed discussion of its origin and content and of the bearing of its
      various ramifications upon economic structure and function, as well as a
      discussion of the relation of the leisure class to its growth,
      differentiation, and persistence. In the developed, integrated form in
      which it is most readily observed in the barbarian of the predatory
      culture or in the sporting man of modern communities, the belief comprises
      at least two distinguishable elements&mdash;which are to be taken as two
      different phases of the same fundamental habit of thought, or as the same
      psychological factor in two successive phases of its evolution. The fact
      that these two elements are successive phases of the same general line of
      growth of belief does not hinder their coexisting in the habits of thought
      of any given individual. The more primitive form (or the more archaic
      phase) is an incipient animistic belief, or an animistic sense of
      relations and things, that imputes a quasi-personal character to facts. To
      the archaic man all the obtrusive and obviously consequential objects and
      facts in his environment have a quasi-personal individuality. They are
      conceived to be possessed of volition, or rather of propensities, which
      enter into the complex of causes and affect events in an inscrutable
      manner. The sporting man's sense of luck and chance, or of fortuitous
      necessity, is an inarticulate or inchoate animism. It applies to objects
      and situations, often in a very vague way; but it is usually so far
      defined as to imply the possibility of propitiating, or of deceiving and
      cajoling, or otherwise disturbing the holding of propensities resident in
      the objects which constitute the apparatus and accessories of any game of
      skill or chance. There are few sporting men who are not in the habit of
      wearing charms or talismans to which more or less of efficacy is felt to
      belong. And the proportion is not much less of those who instinctively
      dread the "hoodooing" of the contestants or the apparatus engaged in any
      contest on which they lay a wager; or who feel that the fact of their
      backing a given contestant or side in the game does and ought to
      strengthen that side; or to whom the "mascot" which they cultivate means
      something more than a jest.
    </p>
    <p>
      In its simple form the belief in luck is this instinctive sense of an
      inscrutable teleological propensity in objects or situations. Objects or
      events have a propensity to eventuate in a given end, whether this end or
      objective point of the sequence is conceived to be fortuitously given or
      deliberately sought. From this simple animism the belief shades off by
      insensible gradations into the second, derivative form or phase above
      referred to, which is a more or less articulate belief in an inscrutable
      preternatural agency. The preternatural agency works through the visible
      objects with which it is associated, but is not identified with these
      objects in point of individuality. The use of the term "preternatural
      agency" here carries no further implication as to the nature of the agency
      spoken of as preternatural. This is only a farther development of
      animistic belief. The preternatural agency is not necessarily conceived to
      be a personal agent in the full sense, but it is an agency which partakes
      of the attributes of personality to the extent of somewhat arbitrarily
      influencing the outcome of any enterprise, and especially of any contest.
      The pervading belief in the hamingia or gipta (gaefa, authna) which lends
      so much of color to the Icelandic sagas specifically, and to early
      Germanic folk-legends, is an illustration of this sense of an
      extra-physical propensity in the course of events.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this expression or form of the belief the propensity is scarcely
      personified although to a varying extent an individuality is imputed to
      it; and this individuated propensity is sometimes conceived to yield to
      circumstances, commonly to circumstances of a spiritual or preternatural
      character. A well-known and striking exemplification of the belief&mdash;in
      a fairly advanced stage of differentiation and involving an
      anthropomorphic personification of the preternatural agent appealed to&mdash;is
      afforded by the wager of battle. Here the preternatural agent was
      conceived to act on request as umpire, and to shape the outcome of the
      contest in accordance with some stipulated ground of decision, such as the
      equity or legality of the respective contestants' claims. The like sense
      of an inscrutable but spiritually necessary tendency in events is still
      traceable as an obscure element in current popular belief, as shown, for
      instance, by the well-accredited maxim, "Thrice is he armed who knows his
      quarrel just,"&mdash;a maxim which retains much of its significance for
      the average unreflecting person even in the civilized communities of
      today. The modern reminiscence of the belief in the hamingia, or in the
      guidance of an unseen hand, which is traceable in the acceptance of this
      maxim is faint and perhaps uncertain; and it seems in any case to be
      blended with other psychological moments that are not clearly of an
      animistic character.
    </p>
    <p>
      For the purpose in hand it is unnecessary to look more closely into the
      psychological process or the ethnological line of descent by which the
      later of these two animistic apprehensions of propensity is derived from
      the earlier. This question may be of the gravest importance to
      folk-psychology or to the theory of the evolution of creeds and cults. The
      same is true of the more fundamental question whether the two are related
      at all as successive phases in a sequence of development. Reference is
      here made to the existence of these questions only to remark that the
      interest of the present discussion does not lie in that direction. So far
      as concerns economic theory, these two elements or phases of the belief in
      luck, or in an extra-causal trend or propensity in things, are of
      substantially the same character. They have an economic significance as
      habits of thought which affect the individual's habitual view of the facts
      and sequences with which he comes in contact, and which thereby affect the
      individual's serviceability for the industrial purpose. Therefore, apart
      from all question of the beauty, worth, or beneficence of any animistic
      belief, there is place for a discussion of their economic bearing on the
      serviceability of the individual as an economic factor, and especially as
      an industrial agent.
    </p>
    <p>
      It has already been noted in an earlier connection, that in order to have
      the highest serviceability in the complex industrial processes of today,
      the individual must be endowed with the aptitude and the habit of readily
      apprehending and relating facts in terms of causal sequence. Both as a
      whole and in its details, the industrial process is a process of
      quantitative causation. The "intelligence" demanded of the workman, as
      well as of the director of an industrial process, is little else than a
      degree of facility in the apprehension of and adaptation to a
      quantitatively determined causal sequence. This facility of apprehension
      and adaptation is what is lacking in stupid workmen, and the growth of
      this facility is the end sought in their education&mdash;so far as their
      education aims to enhance their industrial efficiency.
    </p>
    <p>
      In so far as the individual's inherited aptitudes or his training incline
      him to account for facts and sequences in other terms than those of
      causation or matter-of-fact, they lower his productive efficiency or
      industrial usefulness. This lowering of efficiency through a penchant for
      animistic methods of apprehending facts is especially apparent when taken
      in the mass-when a given population with an animistic turn is viewed as a
      whole. The economic drawbacks of animism are more patent and its
      consequences are more far-reaching under the modern system of large
      industry than under any other. In the modern industrial communities,
      industry is, to a constantly increasing extent, being organized in a
      comprehensive system of organs and functions mutually conditioning one
      another; and therefore freedom from all bias in the causal apprehension of
      phenomena grows constantly more requisite to efficiency on the part of the
      men concerned in industry. Under a system of handicraft an advantage in
      dexterity, diligence, muscular force, or endurance may, in a very large
      measure, offset such a bias in the habits of thought of the workmen.
    </p>
    <p>
      Similarly in agricultural industry of the traditional kind, which closely
      resembles handicraft in the nature of the demands made upon the workman.
      In both, the workman is himself the prime mover chiefly depended upon, and
      the natural forces engaged are in large part apprehended as inscrutable
      and fortuitous agencies, whose working lies beyond the workman's control
      or discretion. In popular apprehension there is in these forms of industry
      relatively little of the industrial process left to the fateful swing of a
      comprehensive mechanical sequence which must be comprehended in terms of
      causation and to which the operations of industry and the movements of the
      workmen must be adapted. As industrial methods develop, the virtues of the
      handicraftsman count for less and less as an offset to scanty intelligence
      or a halting acceptance of the sequence of cause and effect. The
      industrial organization assumes more and more of the character of a
      mechanism, in which it is man's office to discriminate and select what
      natural forces shall work out their effects in his service. The workman's
      part in industry changes from that of a prime mover to that of
      discrimination and valuation of quantitative sequences and mechanical
      facts. The faculty of a ready apprehension and unbiased appreciation of
      causes in his environment grows in relative economic importance and any
      element in the complex of his habits of thought which intrudes a bias at
      variance with this ready appreciation of matter-of-fact sequence gains
      proportionately in importance as a disturbing element acting to lower his
      industrial usefulness. Through its cumulative effect upon the habitual
      attitude of the population, even a slight or inconspicuous bias towards
      accounting for everyday facts by recourse to other ground than that of
      quantitative causation may work an appreciable lowering of the collective
      industrial efficiency of a community.
    </p>
    <p>
      The animistic habit of mind may occur in the early, undifferentiated form
      of an inchoate animistic belief, or in the later and more highly
      integrated phase in which there is an anthropomorphic personification of
      the propensity imputed to facts. The industrial value of such a lively
      animistic sense, or of such recourse to a preternatural agency or the
      guidance of an unseen hand, is of course very much the same in either
      case. As affects the industrial serviceability of the individual, the
      effect is of the same kind in either case; but the extent to which this
      habit of thought dominates or shapes the complex of his habits of thought
      varies with the degree of immediacy, urgency, or exclusiveness with which
      the individual habitually applies the animistic or anthropomorphic formula
      in dealing with the facts of his environment. The animistic habit acts in
      all cases to blur the appreciation of causal sequence; but the earlier,
      less reflected, less defined animistic sense of propensity may be expected
      to affect the intellectual processes of the individual in a more pervasive
      way than the higher forms of anthropomorphism. Where the animistic habit
      is present in the naive form, its scope and range of application are not
      defined or limited. It will therefore palpably affect his thinking at
      every turn of the person's life&mdash;wherever he has to do with the
      material means of life. In the later, maturer development of animism,
      after it has been defined through the process of anthropomorphic
      elaboration, when its application has been limited in a somewhat
      consistent fashion to the remote and the invisible, it comes about that an
      increasing range of everyday facts are provisionally accounted for without
      recourse to the preternatural agency in which a cultivated animism
      expresses itself. A highly integrated, personified preternatural agency is
      not a convenient means of handling the trivial occurrences of life, and a
      habit is therefore easily fallen into of accounting for many trivial or
      vulgar phenomena in terms of sequence. The provisional explanation so
      arrived at is by neglect allowed to stand as definitive, for trivial
      purposes, until special provocation or perplexity recalls the individual
      to his allegiance. But when special exigencies arise, that is to say, when
      there is peculiar need of a full and free recourse to the law of cause and
      effect, then the individual commonly has recourse to the preternatural
      agency as a universal solvent, if he is possessed of an anthropomorphic
      belief.
    </p>
    <p>
      The extra-causal propensity or agent has a very high utility as a recourse
      in perplexity, but its utility is altogether of a non-economic kind. It is
      especially a refuge and a fund of comfort where it has attained the degree
      of consistency and specialization that belongs to an anthropomorphic
      divinity. It has much to commend it even on other grounds than that of
      affording the perplexed individual a means of escape from the difficulty
      of accounting for phenomena in terms of causal sequence. It would scarcely
      be in place here to dwell on the obvious and well-accepted merits of an
      anthropomorphic divinity, as seen from the point of view of the aesthetic,
      moral, or spiritual interest, or even as seen from the less remote
      standpoint of political, military, or social policy. The question here
      concerns the less picturesque and less urgent economic value of the belief
      in such a preternatural agency, taken as a habit of thought which affects
      the industrial serviceability of the believer. And even within this
      narrow, economic range, the inquiry is perforce confined to the immediate
      bearing of this habit of thought upon the believer's workmanlike
      serviceability, rather than extended to include its remoter economic
      effects. These remoter effects are very difficult to trace. The inquiry
      into them is so encumbered with current preconceptions as to the degree in
      which life is enhanced by spiritual contact with such a divinity, that any
      attempt to inquire into their economic value must for the present be
      fruitless.
    </p>
    <p>
      The immediate, direct effect of the animistic habit of thought upon the
      general frame of mind of the believer goes in the direction of lowering
      his effective intelligence in the respect in which intelligence is of
      especial consequence for modern industry. The effect follows, in varying
      degree, whether the preternatural agent or propensity believed in is of a
      higher or a lower cast. This holds true of the barbarian's and the
      sporting man's sense of luck and propensity, and likewise of the somewhat
      higher developed belief in an anthropomorphic divinity, such as is
      commonly possessed by the same class. It must be taken to hold true also&mdash;though
      with what relative degree of cogency is not easy to say&mdash;of the more
      adequately developed anthropomorphic cults, such as appeal to the devout
      civilized man. The industrial disability entailed by a popular adherence
      to one of the higher anthropomorphic cults may be relatively slight, but
      it is not to be overlooked. And even these high-class cults of the Western
      culture do not represent the last dissolving phase of this human sense of
      extra-causal propensity. Beyond these the same animistic sense shows
      itself also in such attenuations of anthropomorphism as the
      eighteenth-century appeal to an order of nature and natural rights, and in
      their modern representative, the ostensibly post-Darwinian concept of a
      meliorative trend in the process of evolution. This animistic explanation
      of phenomena is a form of the fallacy which the logicians knew by the name
      of ignava ratio. For the purposes of industry or of science it counts as a
      blunder in the apprehension and valuation of facts. Apart from its direct
      industrial consequences, the animistic habit has a certain significance
      for economic theory on other grounds. (1) It is a fairly reliable
      indication of the presence, and to some extent even of the degree of
      potency, of certain other archaic traits that accompany it and that are of
      substantial economic consequence; and (2) the material consequences of
      that code of devout proprieties to which the animistic habit gives rise in
      the development of an anthropomorphic cult are of importance both (a) as
      affecting the community's consumption of goods and the prevalent canons of
      taste, as already suggested in an earlier chapter, and (b) by inducing and
      conserving a certain habitual recognition of the relation to a superior,
      and so stiffening the current sense of status and allegiance.
    </p>
    <p>
      As regards the point last named (b), that body of habits of thought which
      makes up the character of any individual is in some sense an organic
      whole. A marked variation in a given direction at any one point carries
      with it, as its correlative, a concomitant variation in the habitual
      expression of life in other directions or other groups of activities.
      These various habits of thought, or habitual expressions of life, are all
      phases of the single life sequence of the individual; therefore a habit
      formed in response to a given stimulus will necessarily affect the
      character of the response made to other stimuli. A modification of human
      nature at any one point is a modification of human nature as a whole. On
      this ground, and perhaps to a still greater extent on obscurer grounds
      that can not be discussed here, there are these concomitant variations as
      between the different traits of human nature. So, for instance, barbarian
      peoples with a well-developed predatory scheme of life are commonly also
      possessed of a strong prevailing animistic habit, a well-formed
      anthropomorphic cult, and a lively sense of status. On the other hand,
      anthropomorphism and the realizing sense of an animistic propensity in
      material are less obtrusively present in the life of the peoples at the
      cultural stages which precede and which follow the barbarian culture. The
      sense of status is also feebler; on the whole, in peaceable communities.
      It is to be remarked that a lively, but slightly specialized, animistic
      belief is to be found in most if not all peoples living in the
      ante-predatory, savage stage of culture. The primitive savage takes his
      animism less seriously than the barbarian or the degenerate savage. With
      him it eventuates in fantastic myth-making, rather than in coercive
      superstition. The barbarian culture shows sportsmanship, status, and
      anthropomorphism. There is commonly observable a like concomitance of
      variations in the same respects in the individual temperament of men in
      the civilized communities of today. Those modern representatives of the
      predaceous barbarian temper that make up the sporting element are commonly
      believers in luck; at least they have a strong sense of an animistic
      propensity in things, by force of which they are given to gambling. So
      also as regards anthropomorphism in this class. Such of them as give in
      their adhesion to some creed commonly attach themselves to one of the
      naively and consistently anthropomorphic creeds; there are relatively few
      sporting men who seek spiritual comfort in the less anthropomorphic cults,
      such as the Unitarian or the Universalist.
    </p>
    <p>
      Closely bound up with this correlation of anthropomorphism and prowess is
      the fact that anthropomorphic cults act to conserve, if not to initiate,
      habits of mind favorable to a regime of status. As regards this point, it
      is quite impossible to say where the disciplinary effect of the cult ends
      and where the evidence of a concomitance of variations in inherited traits
      begins. In their finest development, the predatory temperament, the sense
      of status, and the anthropomorphic cult all together belong to the
      barbarian culture; and something of a mutual causal relation subsists
      between the three phenomena as they come into sight in communities on that
      cultural level. The way in which they recur in correlation in the habits
      and attitudes of individuals and classes today goes far to imply a like
      causal or organic relation between the same psychological phenomena
      considered as traits or habits of the individual. It has appeared at an
      earlier point in the discussion that the relation of status, as a feature
      of social structure, is a consequence of the predatory habit of life. As
      regards its line of derivation, it is substantially an elaborated
      expression of the predatory attitude. On the other hand, an
      anthropomorphic cult is a code of detailed relations of status
      superimposed upon the concept of a preternatural, inscrutable propensity
      in material things. So that, as regards the external facts of its
      derivation, the cult may be taken as an outgrowth of archaic man's
      pervading animistic sense, defined and in some degree transformed by the
      predatory habit of life, the result being a personified preternatural
      agency, which is by imputation endowed with a full complement of the
      habits of thought that characterize the man of the predatory culture.
    </p>
    <p>
      The grosser psychological features in the case, which have an immediate
      bearing on economic theory and are consequently to be taken account of
      here, are therefore: (a) as has appeared in an earlier chapter, the
      predatory, emulative habit of mind here called prowess is but the
      barbarian variant of the generically human instinct of workmanship, which
      has fallen into this specific form under the guidance of a habit of
      invidious comparison of persons; (b) the relation of status is a formal
      expression of such an invidious comparison duly gauged and graded
      according to a sanctioned schedule; (c) an anthropomorphic cult, in the
      days of its early vigor at least, is an institution the characteristic
      element of which is a relation of status between the human subject as
      inferior and the personified preternatural agency as superior. With this
      in mind, there should be no difficulty in recognizing the intimate
      relation which subsists between these three phenomena of human nature and
      of human life; the relation amounts to an identity in some of their
      substantial elements. On the one hand, the system of status and the
      predatory habit of life are an expression of the instinct of workmanship
      as it takes form under a custom of invidious comparison; on the other
      hand, the anthropomorphic cult and the habit of devout observances are an
      expression of men's animistic sense of a propensity in material things,
      elaborated under the guidance of substantially the same general habit of
      invidious comparison. The two categories&mdash;the emulative habit of life
      and the habit of devout observances&mdash;are therefore to be taken as
      complementary elements of the barbarian type of human nature and of its
      modern barbarian variants. They are expressions of much the same range of
      aptitudes, made in response to different sets of stimuli.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0012" id="link2HCH0012">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Twelve ~~ Devout Observances
    </h2>
    <p>
      A discoursive rehearsal of certain incidents of modern life will show the
      organic relation of the anthropomorphic cults to the barbarian culture and
      temperament. It will likewise serve to show how the survival and efficacy
      of the cults and he prevalence of their schedule of devout observances are
      related to the institution of a leisure class and to the springs of action
      underlying that institution. Without any intention to commend or to
      deprecate the practices to be spoken of under the head of devout
      observances, or the spiritual and intellectual traits of which these
      observances are the expression, the everyday phenomena of current
      anthropomorphic cults may be taken up from the point of view of the
      interest which they have for economic theory. What can properly be spoken
      of here are the tangible, external features of devout observances. The
      moral, as well as the devotional value of the life of faith lies outside
      of the scope of the present inquiry. Of course no question is here
      entertained as to the truth or beauty of the creeds on which the cults
      proceed. And even their remoter economic bearing can not be taken up here;
      the subject is too recondite and of too grave import to find a place in so
      slight a sketch.
    </p>
    <p>
      Something has been said in an earlier chapter as to the influence which
      pecuniary standards of value exert upon the processes of valuation carried
      out on other bases, not related to the pecuniary interest. The relation is
      not altogether one-sided. The economic standards or canons of valuation
      are in their turn influenced by extra-economic standards of value. Our
      judgments of the economic bearing of facts are to some extent shaped by
      the dominant presence of these weightier interests. There is a point of
      view, indeed, from which the economic interest is of weight only as being
      ancillary to these higher, non-economic interests. For the present
      purpose, therefore, some thought must be taken to isolate the economic
      interest or the economic hearing of these phenomena of anthropomorphic
      cults. It takes some effort to divest oneself of the more serious point of
      view, and to reach an economic appreciation of these facts, with as little
      as may be of the bias due to higher interests extraneous to economic
      theory. In the discussion of the sporting temperament, it has appeared
      that the sense of an animistic propensity in material things and events is
      what affords the spiritual basis of the sporting man's gambling habit. For
      the economic purpose, this sense of propensity is substantially the same
      psychological element as expresses itself, under a variety of forms, in
      animistic beliefs and anthropomorphic creeds. So far as concerns those
      tangible psychological features with which economic theory has to deal,
      the gambling spirit which pervades the sporting element shades off by
      insensible gradations into that frame of mind which finds gratification in
      devout observances. As seen from the point of view of economic theory, the
      sporting character shades off into the character of a religious devotee.
      Where the betting man's animistic sense is helped out by a somewhat
      consistent tradition, it has developed into a more or less articulate
      belief in a preternatural or hyperphysical agency, with something of an
      anthropomorphic content. And where this is the case, there is commonly a
      perceptible inclination to make terms with the preternatural agency by
      some approved method of approach and conciliation. This element of
      propitiation and cajoling has much in common with the crasser forms of
      worship&mdash;if not in historical derivation, at least in actual
      psychological content. It obviously shades off in unbroken continuity into
      what is recognized as superstitious practice and belief, and so asserts
      its claim to kinship with the grosser anthropomorphic cults.
    </p>
    <p>
      The sporting or gambling temperament, then, comprises some of the
      substantial psychological elements that go to make a believer in creeds
      and an observer of devout forms, the chief point of coincidence being the
      belief in an inscrutable propensity or a preternatural interposition in
      the sequence of events. For the purpose of the gambling practice the
      belief in preternatural agency may be, and ordinarily is, less closely
      formulated, especially as regards the habits of thought and the scheme of
      life imputed to the preternatural agent; or, in other words, as regards
      his moral character and his purposes in interfering in events. With
      respect to the individuality or personality of the agency whose presence
      as luck, or chance, or hoodoo, or mascot, etc., he feels and sometimes
      dreads and endeavors to evade, the sporting man's views are also less
      specific, less integrated and differentiated. The basis of his gambling
      activity is, in great measure, simply an instinctive sense of the presence
      of a pervasive extraphysical and arbitrary force or propensity in things
      or situations, which is scarcely recognized as a personal agent. The
      betting man is not infrequently both a believer in luck, in this naive
      sense, and at the same time a pretty staunch adherent of some form of
      accepted creed. He is especially prone to accept so much of the creed as
      concerts the inscrutable power and the arbitrary habits of the divinity
      which has won his confidence. In such a case he is possessed of two, or
      sometimes more than two, distinguishable phases of animism. Indeed, the
      complete series of successive phases of animistic belief is to be found
      unbroken in the spiritual furniture of any sporting community. Such a
      chain of animistic conceptions will comprise the most elementary form of
      an instinctive sense of luck and chance and fortuitous necessity at one
      end of the series, together with the perfectly developed anthropomorphic
      divinity at the other end, with all intervening stages of integration.
      Coupled with these beliefs in preternatural agency goes an instinctive
      shaping of conduct to conform with the surmised requirements of the lucky
      chance on the one hand, and a more or less devout submission to the
      inscrutable decrees of the divinity on the other hand.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is a relationship in this respect between the sporting temperament
      and the temperament of the delinquent classes; and the two are related to
      the temperament which inclines to an anthropomorphic cult. Both the
      delinquent and the sporting man are on the average more apt to be
      adherents of some accredited creed, and are also rather more inclined to
      devout observances, than the general average of the community. It is also
      noticeable that unbelieving members of these classes show more of a
      proclivity to become proselytes to some accredited faith than the average
      of unbelievers. This fact of observation is avowed by the spokesmen of
      sports, especially in apologizing for the more naively predatory athletic
      sports. Indeed, it is somewhat insistently claimed as a meritorious
      feature of sporting life that the habitual participants in athletic games
      are in some degree peculiarly given to devout practices. And it is
      observable that the cult to which sporting men and the predaceous
      delinquent classes adhere, or to which proselytes from these classes
      commonly attach themselves, is ordinarily not one of the so-called higher
      faiths, but a cult which has to do with a thoroughly anthropomorphic
      divinity. Archaic, predatory human nature is not satisfied with abstruse
      conceptions of a dissolving personality that shades off into the concept
      of quantitative causal sequence, such as the speculative, esoteric creeds
      of Christendom impute to the First Cause, Universal Intelligence, World
      Soul, or Spiritual Aspect. As an instance of a cult of the character which
      the habits of mind of the athlete and the delinquent require, may be cited
      that branch of the church militant known as the Salvation Army. This is to
      some extent recruited from the lower-class delinquents, and it appears to
      comprise also, among its officers especially, a larger proportion of men
      with a sporting record than the proportion of such men in the aggregate
      population of the community.
    </p>
    <p>
      College athletics afford a case in point. It is contended by exponents of
      the devout element in college life&mdash;and there seems to be no ground
      for disputing the claim&mdash;that the desirable athletic material
      afforded by any student body in this country is at the same time
      predominantly religious; or that it is at least given to devout
      observances to a greater degree than the average of those students whose
      interest in athletics and other college sports is less. This is what might
      be expected on theoretical grounds. It may be remarked, by the way, that
      from one point of view this is felt to reflect credit on the college
      sporting life, on athletic games, and on those persons who occupy
      themselves with these matters. It happens not frequently that college
      sporting men devote themselves to religious propaganda, either as a
      vocation or as a by-occupation; and it is observable that when this
      happens they are likely to become propagandists of some one of the more
      anthropomorphic cults. In their teaching they are apt to insist chiefly on
      the personal relation of status which subsists between an anthropomorphic
      divinity and the human subject.
    </p>
    <p>
      This intimate relation between athletics and devout observance among
      college men is a fact of sufficient notoriety; but it has a special
      feature to which attention has not been called, although it is obvious
      enough. The religious zeal which pervades much of the college sporting
      element is especially prone to express itself in an unquestioning
      devoutness and a naive and complacent submission to an inscrutable
      Providence. It therefore by preference seeks affiliation with some one of
      those lay religious organizations which occupy themselves with the spread
      of the exoteric forms of faith&mdash;as, e.g., the Young Men's Christian
      Association or the Young People's Society for Christian Endeavor. These
      lay bodies are organized to further "practical" religion; and as if to
      enforce the argument and firmly establish the close relationship between
      the sporting temperament and the archaic devoutness, these lay religious
      bodies commonly devote some appreciable portion of their energies to the
      furtherance of athletic contests and similar games of chance and skill. It
      might even be said that sports of this kind are apprehended to have some
      efficacy as a means of grace. They are apparently useful as a means of
      proselyting, and as a means of sustaining the devout attitude in converts
      once made. That is to say, the games which give exercise to the animistic
      sense and to the emulative propensity help to form and to conserve that
      habit of mind to which the more exoteric cults are congenial. Hence, in
      the hands of the lay organizations, these sporting activities come to do
      duty as a novitiate or a means of induction into that fuller unfolding of
      the life of spiritual status which is the privilege of the full
      communicant along.
    </p>
    <p>
      That the exercise of the emulative and lower animistic proclivities are
      substantially useful for the devout purpose seems to be placed beyond
      question by the fact that the priesthood of many denominations is
      following the lead of the lay organizations in this respect. Those
      ecclesiastical organizations especially which stand nearest the lay
      organizations in their insistence on practical religion have gone some way
      towards adopting these or analogous practices in connection with the
      traditional devout observances. So there are "boys' brigades," and other
      organizations, under clerical sanction, acting to develop the emulative
      proclivity and the sense of status in the youthful members of the
      congregation. These pseudo-military organizations tend to elaborate and
      accentuate the proclivity to emulation and invidious comparison, and so
      strengthen the native facility for discerning and approving the relation
      of personal mastery and subservience. And a believer is eminently a person
      who knows how to obey and accept chastisement with good grace. But the
      habits of thought which these practices foster and conserve make up but
      one half of the substance of the anthropomorphic cults. The other,
      complementary element of devout life&mdash;the animistic habit of mind&mdash;is
      recruited and conserved by a second range of practices organized under
      clerical sanction. These are the class of gambling practices of which the
      church bazaar or raffle may be taken as the type. As indicating the degree
      of legitimacy of these practices in connection with devout observances
      proper, it is to be remarked that these raffles, and the like trivial
      opportunities for gambling, seem to appeal with more effect to the common
      run of the members of religious organizations than they do to persons of a
      less devout habit of mind.
    </p>
    <p>
      All this seems to argue, on the one hand, that the same temperament
      inclines people to sports as inclines them to the anthropomorphic cults,
      and on the other hand that the habituation to sports, perhaps especially
      to athletic sports, acts to develop the propensities which find
      satisfaction in devout observances. Conversely; it also appears that
      habituation to these observances favors the growth of a proclivity for
      athletic sports and for all games that give play to the habit of invidious
      comparison and of the appeal to luck. Substantially the same range of
      propensities finds expression in both these directions of the spiritual
      life. That barbarian human nature in which the predatory instinct and the
      animistic standpoint predominate is normally prone to both. The predatory
      habit of mind involves an accentuated sense of personal dignity and of the
      relative standing of individuals. The social structure in which the
      predatory habit has been the dominant factor in the shaping of
      institutions is a structure based on status. The pervading norm in the
      predatory community's scheme of life is the relation of superior and
      inferior, noble and base, dominant and subservient persons and classes,
      master and slave. The anthropomorphic cults have come down from that stage
      of industrial development and have been shaped by the same scheme of
      economic differentiation&mdash;a differentiation into consumer and
      producer&mdash;and they are pervaded by the same dominant principle of
      mastery and subservience. The cults impute to their divinity the habits of
      thought answering to the stage of economic differentiation at which the
      cults took shape. The anthropomorphic divinity is conceived to be
      punctilious in all questions of precedence and is prone to an assertion of
      mastery and an arbitrary exercise of power&mdash;an habitual resort to
      force as the final arbiter.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the later and maturer formulations of the anthropomorphic creed this
      imputed habit of dominance on the part of a divinity of awful presence and
      inscrutable power is chastened into "the fatherhood of God." The spiritual
      attitude and the aptitudes imputed to the preternatural agent are still
      such as belong under the regime of status, but they now assume the
      patriarchal cast characteristic of the quasi-peaceable stage of culture.
      Still it is to be noted that even in this advanced phase of the cult the
      observances in which devoutness finds expression consistently aim to
      propitiate the divinity by extolling his greatness and glory and by
      professing subservience and fealty. The act of propitiation or of worship
      is designed to appeal to a sense of status imputed to the inscrutable
      power that is thus approached. The propitiatory formulas most in vogue are
      still such as carry or imply an invidious comparison. A loyal attachment
      to the person of an anthropomorphic divinity endowed with such an archaic
      human nature implies the like archaic propensities in the devotee. For the
      purposes of economic theory, the relation of fealty, whether to a physical
      or to an extraphysical person, is to be taken as a variant of that
      personal subservience which makes up so large a share of the predatory and
      the quasi-peaceable scheme of life.
    </p>
    <p>
      The barbarian conception of the divinity, as a warlike chieftain inclined
      to an overbearing manner of government, has been greatly softened through
      the milder manners and the soberer habits of life that characterize those
      cultural phases which lie between the early predatory stage and the
      present. But even after this chastening of the devout fancy, and the
      consequent mitigation of the harsher traits of conduct and character that
      are currently imputed to the divinity, there still remains in the popular
      apprehension of the divine nature and temperament a very substantial
      residue of the barbarian conception. So it comes about, for instance, that
      in characterizing the divinity and his relations to the process of human
      life, speakers and writers are still able to make effective use of similes
      borrowed from the vocabulary of war and of the predatory manner of life,
      as well as of locutions which involve an invidious comparison. Figures of
      speech of this import are used with good effect even in addressing the
      less warlike modern audiences, made up of adherents of the blander
      variants of the creed. This effective use of barbarian epithets and terms
      of comparison by popular speakers argues that the modern generation has
      retained a lively appreciation of the dignity and merit of the barbarian
      virtues; and it argues also that there is a degree of congruity between
      the devout attitude and the predatory habit of mind. It is only on second
      thought, if at all, that the devout fancy of modern worshippers revolts at
      the imputation of ferocious and vengeful emotions and actions to the
      object of their adoration. It is a matter of common observation that
      sanguinary epithets applied to the divinity have a high aesthetic and
      honorific value in the popular apprehension. That is to say, suggestions
      which these epithets carry are very acceptable to our unreflecting
      apprehension.
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
  Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
  He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
  He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword;
  His truth is marching on.
</pre>
    <p>
      The guiding habits of thought of a devout person move on the plane of an
      archaic scheme of life which has outlived much of its usefulness for the
      economic exigencies of the collective life of today. In so far as the
      economic organization fits the exigencies of the collective life of today,
      it has outlived the regime of status, and has no use and no place for a
      relation of personal subserviency. So far as concerns the economic
      efficiency of the community, the sentiment of personal fealty, and the
      general habit of mind of which that sentiment is an expression, are
      survivals which cumber the ground and hinder an adequate adjustment of
      human institutions to the existing situation. The habit of mind which best
      lends itself to the purposes of a peaceable, industrial community, is that
      matter-of-fact temper which recognizes the value of material facts simply
      as opaque items in the mechanical sequence. It is that frame of mind which
      does not instinctively impute an animistic propensity to things, nor
      resort to preternatural intervention as an explanation of perplexing
      phenomena, nor depend on an unseen hand to shape the course of events to
      human use. To meet the requirements of the highest economic efficiency
      under modern conditions, the world process must habitually be apprehended
      in terms of quantitative, dispassionate force and sequence.
    </p>
    <p>
      As seen from the point of view of the later economic exigencies,
      devoutness is, perhaps in all cases, to be looked upon as a survival from
      an earlier phase of associated life&mdash;a mark of arrested spiritual
      development. Of course it remains true that in a community where the
      economic structure is still substantially a system of status; where the
      attitude of the average of persons in the community is consequently shaped
      by and adapted to the relation of personal dominance and personal
      subservience; or where for any other reason&mdash;of tradition or of
      inherited aptitude&mdash;the population as a whole is strongly inclined to
      devout observances; there a devout habit of mind in any individual, not in
      excess of the average of the community, must be taken simply as a detail
      of the prevalent habit of life. In this light, a devout individual in a
      devout community can not be called a case of reversion, since he is
      abreast of the average of the community. But as seen from the point of
      view of the modern industrial situation, exceptional devoutness&mdash;devotional
      zeal that rises appreciably above the average pitch of devoutness in the
      community&mdash;may safely be set down as in all cases an atavistic trait.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is, of course, equally legitimate to consider these phenomena from a
      different point of view. They may be appreciated for a different purpose,
      and the characterization here offered may be turned about. In speaking
      from the point of view of the devotional interest, or the interest of
      devout taste, it may, with equal cogency, be said that the spiritual
      attitude bred in men by the modern industrial life is unfavorable to a
      free development of the life of faith. It might fairly be objected to the
      later development of the industrial process that its discipline tends to
      "materialism," to the elimination of filial piety. From the aesthetic
      point of view, again, something to a similar purport might be said. But,
      however legitimate and valuable these and the like reflections may be for
      their purpose, they would not be in place in the present inquiry, which is
      exclusively concerned with the valuation of these phenomena from the
      economic point of view.
    </p>
    <p>
      The grave economic significance of the anthropomorphic habit of mind and
      of the addiction to devout observances must serve as apology for speaking
      further on a topic which it can not but be distasteful to discuss at all
      as an economic phenomenon in a community so devout as ours. Devout
      observances are of economic importance as an index of a concomitant
      variation of temperament, accompanying the predatory habit of mind and so
      indicating the presence of industrially disserviceable traits. They
      indicate the presence of a mental attitude which has a certain economic
      value of its own by virtue of its influence upon the industrial
      serviceability of the individual. But they are also of importance more
      directly, in modifying the economic activities of the community,
      especially as regards the distribution and consumption of goods.
    </p>
    <p>
      The most obvious economic bearing of these observances is seen in the
      devout consumption of goods and services. The consumption of ceremonial
      paraphernalia required by any cult, in the way of shrines, temples,
      churches, vestments, sacrifices, sacraments, holiday attire, etc., serves
      no immediate material end. All this material apparatus may, therefore,
      without implying deprecation, be broadly characterized as items of
      conspicuous waste. The like is true in a general way of the personal
      service consumed under this head; such as priestly education, priestly
      service, pilgrimages, fasts, holidays, household devotions, and the like.
      At the same time the observances in the execution of which this
      consumption takes place serve to extend and protract the vogue of those
      habits of thought on which an anthropomorphic cult rests. That is to say,
      they further the habits of thought characteristic of the regime of status.
      They are in so far an obstruction to the most effective organization of
      industry under modern circumstances; and are, in the first instance,
      antagonistic to the development of economic institutions in the direction
      required by the situation of today. For the present purpose, the indirect
      as well as the direct effects of this consumption are of the nature of a
      curtailment of the community's economic efficiency. In economic theory,
      then, and considered in its proximate consequences, the consumption of
      goods and effort in the service of an anthropomorphic divinity means a
      lowering of the vitality of the community. What may be the remoter,
      indirect, moral effects of this class of consumption does not admit of a
      succinct answer, and it is a question which can not be taken up here.
    </p>
    <p>
      It will be to the point, however, to note the general economic character
      of devout consumption, in comparison with consumption for other purposes.
      An indication of the range of motives and purposes from which devout
      consumption of goods proceeds will help toward an appreciation of the
      value both of this consumption itself and of the general habit of mind to
      which it is congenial. There is a striking parallelism, if not rather a
      substantial identity of motive, between the consumption which goes to the
      service of an anthropomorphic divinity and that which goes to the service
      of a gentleman of leisure chieftain or patriarch&mdash;in the upper class
      of society during the barbarian culture. Both in the case of the chieftain
      and in that of the divinity there are expensive edifices set apart for the
      behoof of the person served. These edifices, as well as the properties
      which supplement them in the service, must not be common in kind or grade;
      they always show a large element of conspicuous waste. It may also be
      noted that the devout edifices are invariably of an archaic cast in their
      structure and fittings. So also the servants, both of the chieftain and of
      the divinity, must appear in the presence clothed in garments of a
      special, ornate character. The characteristic economic feature of this
      apparel is a more than ordinarily accentuated conspicuous waste, together
      with the secondary feature&mdash;more accentuated in the case of the
      priestly servants than in that of the servants or courtiers of the
      barbarian potentate&mdash;that this court dress must always be in some
      degree of an archaic fashion. Also the garments worn by the lay members of
      the community when they come into the presence, should be of a more
      expensive kind than their everyday apparel. Here, again, the parallelism
      between the usage of the chieftain's audience hall and that of the
      sanctuary is fairly well marked. In this respect there is required a
      certain ceremonial "cleanness" of attire, the essential feature of which,
      in the economic respect, is that the garments worn on these occasions
      should carry as little suggestion as may be of any industrial occupation
      or of any habitual addiction to such employments as are of material use.
    </p>
    <p>
      This requirement of conspicuous waste and of ceremonial cleanness from the
      traces of industry extends also to the apparel, and in a less degree to
      the food, which is consumed on sacred holidays; that is to say, on days
      set apart&mdash;tabu&mdash;for the divinity or for some member of the
      lower ranks of the preternatural leisure class. In economic theory, sacred
      holidays are obviously to be construed as a season of vicarious leisure
      performed for the divinity or saint in whose name the tabu is imposed and
      to whose good repute the abstention from useful effort on these days is
      conceived to inure. The characteristic feature of all such seasons of
      devout vicarious leisure is a more or less rigid tabu on all activity that
      is of human use. In the case of fast-days the conspicuous abstention from
      gainful occupations and from all pursuits that (materially) further human
      life is further accentuated by compulsory abstinence from such consumption
      as would conduce to the comfort or the fullness of life of the consumer.
    </p>
    <p>
      It may be remarked, parenthetically, that secular holidays are of the same
      origin, by slightly remoter derivation. They shade off by degrees from the
      genuinely sacred days, through an intermediate class of semi-sacred
      birthdays of kings and great men who have been in some measure canonized,
      to the deliberately invented holiday set apart to further the good repute
      of some notable event or some striking fact, to which it is intended to do
      honor, or the good fame of which is felt to be in need of repair. The
      remoter refinement in the employment of vicarious leisure as a means of
      augmenting the good repute of a phenomenon or datum is seen at its best in
      its very latest application. A day of vicarious leisure has in some
      communities been set apart as Labor Day. This observance is designed to
      augment the prestige of the fact of labor, by the archaic, predatory
      method of a compulsory abstention from useful effort. To this datum of
      labor-in-general is imputed the good repute attributable to the pecuniary
      strength put in evidence by abstaining from labor. Sacred holidays, and
      holidays generally, are of the nature of a tribute levied on the body of
      the people. The tribute is paid in vicarious leisure, and the honorific
      effect which emerges is imputed to the person or the fact for whose good
      repute the holiday has been instituted. Such a tithe of vicarious leisure
      is a perquisite of all members of the preternatural leisure class and is
      indispensable to their good fame. Un saint qu'on ne chôme pas is indeed a
      saint fallen on evil days.
    </p>
    <p>
      Besides this tithe of vicarious leisure levied on the laity, there are
      also special classes of persons&mdash;the various grades of priests and
      hierodules&mdash;whose time is wholly set apart for a similar service. It
      is not only incumbent on the priestly class to abstain from vulgar labor,
      especially so far as it is lucrative or is apprehended to contribute to
      the temporal well-being of mankind. The tabu in the case of the priestly
      class goes farther and adds a refinement in the form of an injunction
      against their seeking worldly gain even where it may be had without
      debasing application to industry. It is felt to be unworthy of the servant
      of the divinity, or rather unworthy the dignity of the divinity whose
      servant he is, that he should seek material gain or take thought for
      temporal matters. "Of all contemptible things a man who pretends to be a
      priest of God and is a priest to his own comforts and ambitions is the
      most contemptible." There is a line of discrimination, which a cultivated
      taste in matters of devout observance finds little difficulty in drawing,
      between such actions and conduct as conduce to the fullness of human life
      and such as conduce to the good fame of the anthropomorphic divinity; and
      the activity of the priestly class, in the ideal barbarian scheme, falls
      wholly on the hither side of this line. What falls within the range of
      economics falls below the proper level of solicitude of the priesthood in
      its best estate. Such apparent exceptions to this rule as are afforded,
      for instance, by some of the medieval orders of monks (the members of
      which actually labored to some useful end), scarcely impugn the rule.
      These outlying orders of the priestly class are not a sacerdotal element
      in the full sense of the term. And it is noticeable also that these
      doubtfully sacerdotal orders, which countenanced their members in earning
      a living, fell into disrepute through offending the sense of propriety in
      the communities where they existed.
    </p>
    <p>
      The priest should not put his hand to mechanically productive work; but he
      should consume in large measure. But even as regards his consumption it is
      to be noted that it should take such forms as do not obviously conduce to
      his own comfort or fullness of life; it should conform to the rules
      governing vicarious consumption, as explained under that head in an
      earlier chapter. It is not ordinarily in good form for the priestly class
      to appear well fed or in hilarious spirits. Indeed, in many of the more
      elaborate cults the injunction against other than vicarious consumption by
      this class frequently goes so far as to enjoin mortification of the flesh.
      And even in those modern denominations which have been organized under the
      latest formulations of the creed, in a modern industrial community, it is
      felt that all levity and avowed zest in the enjoyment of the good things
      of this world is alien to the true clerical decorum. Whatever suggests
      that these servants of an invisible master are living a life, not of
      devotion to their master's good fame, but of application to their own
      ends, jars harshly on our sensibilities as something fundamentally and
      eternally wrong. They are a servant class, although, being servants of a
      very exalted master, they rank high in the social scale by virtue of this
      borrowed light. Their consumption is vicarious consumption; and since, in
      the advanced cults, their master has no need of material gain, their
      occupation is vicarious leisure in the full sense. "Whether therefore ye
      eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." It may be
      added that so far as the laity is assimilated to the priesthood in the
      respect that they are conceived to be servants of the divinity. So far
      this imputed vicarious character attaches also to the layman's life. The
      range of application of this corollary is somewhat wide. It applies
      especially to such movements for the reform or rehabilitation of the
      religious life as are of an austere, pietistic, ascetic cast&mdash;where
      the human subject is conceived to hold his life by a direct servile tenure
      from his spiritual sovereign. That is to say, where the institution of the
      priesthood lapses, or where there is an exceptionally lively sense of the
      immediate and masterful presence of the divinity in the affairs of life,
      there the layman is conceived to stand in an immediate servile relation to
      the divinity, and his life is construed to be a performance of vicarious
      leisure directed to the enhancement of his master's repute. In such cases
      of reversion there is a return to the unmediated relation of subservience,
      as the dominant fact of the devout attitude. The emphasis is thereby thrown
      oon austere and discomforting vicarious leisure, to the neglect of
      conspicuous consumption as a means of grace.
    </p>
    <p>
      A doubt will present itself as to the full legitimacy of this
      characterization of the sacerdotal scheme of life, on the ground that a
      considerable proportion of the modern priesthood departs from the scheme
      in many details. The scheme does not hold good for the clergy of those
      denominations which have in some measure diverged from the old established
      schedule of beliefs or observances. These take thought, at least
      ostensibly or permissively, for the temporal welfare of the laity, as well
      as for their own. Their manner of life, not only in the privacy of their
      own household, but often even before the public, does not differ in an
      extreme degree from that of secular-minded persons, either in its
      ostensible austerity or in the archaism of its apparatus. This is truest
      for those denominations that have wandered the farthest. To this objection
      it is to be said that we have here to do not with a discrepancy in the
      theory of sacerdotal life, but with an imperfect conformity to the scheme
      on the part of this body of clergy. They are but a partial and imperfect
      representative of the priesthood, and must not be taken as exhibiting the
      sacerdotal scheme of life in an authentic and competent manner. The clergy
      of the sects and denominations might be characterized as a half-caste
      priesthood, or a priesthood in process of becoming or of reconstitution.
      Such a priesthood may be expected to show the characteristics of the
      sacerdotal office only as blended and obscured with alien motives and
      traditions, due to the disturbing presence of other factors than those of
      animism and status in the purposes of the organizations to which this
      non-conforming fraction of the priesthood belongs.
    </p>
    <p>
      Appeal may be taken direct to the taste of any person with a
      discriminating and cultivated sense of the sacerdotal proprieties, or to
      the prevalent sense of what constitutes clerical decorum in any community
      at all accustomed to think or to pass criticism on what a clergyman may or
      may not do without blame. Even in the most extremely secularized
      denominations, there is some sense of a distinction that should be
      observed between the sacerdotal and the lay scheme of life. There is no
      person of sensibility but feels that where the members of this
      denominational or sectarian clergy depart from traditional usage, in the
      direction of a less austere or less archaic demeanor and apparel, they are
      departing from the ideal of priestly decorum. There is probably no
      community and no sect within the range of the Western culture in which the
      bounds of permissible indulgence are not drawn appreciably closer for the
      incumbent of the priestly office than for the common layman. If the
      priest's own sense of sacerdotal propriety does not effectually impose a
      limit, the prevalent sense of the proprieties on the part of the community
      will commonly assert itself so obtrusively as to lead to his conformity or
      his retirement from office.
    </p>
    <p>
      Few if any members of any body of clergy, it may be added, would avowedly
      seek an increase of salary for gain's sake; and if such avowal were openly
      made by a clergyman, it would be found obnoxious to the sense of propriety
      among his congregation. It may also be noted in this connection that no
      one but the scoffers and the very obtuse are not instinctively grieved
      inwardly at a jest from the pulpit; and that there are none whose respect
      for their pastor does not suffer through any mark of levity on his part in
      any conjuncture of life, except it be levity of a palpably histrionic kind&mdash;a
      constrained unbending of dignity. The diction proper to the sanctuary and
      to the priestly office should also carry little if any suggestion of
      effective everyday life, and should not draw upon the vocabulary of modern
      trade or industry. Likewise, one's sense of the proprieties is readily
      offended by too detailed and intimate a handling of industrial and other
      purely human questions at the hands of the clergy. There is a certain
      level of generality below which a cultivated sense of the proprieties in
      homiletical discourse will not permit a well-bred clergyman to decline in
      his discussion of temporal interests. These matters that are of human and
      secular consequence simply, should properly be handled with such a degree
      of generality and aloofness as may imply that the speaker represents a
      master whose interest in secular affairs goes only so far as to
      permissively countenance them.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is further to be noticed that the non-conforming sects and variants
      whose priesthood is here under discussion, vary among themselves in the
      degree of their conformity to the ideal scheme of sacerdotal life. In a
      general way it will be found that the divergence in this respect is widest
      in the case of the relatively young denominations, and especially in the
      case of such of the newer denominations as have chiefly a lower
      middle-class constituency. They commonly show a large admixture of
      humanitarian, philanthropic, or other motives which can not be classed as
      expressions of the devotional attitude; such as the desire of learning or
      of conviviality, which enter largely into the effective interest shown by
      members of these organizations. The non-conforming or sectarian movements
      have commonly proceeded from a mixture of motives, some of which are at
      variance with that sense of status on which the priestly office rests.
      Sometimes, indeed, the motive has been in good part a revulsion against a
      system of status. Where this is the case the institution of the priesthood
      has broken down in the transition, at least partially. The spokesman of
      such an organization is at the outset a servant and representative of the
      organization, rather than a member of a special priestly class and the
      spokesman of a divine master. And it is only by a process of gradual
      specialization that, in succeeding generations, this spokesman regains the
      position of priest, with a full investiture of sacerdotal authority, and
      with its accompanying austere, archaic and vicarious manner of life. The
      like is true of the breakdown and redintegration of devout ritual after
      such a revulsion. The priestly office, the scheme of sacerdotal life, and
      the schedule of devout observances are rehabilitated only gradually,
      insensibly, and with more or less variation in details, as a persistent
      human sense of devout propriety reasserts its primacy in questions
      touching the interest in the preternatural&mdash;and it may be added, as
      the organization increases in wealth, and so acquires more of the point of
      view and the habits of thought of a leisure class.
    </p>
    <p>
      Beyond the priestly class, and ranged in an ascending hierarchy,
      ordinarily comes a superhuman vicarious leisure class of saints, angels,
      etc.&mdash;or their equivalents in the ethnic cults. These rise in grade,
      one above another, according to elaborate system of status. The principle
      of status runs through the entire hierarchical system, both visible and
      invisible. The good fame of these several orders of the supernatural
      hierarchy also commonly requires a certain tribute of vicarious
      consumption and vicarious leisure. In many cases they accordingly have
      devoted to their service sub-orders of attendants or dependents who
      perform a vicarious leisure for them, after much the same fashion as was
      found in an earlier chapter to be true of the dependent leisure class
      under the patriarchal system.
    </p>
    <p>
      It may not appear without reflection how these devout observances and the
      peculiarity of temperament which they imply, or the consumption of goods
      and services which is comprised in the cult, stand related to the leisure
      class of a modern community, or to the economic motives of which that
      class is the exponent in the modern scheme of life to this end a summary
      review of certain facts bearing on this relation will be useful. It
      appears from an earlier passage in this discussion that for the purpose of
      the collective life of today, especially so far as concerns the industrial
      efficiency of the modern community, the characteristic traits of the
      devout temperament are a hindrance rather than a help. It should
      accordingly be found that the modern industrial life tends selectively to
      eliminate these traits of human nature from the spiritual constitution of
      the classes that are immediately engaged in the industrial process. It
      should hold true, approximately, that devoutness is declining or tending
      to obsolescence among the members of what may be called the effective
      industrial community. At the same time it should appear that this aptitude
      or habit survives in appreciably greater vigor among those classes which
      do not immediately or primarily enter into the community's life process as
      an industrial factor.
    </p>
    <p>
      It has already been pointed out that these latter classes, which live by,
      rather than in, the industrial process, are roughly comprised under two
      categories (1) the leisure class proper, which is shielded from the stress
      of the economic situation; and (2) the indigent classes, including the
      lower-class delinquents, which are unduly exposed to the stress. In the
      case of the former class an archaic habit of mind persists because no
      effectual economic pressure constrains this class to an adaptation of its
      habits of thought to the changing situation; while in the latter the
      reason for a failure to adjust their habits of thought to the altered
      requirements of industrial efficiency is innutrition, absence of such
      surplus of energy as is needed in order to make the adjustment with
      facility, together with a lack of opportunity to acquire and become
      habituated to the modern point of view. The trend of the selective process
      runs in much the same direction in both cases.
    </p>
    <p>
      From the point of view which the modern industrial life inculcates,
      phenomena are habitually subsumed under the quantitative relation of
      mechanical sequence. The indigent classes not only fall short of the
      modicum of leisure necessary in order to appropriate and assimilate the
      more recent generalizations of science which this point of view involves,
      but they also ordinarily stand in such a relation of personal dependence
      or subservience to their pecuniary superiors as materially to retard their
      emancipation from habits of thought proper to the regime of status. The
      result is that these classes in some measure retain that general habit of
      mind the chief expression of which is a strong sense of personal status,
      and of which devoutness is one feature.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the older communities of the European culture, the hereditary leisure
      class, together with the mass of the indigent population, are given to
      devout observances in an appreciably higher degree than the average of the
      industrious middle class, wherever a considerable class of the latter
      character exists. But in some of these countries, the two categories of
      conservative humanity named above comprise virtually the whole population.
      Where these two classes greatly preponderate, their bent shapes popular
      sentiment to such an extent as to bear down any possible divergent
      tendency in the inconsiderable middle class, and imposes a devout attitude
      upon the whole community.
    </p>
    <p>
      This must, of course, not be construed to say that such communities or
      such classes as are exceptionally prone to devout observances tend to
      conform in any exceptional degree to the specifications of any code of
      morals that we may be accustomed to associate with this or that confession
      of faith. A large measure of the devout habit of mind need not carry with
      it a strict observance of the injunctions of the Decalogue or of the
      common law. Indeed, it is becoming somewhat of a commonplace with
      observers of criminal life in European communities that the criminal and
      dissolute classes are, if anything, rather more devout, and more naively
      so, than the average of the population. It is among those who constitute
      the pecuniary middle class and the body of law-abiding citizens that a
      relative exemption from the devotional attitude is to be looked for. Those
      who best appreciate the merits of the higher creeds and observances would
      object to all this and say that the devoutness of the low-class
      delinquents is a spurious, or at the best a superstitious devoutness; and
      the point is no doubt well taken and goes directly and cogently to the
      purpose intended. But for the purpose of the present inquiry these
      extra-economic, extra-psychological distinctions must perforce be
      neglected, however valid and however decisive they may be for the purpose
      for which they are made.
    </p>
    <p>
      What has actually taken place with regard to class emancipation from the
      habit of devout observance is shown by the latter-day complaint of the
      clergy&mdash;that the churches are losing the sympathy of the artisan
      classes, and are losing their hold upon them. At the same time it is
      currently believed that the middle class, commonly so called, is also
      falling away in the cordiality of its support of the church, especially so
      far as regards the adult male portion of that class. These are currently
      recognized phenomena, and it might seem that a simple reference to these
      facts should sufficiently substantiate the general position outlined. Such
      an appeal to the general phenomena of popular church attendance and church
      membership may be sufficiently convincing for the proposition here
      advanced. But it will still be to the purpose to trace in some detail the
      course of events and the particular forces which have wrought this change
      in the spiritual attitude of the more advanced industrial communities of
      today. It will serve to illustrate the manner in which economic causes
      work towards a secularization of men's habits of thought. In this respect
      the American community should afford an exceptionally convincing
      illustration, since this community has been the least trammelled by
      external circumstances of any equally important industrial aggregate.
    </p>
    <p>
      After making due allowance for exceptions and sporadic departures from the
      normal, the situation here at the present time may be summarized quite
      briefly. As a general rule the classes that are low in economic
      efficiency, or in intelligence, or both, are peculiarly devout&mdash;as,
      for instance, the Negro population of the South, much of the lower-class
      foreign population, much of the rural population, especially in those
      sections which are backward in education, in the stage of development of
      their industry, or in respect of their industrial contact with the rest of
      the community. So also such fragments as we possess of a specialized or
      hereditary indigent class, or of a segregated criminal or dissolute class;
      although among these latter the devout habit of mind is apt to take the
      form of a naive animistic belief in luck and in the efficacy of
      shamanistic practices perhaps more frequently than it takes the form of a
      formal adherence to any accredited creed. The artisan class, on the other
      hand, is notoriously falling away from the accredited anthropomorphic
      creeds and from all devout observances. This class is in an especial
      degree exposed to the characteristic intellectual and spiritual stress of
      modern organized industry, which requires a constant recognition of the
      undisguised phenomena of impersonal, matter-of-fact sequence and an
      unreserved conformity to the law of cause and effect. This class is at the
      same time not underfed nor over-worked to such an extent as to leave no
      margin of energy for the work of adaptation.
    </p>
    <p>
      The case of the lower or doubtful leisure class in America&mdash;the
      middle class commonly so called&mdash;is somewhat peculiar. It differs in
      respect of its devotional life from its European counterpart, but it
      differs in degree and method rather than in substance. The churches still
      have the pecuniary support of this class; although the creeds to which the
      class adheres with the greatest facility are relatively poor in
      anthropomorphic content. At the same time the effective middle-class
      congregation tends, in many cases, more or less remotely perhaps, to
      become a congregation of women and minors. There is an appreciable lack of
      devotional fervor among the adult males of the middle class, although to a
      considerable extent there survives among them a certain complacent,
      reputable assent to the outlines of the accredited creed under which they
      were born. Their everyday life is carried on in a more or less close
      contact with the industrial process.
    </p>
    <p>
      This peculiar sexual differentiation, which tends to delegate devout
      observances to the women and their children, is due, at least in part, to
      the fact that the middle-class women are in great measure a (vicarious)
      leisure class. The same is true in a less degree of the women of the
      lower, artisan classes. They live under a regime of status handed down
      from an earlier stage of industrial development, and thereby they preserve
      a frame of mind and habits of thought which incline them to an archaic
      view of things generally. At the same time they stand in no such direct
      organic relation to the industrial process at large as would tend strongly
      to break down those habits of thought which, for the modern industrial
      purpose, are obsolete. That is to say, the peculiar devoutness of women is
      a particular expression of that conservatism which the women of civilized
      communities owe, in great measure, to their economic position. For the
      modern man the patriarchal relation of status is by no means the dominant
      feature of life; but for the women on the other hand, and for the upper
      middle-class women especially, confined as they are by prescription and by
      economic circumstances to their "domestic sphere," this relation is the
      most real and most formative factor of life. Hence a habit of mind
      favorable to devout observances and to the interpretation of the facts of
      life generally in terms of personal status. The logic, and the logical
      processes, of her everyday domestic life are carried over into the realm
      of the supernatural, and the woman finds herself at home and content in a
      range of ideas which to the man are in great measure alien and imbecile.
    </p>
    <p>
      Still the men of this class are also not devoid of piety, although it is
      commonly not piety of an aggressive or exuberant kind. The men of the
      upper middle class commonly take a more complacent attitude towards devout
      observances than the men of the artisan class. This may perhaps be
      explained in part by saying that what is true of the women of the class is
      true to a less extent also of the men. They are to an appreciable extent a
      sheltered class; and the patriarchal relation of status which still
      persists in their conjugal life and in their habitual use of servants, may
      also act to conserve an archaic habit of mind and may exercise a retarding
      influence upon the process of secularization which their habits of thought
      are undergoing. The relations of the American middle-class man to the
      economic community, however, are usually pretty close and exacting;
      although it may be remarked, by the way and in qualification, that their
      economic activity frequently also partakes in some degree of the
      patriarchal or quasi-predatory character. The occupations which are in
      good repute among this class and which have most to do with shaping the
      class habits of thought, are the pecuniary occupations which have been
      spoken of in a similar connection in an earlier chapter. There is a good
      deal of the relation of arbitrary command and submission, and not a little
      of shrewd practice, remotely akin to predatory fraud. All this belongs on
      the plane of life of the predatory barbarian, to whom a devotional
      attitude is habitual. And in addition to this, the devout observances also
      commend themselves to this class on the ground of reputability. But this
      latter incentive to piety deserves treatment by itself and will be spoken
      of presently. There is no hereditary leisure class of any consequence in
      the American community, except in the South. This Southern leisure class
      is somewhat given to devout observances; more so than any class of
      corresponding pecuniary standing in other parts of the country. It is also
      well known that the creeds of the South are of a more old-fashioned cast
      than their counterparts in the North. Corresponding to this more archaic
      devotional life of the South is the lower industrial development of that
      section. The industrial organization of the South is at present, and
      especially it has been until quite recently, of a more primitive character
      than that of the American community taken as a whole. It approaches nearer
      to handicraft, in the paucity and rudeness of its mechanical appliances,
      and there is more of the element of mastery and subservience. It may also
      be noted that, owing to the peculiar economic circumstances of this
      section, the greater devoutness of the Southern population, both white and
      black, is correlated with a scheme of life which in many ways recalls the
      barbarian stages of industrial development. Among this population offenses
      of an archaic character also are and have been relatively more prevalent
      and are less deprecated than they are elsewhere; as, for example, duels,
      brawls, feuds, drunkenness, horse-racing, cock-fighting, gambling, male
      sexual incontinence (evidenced by the considerable number of mulattoes).
      There is also a livelier sense of honor&mdash;an expression of
      sportsmanship and a derivative of predatory life.
    </p>
    <p>
      As regards the wealthier class of the North, the American leisure class in
      the best sense of the term, it is, to begin with, scarcely possible to
      speak of an hereditary devotional attitude. This class is of too recent
      growth to be possessed of a well-formed transmitted habit in this respect,
      or even of a special home-grown tradition. Still, it may be noted in
      passing that there is a perceptible tendency among this class to give in
      at least a nominal, and apparently something of a real, adherence to some
      one of the accredited creeds. Also, weddings, funerals, and the like
      honorific events among this class are pretty uniformly solemnized with
      some especial degree of religious circumstance. It is impossible to say
      how far this adherence to a creed is a bona fide reversion to a devout
      habit of mind, and how far it is to be classed as a case of protective
      mimicry assumed for the purpose of an outward assimilation to canons of
      reputability borrowed from foreign ideals. Something of a substantial
      devotional propensity seems to be present, to judge especially by the
      somewhat peculiar degree of ritualistic observance which is in process of
      development in the upper-class cults. There is a tendency perceptible
      among the upper-class worshippers to affiliate themselves with those cults
      which lay relatively great stress on ceremonial and on the spectacular
      accessories of worship; and in the churches in which an upper-class
      membership predominates, there is at the same time a tendency to
      accentuate the ritualistic, at the cost of the intellectual features in
      the service and in the apparatus of the devout observances. This holds
      true even where the church in question belongs to a denomination with a
      relatively slight general development of ritual and paraphernalia. This
      peculiar development of the ritualistic element is no doubt due in part to
      a predilection for conspicuously wasteful spectacles, but it probably also
      in part indicates something of the devotional attitude of the worshippers.
      So far as the latter is true, it indicates a relatively archaic form of
      the devotional habit. The predominance of spectacular effects in devout
      observances is noticeable in all devout communities at a relatively
      primitive stage of culture and with a slight intellectual development. It
      is especially characteristic of the barbarian culture. Here there is
      pretty uniformly present in the devout observances a direct appeal to the
      emotions through all the avenues of sense. And a tendency to return to
      this naive, sensational method of appeal is unmistakable in the
      upper-class churches of today. It is perceptible in a less degree in the
      cults which claim the allegiance of the lower leisure class and of the
      middle classes. There is a reversion to the use of colored lights and
      brilliant spectacles, a freer use of symbols, orchestral music and
      incense, and one may even detect in "processionals" and "recessionals" and
      in richly varied genuflexional evolutions, an incipient reversion to so
      antique an accessory of worship as the sacred dance. This reversion to
      spectacular observances is not confined to the upper-class cults, although
      it finds its best exemplification and its highest accentuation in the
      higher pecuniary and social altitudes. The cults of the lower-class devout
      portion of the community, such as the Southern Negroes and the backward
      foreign elements of the population, of course also show a strong
      inclination to ritual, symbolism, and spectacular effects; as might be
      expected from the antecedents and the cultural level of those classes.
      With these classes the prevalence of ritual and anthropomorphism are not
      so much a matter of reversion as of continued development out of the past.
      But the use of ritual and related features of devotion are also spreading
      in other directions. In the early days of the American community the
      prevailing denominations started out with a ritual and paraphernalia of an
      austere simplicity; but it is a matter familiar to every one that in the
      course of time these denominations have, in a varying degree, adopted much
      of the spectacular elements which they once renounced. In a general way,
      this development has gone hand in hand with the growth of the wealth and
      the ease of life of the worshippers and has reached its fullest expression
      among those classes which grade highest in wealth and repute.
    </p>
    <p>
      The causes to which this pecuniary stratification of devoutness is due
      have already been indicated in a general way in speaking of class
      differences in habits of thought. Class differences as regards devoutness
      are but a special expression of a generic fact. The lax allegiance of the
      lower middle class, or what may broadly be called the failure of filial
      piety among this class, is chiefly perceptible among the town populations
      engaged in the mechanical industries. In a general way, one does not, at
      the present time, look for a blameless filial piety among those classes
      whose employment approaches that of the engineer and the mechanician.
      These mechanical employments are in a degree a modern fact. The
      handicraftsmen of earlier times, who served an industrial end of a
      character similar to that now served by the mechanician, were not
      similarly refractory under the discipline of devoutness. The habitual
      activity of the men engaged in these branches of industry has greatly
      changed, as regards its intellectual discipline, since the modern
      industrial processes have come into vogue; and the discipline to which the
      mechanician is exposed in his daily employment affects the methods and
      standards of his thinking also on topics which lie outside his everyday
      work. Familiarity with the highly organized and highly impersonal
      industrial processes of the present acts to derange the animistic habits
      of thought. The workman's office is becoming more and more exclusively
      that of discretion and supervision in a process of mechanical,
      dispassionate sequences. So long as the individual is the chief and
      typical prime mover in the process; so long as the obtrusive feature of
      the industrial process is the dexterity and force of the individual
      handicraftsman; so long the habit of interpreting phenomena in terms of
      personal motive and propensity suffers no such considerable and consistent
      derangement through facts as to lead to its elimination. But under the
      later developed industrial processes, when the prime movers and the
      contrivances through which they work are of an impersonal, non-individual
      character, the grounds of generalization habitually present in the
      workman's mind and the point of view from which he habitually apprehends
      phenomena is an enforced cognizance of matter-of-fact sequence. The
      result, so far as concerts the workman's life of faith, is a proclivity to
      undevout scepticism.
    </p>
    <p>
      It appears, then, that the devout habit of mind attains its best
      development under a relatively archaic culture; the term "devout" being of
      course here used in its anthropological sense simply, and not as implying
      anything with respect to the spiritual attitude so characterized, beyond
      the fact of a proneness to devout observances. It appears also that this
      devout attitude marks a type of human nature which is more in consonance
      with the predatory mode of life than with the later-developed, more
      consistently and organically industrial life process of the community. It
      is in large measure an expression of the archaic habitual sense of
      personal status&mdash;the relation of mastery and subservience&mdash;and
      it therefore fits into the industrial scheme of the predatory and the
      quasi-peaceable culture, but does not fit into the industrial scheme of
      the present. It also appears that this habit persists with greatest
      tenacity among those classes in the modern communities whose everyday life
      is most remote from the mechanical processes of industry and which are the
      most conservative also in other respects; while for those classes that are
      habitually in immediate contact with modern industrial processes, and
      whose habits of thought are therefore exposed to the constraining force of
      technological necessities, that animistic interpretation of phenomena and
      that respect of persons on which devout observance proceeds are in process
      of obsolescence. And also&mdash;as bearing especially on the present
      discussion&mdash;it appears that the devout habit to some extent
      progressively gains in scope and elaboration among those classes in the
      modern communities to whom wealth and leisure accrue in the most
      pronounced degree. In this as in other relations, the institution of a
      leisure class acts to conserve, and even to rehabilitate, that archaic
      type of human nature and those elements of the archaic culture which the
      industrial evolution of society in its later stages acts to eliminate.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0013" id="link2HCH0013">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Thirteen ~~ Survivals of the Non-Invidious Interests
    </h2>
    <p>
      In an increasing proportion as time goes on, the anthropomorphic cult,
      with its code of devout observations, suffers a progressive disintegration
      through the stress of economic exigencies and the decay of the system of
      status. As this disintegration proceeds, there come to be associated and
      blended with the devout attitude certain other motives and impulses that
      are not always of an anthropomorphic origin, nor traceable to the habit of
      personal subservience. Not all of these subsidiary impulses that blend
      with the habit of devoutness in the later devotional life are altogether
      congruous with the devout attitude or with the anthropomorphic
      apprehension of the sequence of phenomena. The origin being not the same,
      their action upon the scheme of devout life is also not in the same
      direction. In many ways they traverse the underlying norm of subservience
      or vicarious life to which the code of devout observations and the
      ecclesiastical and sacerdotal institutions are to be traced as their
      substantial basis. Through the presence of these alien motives the social
      and industrial regime of status gradually disintegrates, and the canon of
      personal subservience loses the support derived from an unbroken
      tradition. Extraneous habits and proclivities encroach upon the field of
      action occupied by this canon, and it presently comes about that the
      ecclesiastical and sacerdotal structures are partially converted to other
      uses, in some measure alien to the purposes of the scheme of devout life
      as it stood in the days of the most vigorous and characteristic
      development of the priesthood.
    </p>
    <p>
      Among these alien motives which affect the devout scheme in its later
      growth, may be mentioned the motives of charity and of social
      good-fellowship, or conviviality; or, in more general terms, the various
      expressions of the sense of human solidarity and sympathy. It may be added
      that these extraneous uses of the ecclesiastical structure contribute
      materially to its survival in name and form even among people who may be
      ready to give up the substance of it. A still more characteristic and more
      pervasive alien element in the motives which have gone to formally uphold
      the scheme of devout life is that non-reverent sense of aesthetic
      congruity with the environment, which is left as a residue of the
      latter-day act of worship after elimination of its anthropomorphic
      content. This has done good service for the maintenance of the sacerdotal
      institution through blending with the motive of subservience. This sense
      of impulse of aesthetic congruity is not primarily of an economic
      character, but it has a considerable indirect effect in shaping the habit
      of mind of the individual for economic purposes in the later stages of
      industrial development; its most perceptible effect in this regard goes in
      the direction of mitigating the somewhat pronounced self-regarding bias
      that has been transmitted by tradition from the earlier, more competent
      phases of the regime of status. The economic bearing of this impulse is
      therefore seen to transverse that of the devout attitude; the former goes
      to qualify, if not eliminate, the self-regarding bias, through sublation
      of the antithesis or antagonism of self and not-self; while the latter,
      being and expression of the sense of personal subservience and mastery,
      goes to accentuate this antithesis and to insist upon the divergence
      between the self-regarding interest and the interests of the generically
      human life process.
    </p>
    <p>
      This non-invidious residue of the religious life&mdash;the sense of
      communion with the environment, or with the generic life process&mdash;as
      well as the impulse of charity or of sociability, act in a pervasive way
      to shape men's habits of thought for the economic purpose. But the action
      of all this class of proclivities is somewhat vague, and their effects are
      difficult to trace in detail. So much seems clear, however, as that the
      action of this entire class of motives or aptitudes tends in a direction
      contrary to the underlying principles of the institution of the leisure
      class as already formulated. The basis of that institution, as well as of
      the anthropomorphic cults associated with it in the cultural development,
      is the habit of invidious comparison; and this habit is incongruous with
      the exercise of the aptitudes now in question. The substantial canons of
      the leisure-class scheme of life are a conspicuous waste of time and
      substance and a withdrawal from the industrial process; while the
      particular aptitudes here in question assert themselves, on the economic
      side, in a deprecation of waste and of a futile manner of life, and in an
      impulse to participation in or identification with the life process,
      whether it be on the economic side or in any other of its phases or
      aspects.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is plain that these aptitudes and habits of life to which they give
      rise where circumstances favor their expression, or where they assert
      themselves in a dominant way, run counter to the leisure-class scheme of
      life; but it is not clear that life under the leisure-class scheme, as
      seen in the later stages of its development, tends consistently to the
      repression of these aptitudes or to exemption from the habits of thought
      in which they express themselves. The positive discipline of the
      leisure-class scheme of life goes pretty much all the other way. In its
      positive discipline, by prescription and by selective elimination, the
      leisure-class scheme favors the all-pervading and all-dominating primacy
      of the canons of waste and invidious comparison at every conjuncture of
      life. But in its negative effects the tendency of the leisure-class
      discipline is not so unequivocally true to the fundamental canons of the
      scheme. In its regulation of human activity for the purpose of pecuniary
      decency the leisure-class canon insists on withdrawal from the industrial
      process. That is to say, it inhibits activity in the directions in which
      the impecunious members of the community habitually put forth their
      efforts. Especially in the case of women, and more particularly as regards
      the upper-class and upper-middle-class women of advanced industrial
      communities, this inhibition goes so far as to insist on withdrawal even
      from the emulative process of accumulation by the quasi-predator methods
      of the pecuniary occupations.
    </p>
    <p>
      The pecuniary or the leisure-class culture, which set out as an emulative
      variant of the impulse of workmanship, is in its latest development
      beginning to neutralize its own ground, by eliminating the habit of
      invidious comparison in respect of efficiency, or even of pecuniary
      standing. On the other hand, the fact that members of the leisure class,
      both men and women, are to some extent exempt from the necessity of
      finding a livelihood in a competitive struggle with their fellows, makes
      it possible for members of this class not only to survive, but even,
      within bounds, to follow their bent in case they are not gifted with the
      aptitudes which make for success in the competitive struggle. That is to
      say, in the latest and fullest development of the institution, the
      livelihood of members of this class does not depend on the possession and
      the unremitting exercise of those aptitudes are therefore greater in the
      higher grades of the leisure class than in the general average of a
      population living under the competitive system.
    </p>
    <p>
      In an earlier chapter, in discussing the conditions of survival of archaic
      traits, it has appeared that the peculiar position of the leisure class
      affords exceptionally favorable chances for the survival of traits which
      characterize the type of human nature proper to an earlier and obsolete
      cultural stage. The class is sheltered from the stress of economic
      exigencies, and is in this sense withdrawn from the rude impact of forces
      which make for adaptation to the economic situation. The survival in the
      leisure class, and under the leisure-class scheme of life, of traits and
      types that are reminiscent of the predatory culture has already been
      discussed. These aptitudes and habits have an exceptionally favorable
      chance of survival under the leisure-class regime. Not only does the
      sheltered pecuniary position of the leisure class afford a situation
      favorable to the survival of such individuals as are not gifted with the
      complement of aptitudes required for serviceability in the modern
      industrial process; but the leisure-class canons of reputability at the
      same time enjoin the conspicuous exercise of certain predatory aptitudes.
      The employments in which the predatory aptitudes find exercise serve as an
      evidence of wealth, birth, and withdrawal from the industrial process. The
      survival of the predatory traits under the leisure-class culture is
      furthered both negatively, through the industrial exemption of the class,
      and positively, through the sanction of the leisure-class canons of
      decency.
    </p>
    <p>
      With respect to the survival of traits characteristic of the
      ante-predatory savage culture the case is in some degree different. The
      sheltered position of the leisure class favors the survival also of these
      traits; but the exercise of the aptitudes for peace and good-will does not
      have the affirmative sanction of the code of proprieties. Individuals
      gifted with a temperament that is reminiscent of the ante-predatory
      culture are placed at something of an advantage within the leisure class,
      as compared with similarly gifted individuals outside the class, in that
      they are not under a pecuniary necessity to thwart these aptitudes that
      make for a non-competitive life; but such individuals are still exposed to
      something of a moral constraint which urges them to disregard these
      inclinations, in that the code of proprieties enjoins upon them habits of
      life based on the predatory aptitudes. So long as the system of status
      remains intact, and so long as the leisure class has other lines of
      non-industrial activity to take to than obvious killing of time in aimless
      and wasteful fatigation, so long no considerable departure from the
      leisure-class scheme of reputable life is to be looked for. The occurrence
      of non-predatory temperament with the class at that stage is to be looked
      upon as a case of sporadic reversion. But the reputable non-industrial
      outlets for the human propensity to action presently fail, through the
      advance of economic development, the disappearance of large game, the
      decline of war, the obsolescence of proprietary government, and the decay
      of the priestly office. When this happens, the situation begins to change.
      Human life must seek expression in one direction if it may not in another;
      and if the predatory outlet fails, relief is sought elsewhere.
    </p>
    <p>
      As indicated above, the exemption from pecuniary stress has been carried
      farther in the case of the leisure-class women of the advanced industrial
      communities than in that of any other considerable group of persons. The
      women may therefore be expected to show a more pronounced reversion to a
      non-invidious temperament than the men. But there is also among men of the
      leisure class a perceptible increase in the range and scope of activities
      that proceed from aptitudes which are not to be classed as self-regarding,
      and the end of which is not an invidious distinction. So, for instance,
      the greater number of men who have to do with industry in the way of
      pecuniarily managing an enterprise take some interest and some pride in
      seeing that the work is well done and is industrially effective, and this
      even apart from the profit which may result from any improvement of this
      kind. The efforts of commercial clubs and manufacturers' organizations in
      this direction of non-invidious advancement of industrial efficiency are
      also well know.
    </p>
    <p>
      The tendency to some other than an invidious purpose in life has worked
      out in a multitude of organizations, the purpose of which is some work of
      charity or of social amelioration. These organizations are often of a
      quasi-religious or pseudo-religious character, and are participated in by
      both men and women. Examples will present themselves in abundance on
      reflection, but for the purpose of indicating the range of the
      propensities in question and of characterizing them, some of the more
      obvious concrete cases may be cited. Such, for instance, are the agitation
      for temperance and similar social reforms, for prison reform, for the
      spread of education, for the suppression of vice, and for the avoidance of
      war by arbitration, disarmament, or other means; such are, in some
      measure, university settlements, neighborhood guilds, the various
      organizations typified by the Young Men's Christian Association and Young
      People's Society for Christian Endeavor, sewing-clubs, art clubs, and even
      commercial clubs; such are also, in some slight measure, the pecuniary
      foundations of semi-public establishments for charity, education, or
      amusement, whether they are endowed by wealthy individuals or by
      contributions collected from persons of smaller means&mdash;in so far as
      these establishments are not of a religious character.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is of course not intended to say that these efforts proceed entirely
      from other motives than those of a self-regarding kind. What can be
      claimed is that other motives are present in the common run of cases, and
      that the perceptibly greater prevalence of effort of this kind under the
      circumstances of the modern industrial life than under the unbroken regime
      of the principle of status, indicates the presence in modern life of an
      effective scepticism with respect to the full legitimacy of an emulative
      scheme of life. It is a matter of sufficient notoriety to have become a
      commonplace jest that extraneous motives are commonly present among the
      incentives to this class of work&mdash;motives of a self-regarding kind,
      and especially the motive of an invidious distinction. To such an extent
      is this true, that many ostensible works of disinterested public spirit
      are no doubt initiated and carried on with a view primarily to the enhance
      repute or even to the pecuniary gain, of their promoters. In the case of
      some considerable groups of organizations or establishments of this kind
      the invidious motive is apparently the dominant motive both with the
      initiators of the work and with their supporters. This last remark would
      hold true especially with respect to such works as lend distinction to
      their doer through large and conspicuous expenditure; as, for example, the
      foundation of a university or of a public library or museum; but it is
      also, and perhaps equally, true of the more commonplace work of
      participation in such organizations. These serve to authenticate the
      pecuniary reputability of their members, as well as gratefully to keep
      them in mind of their superior status by pointing the contrast between
      themselves and the lower-lying humanity in whom the work of amelioration
      is to be wrought; as, for example, the university settlement, which now
      has some vogue. But after all allowances and deductions have been made,
      there is left some remainder of motives of a non-emulative kind. The fact
      itself that distinction or a decent good fame is sought by this method is
      evidence of a prevalent sense of the legitimacy, and of the presumptive
      effectual presence, of a non-emulative, non-invidious interest, as a
      consistent factor in the habits of thought of modern communities.
    </p>
    <p>
      In all this latter-day range of leisure-class activities that proceed on
      the basis of a non-invidious and non-religious interest, it is to be noted
      that the women participate more actively and more persistently than the
      men&mdash;except, of course, in the case of such works as require a large
      expenditure of means. The dependent pecuniary position of the women
      disables them for work requiring large expenditure. As regards the general
      range of ameliorative work, the members of the priesthood or clergy of the
      less naively devout sects, or the secularized denominations, are
      associated with the class of women. This is as the theory would have it.
      In other economic relations, also, this clergy stands in a somewhat
      equivocal position between the class of women and that of the men engaged
      in economic pursuits. By tradition and by the prevalent sense of the
      proprieties, both the clergy and the women of the well-to-do classes are
      placed in the position of a vicarious leisure class; with both classes the
      characteristic relation which goes to form the habits of thought of the
      class is a relation of subservience&mdash;that is to say, an economic
      relation conceived in personal terms; in both classes there is
      consequently perceptible a special proneness to construe phenomena in
      terms of personal relation rather than of causal sequence; both classes
      are so inhibited by the canons of decency from the ceremonially unclean
      processes of the lucrative or productive occupations as to make
      participation in the industrial life process of today a moral
      impossibility for them. The result of this ceremonial exclusion from
      productive effort of the vulgar sort is to draft a relatively large share
      of the energies of the modern feminine and priestly classes into the
      service of other interests than the self-regarding one. The code leaves no
      alternative direction in which the impulse to purposeful action may find
      expression. The effect of a consistent inhibition on industrially useful
      activity in the case of the leisure-class women shows itself in a restless
      assertion of the impulse to workmanship in other directions than that of
      business activity. As has been noticed already, the everyday life of the
      well-to-do women and the clergy contains a larger element of status than
      that of the average of the men, especially than that of the men engaged in
      the modern industrial occupations proper. Hence the devout attitude
      survives in a better state of preservation among these classes than among
      the common run of men in the modern communities. Hence an appreciable
      share of the energy which seeks expression in a non-lucrative employment
      among these members of the vicarious leisure classes may be expected to
      eventuate in devout observances and works of piety. Hence, in part, the
      excess of the devout proclivity in women, spoken of in the last chapter.
      But it is more to the present point to note the effect of this proclivity
      in shaping the action and coloring the purposes of the non-lucrative
      movements and organizations here under discussion. Where this devout
      coloring is present it lowers the immediate efficiency of the
      organizations for any economic end to which their efforts may be directed.
      Many organizations, charitable and ameliorative, divide their attention
      between the devotional and the secular well-being of the people whose
      interests they aim to further. It can scarcely be doubted that if they
      were to give an equally serious attention and effort undividedly to the
      secular interests of these people, the immediate economic value of their
      work should be appreciably higher than it is. It might of course similarly
      be said, if this were the place to say it, that the immediate efficiency
      of these works of amelioration for the devout might be greater if it were
      not hampered with the secular motives and aims which are usually present.
    </p>
    <p>
      Some deduction is to be made from the economic value of this class of
      non-invidious enterprise, on account of the intrusion of the devotional
      interest. But there are also deductions to be made on account of the
      presence of other alien motives which more or less broadly traverse the
      economic trend of this non-emulative expression of the instinct of
      workmanship. To such an extent is this seen to be true on a closer
      scrutiny, that, when all is told, it may even appear that this general
      class of enterprises is of an altogether dubious economic value&mdash;as
      measured in terms of the fullness or facility of life of the individuals
      or classes to whose amelioration the enterprise is directed. For instance,
      many of the efforts now in reputable vogue for the amelioration of the
      indigent population of large cities are of the nature, in great part, of a
      mission of culture. It is by this means sought to accelerate the rate of
      speed at which given elements of the upper-class culture find acceptance
      in the everyday scheme of life of the lower classes. The solicitude of
      "settlements," for example, is in part directed to enhance the industrial
      efficiency of the poor and to teach them the more adequate utilization of
      the means at hand; but it is also no less consistently directed to the
      inculcation, by precept and example, of certain punctilios of upper-class
      propriety in manners and customs. The economic substance of these
      proprieties will commonly be found on scrutiny to be a conspicuous waste
      of time and goods. Those good people who go out to humanize the poor are
      commonly, and advisedly, extremely scrupulous and silently insistent in
      matters of decorum and the decencies of life. They are commonly persons of
      an exemplary life and gifted with a tenacious insistence on ceremonial
      cleanness in the various items of their daily consumption. The cultural or
      civilizing efficacy of this inculcation of correct habits of thought with
      respect to the consumption of time and commodities is scarcely to be
      overrated; nor is its economic value to the individual who acquires these
      higher and more reputable ideals inconsiderable. Under the circumstances
      of the existing pecuniary culture, the reputability, and consequently the
      success, of the individual is in great measure dependent on his
      proficiency in demeanor and methods of consumption that argue habitual
      waste of time and goods. But as regards the ulterior economic bearing of
      this training in worthier methods of life, it is to be said that the
      effect wrought is in large part a substitution of costlier or less
      efficient methods of accomplishing the same material results, in relations
      where the material result is the fact of substantial economic value. The
      propaganda of culture is in great part an inculcation of new tastes, or
      rather of a new schedule of proprieties, which have been adapted to the
      upper-class scheme of life under the guidance of the leisure-class
      formulation of the principles of status and pecuniary decency. This new
      schedule of proprieties is intruded into the lower-class scheme of life
      from the code elaborated by an element of the population whose life lies
      outside the industrial process; and this intrusive schedule can scarcely
      be expected to fit the exigencies of life for these lower classes more
      adequately than the schedule already in vogue among them, and especially
      not more adequately than the schedule which they are themselves working
      out under the stress of modern industrial life.
    </p>
    <p>
      All this of course does not question the fact that the proprieties of the
      substituted schedule are more decorous than those which they displace. The
      doubt which presents itself is simply a doubt as to the economic
      expediency of this work of regeneration&mdash;that is to say, the economic
      expediency in that immediate and material bearing in which the effects of
      the change can be ascertained with some degree of confidence, and as
      viewed from the standpoint not of the individual but of the facility of
      life of the collectivity. For an appreciation of the economic expediency
      of these enterprises of amelioration, therefore, their effective work is
      scarcely to be taken at its face value, even where the aim of the
      enterprise is primarily an economic one and where the interest on which it
      proceeds is in no sense self-regarding or invidious. The economic reform
      wrought is largely of the nature of a permutation in the methods of
      conspicuous waste.
    </p>
    <p>
      But something further is to be said with respect to the character of the
      disinterested motives and canons of procedure in all work of this class
      that is affected by the habits of thought characteristic of the pecuniary
      culture; and this further consideration may lead to a further
      qualification of the conclusions already reached. As has been seen in an
      earlier chapter, the canons of reputability or decency under the pecuniary
      culture insist on habitual futility of effort as the mark of a pecuniarily
      blameless life. There results not only a habit of disesteem of useful
      occupations, but there results also what is of more decisive consequence
      in guiding the action of any organized body of people that lays claim to
      social good repute. There is a tradition which requires that one should
      not be vulgarly familiar with any of the processes or details that have to
      do with the material necessities of life. One may meritoriously show a
      quantitative interest in the well-being of the vulgar, through
      subscriptions or through work on managing committees and the like. One
      may, perhaps even more meritoriously, show solicitude in general and in
      detail for the cultural welfare of the vulgar, in the way of contrivances
      for elevating their tastes and affording them opportunities for spiritual
      amelioration. But one should not betray an intimate knowledge of the
      material circumstances of vulgar life, or of the habits of thought of the
      vulgar classes, such as would effectually direct the efforts of these
      organizations to a materially useful end. This reluctance to avow an
      unduly intimate knowledge of the lower-class conditions of life in detail
      of course prevails in very different degrees in different individuals; but
      there is commonly enough of it present collectively in any organization of
      the kind in question profoundly to influence its course of action. By its
      cumulative action in shaping the usage and precedents of any such body,
      this shrinking from an imputation of unseemly familiarity with vulgar life
      tends gradually to set aside the initial motives of the enterprise, in
      favor of certain guiding principles of good repute, ultimately reducible
      to terms of pecuniary merit. So that in an organization of long standing
      the initial motive of furthering the facility of life in these classes
      comes gradually to be an ostensible motive only, and the vulgarly
      effective work of the organization tends to obsolescence.
    </p>
    <p>
      What is true of the efficiency of organizations for non-invidious work in
      this respect is true also as regards the work of individuals proceeding on
      the same motives; though it perhaps holds true with more qualification for
      individuals than for organized enterprises. The habit of gauging merit by
      the leisure-class canons of wasteful expenditure and unfamiliarity with
      vulgar life, whether on the side of production or of consumption, is
      necessarily strong in the individuals who aspire to do some work of public
      utility. And if the individual should forget his station and turn his
      efforts to vulgar effectiveness, the common sense of the community-the
      sense of pecuniary decency&mdash;would presently reject his work and set
      him right. An example of this is seen in the administration of bequests
      made by public-spirited men for the single purpose (at least ostensibly)
      of furthering the facility of human life in some particular respect. The
      objects for which bequests of this class are most frequently made at
      present are schools, libraries,
      hospitals, and asylums for the infirm or unfortunate. The avowed purpose
      of the donor in these cases is the amelioration of human life in the
      particular respect which is named in the bequest; but it will be found an
      invariable rule that in the execution of the work not a little of other
      motives, frequency incompatible with the initial motive, is present and
      determines the particular disposition eventually made of a good share of
      the means which have been set apart by the bequest. Certain funds, for
      instance, may have been set apart as a foundation for a foundling asylum
      or a retreat for invalids. The diversion of expenditure to honorific waste
      in such cases is not uncommon enough to cause surprise or even to raise a
      smile. An appreciable share of the funds is spent in the construction of
      an edifice faced with some aesthetically objectionable but expensive
      stone, covered with grotesque and incongruous details, and designed, in
      its battlemented walls and turrets and its massive portals and strategic
      approaches, to suggest certain barbaric methods of warfare. The interior
      of the structure shows the same pervasive guidance of the canons of
      conspicuous waste and predatory exploit. The windows, for instance, to go
      no farther into detail, are placed with a view to impress their pecuniary
      excellence upon the chance beholder from the outside, rather than with a
      view to effectiveness for their ostensible end in the convenience or
      comfort of the beneficiaries within; and the detail of interior
      arrangement is required to conform itself as best it may to this alien but
      imperious requirement of pecuniary beauty.
    </p>
    <p>
      In all this, of course, it is not to be presumed that the donor would have
      found fault, or that he would have done otherwise if he had taken control
      in person; it appears that in those cases where such a personal direction
      is exercised&mdash;where the enterprise is conducted by direct expenditure
      and superintendence instead of by bequest&mdash;the aims and methods of
      management are not different in this respect. Nor would the beneficiaries,
      or the outside observers whose ease or vanity are not immediately touched,
      be pleased with a different disposition of the funds. It would suit no one
      to have the enterprise conducted with a view directly to the most
      economical and effective use of the means at hand for the initial,
      material end of the foundation. All concerned, whether their interest is
      immediate and self-regarding, or contemplative only, agree that some
      considerable share of the expenditure should go to the higher or spiritual
      needs derived from the habit of an invidious comparison in predatory
      exploit and pecuniary waste. But this only goes to say that the canons of
      emulative and pecuniary reputability so far pervade the common sense of
      the community as to permit no escape or evasion, even in the case of an
      enterprise which ostensibly proceeds entirely on the basis of a
      non-invidious interest.
    </p>
    <p>
      It may even be that the enterprise owes its honorific virtue, as a means
      of enhancing the donor's good repute, to the imputed presence of this
      non-invidious motive; but that does not hinder the invidious interest from
      guiding the expenditure. The effectual presence of motives of an emulative
      or invidious origin in non-emulative works of this kind might be shown at
      length and with detail, in any one of the classes of enterprise spoken of
      above. Where these honorific details occur, in such cases, they commonly
      masquerade under designations that belong in the field of the aesthetic,
      ethical or economic interest. These special motives, derived from the
      standards and canons of the pecuniary culture, act surreptitiously to
      divert effort of a non-invidious kind from effective service, without
      disturbing the agent's sense of good intention or obtruding upon his
      consciousness the substantial futility of his work. Their effect might be
      traced through the entire range of that schedule of non-invidious,
      meliorative enterprise that is so considerable a feature, and especially
      so conspicuous a feature, in the overt scheme of life of the well-to-do.
      But the theoretical bearing is perhaps clear enough and may require no
      further illustration; especially as some detailed attention will be given
      to one of these lines of enterprise&mdash;the establishments for the
      higher learning&mdash;in another connection.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under the circumstances of the sheltered situation in which the leisure
      class is placed there seems, therefore, to be something of a reversion to
      the range of non-invidious impulses that characterizes the ante-predatory
      savage culture. The reversion comprises both the sense of workmanship and
      the proclivity to indolence and good-fellowship. But in the modern scheme
      of life canons of conduct based on pecuniary or invidious merit stand in
      the way of a free exercise of these impulses; and the dominant presence of
      these canons of conduct goes far to divert such efforts as are made on the
      basis of the non-invidious interest to the service of that invidious
      interest on which the pecuniary culture rests. The canons of pecuniary
      decency are reducible for the present purpose to the principles of waste,
      futility, and ferocity. The requirements of decency are imperiously
      present in meliorative enterprise as in other lines of conduct, and
      exercise a selective surveillance over the details of conduct and
      management in any enterprise. By guiding and adapting the method in
      detail, these canons of decency go far to make all non-invidious
      aspiration or effort nugatory. The pervasive, impersonal, un-eager
      principle of futility is at hand from day to day and works obstructively
      to hinder the effectual expression of so much of the surviving
      ante-predatory aptitudes as is to be classed under the instinct of
      workmanship; but its presence does not preclude the transmission of those
      aptitudes or the continued recurrence of an impulse to find expression for
      them.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the later and farther development of the pecuniary culture, the
      requirement of withdrawal from the industrial process in order to avoid
      social odium is carried so far as to comprise abstention from the
      emulative employments. At this advanced stage the pecuniary culture
      negatively favors the assertion of the non-invidious propensities by
      relaxing the stress laid on the merit of emulative, predatory, or
      pecuniary occupations, as compared with those of an industrial or
      productive kind. As was noticed above, the requirement of such withdrawal
      from all employment that is of human use applies more rigorously to the
      upper-class women than to any other class, unless the priesthood of
      certain cults might be cited as an exception, perhaps more apparent than
      real, to this rule. The reason for the more extreme insistence on a futile
      life for this class of women than for the men of the same pecuniary and
      social grade lies in their being not only an upper-grade leisure class but
      also at the same time a vicarious leisure class. There is in their case a
      double ground for a consistent withdrawal from useful effort.
    </p>
    <p>
      It has been well and repeatedly said by popular writers and speakers who
      reflect the common sense of intelligent people on questions of social
      structure and function that the position of woman in any community is the
      most striking index of the level of culture attained by the community, and
      it might be added, by any given class in the community. This remark is
      perhaps truer as regards the stage of economic development than as regards
      development in any other respect. At the same time the position assigned
      to the woman in the accepted scheme of life, in any community or under any
      culture, is in a very great degree an expression of traditions which have
      been shaped by the circumstances of an earlier phase of development, and
      which have been but partially adapted to the existing economic
      circumstances, or to the existing exigencies of temperament and habits of
      mind by which the women living under this modern economic situation are
      actuated.
    </p>
    <p>
      The fact has already been remarked upon incidentally in the course of the
      discussion of the growth of economic institutions generally, and in
      particular in speaking of vicarious leisure and of dress, that the
      position of women in the modern economic scheme is more widely and more
      consistently at variance with the promptings of the instinct of
      workmanship than is the position of the men of the same classes. It is
      also apparently true that the woman's temperament includes a larger share
      of this instinct that approves peace and disapproves futility. It is
      therefore not a fortuitous circumstance that the women of modern
      industrial communities show a livelier sense of the discrepancy between
      the accepted scheme of life and the exigencies of the economic situation.
    </p>
    <p>
      The several phases of the "woman question" have brought out in
      intelligible form the extent to which the life of women in modern society,
      and in the polite circles especially, is regulated by a body of common
      sense formulated under the economic circumstances of an earlier phase of
      development. It is still felt that woman's life, in its civil, economic,
      and social bearing, is essentially and normally a vicarious life, the
      merit or demerit of which is, in the nature of things, to be imputed to
      some other individual who stands in some relation of ownership or tutelage
      to the woman. So, for instance, any action on the part of a woman which
      traverses an injunction of the accepted schedule of proprieties is felt to
      reflect immediately upon the honor of the man whose woman she is. There
      may of course be some sense of incongruity in the mind of any one passing
      an opinion of this kind on the woman's frailty or perversity; but the
      common-sense judgment of the community in such matters is, after all,
      delivered without much hesitation, and few men would question the
      legitimacy of their sense of an outraged tutelage in any case that might
      arise. On the other hand, relatively little discredit attaches to a woman
      through the evil deeds of the man with whom her life is associated.
    </p>
    <p>
      The good and beautiful scheme of life, then&mdash;that is to say the
      scheme to which we are habituated&mdash;assigns to the woman a "sphere"
      ancillary to the activity of the man; and it is felt that any departure
      from the traditions of her assigned round of duties is unwomanly. If the
      question is as to civil rights or the suffrage, our common sense in the
      matter&mdash;that is to say the logical deliverance of our general scheme
      of life upon the point in question&mdash;says that the woman should be
      represented in the body politic and before the law, not immediately in her
      own person, but through the mediation of the head of the household to
      which she belongs. It is unfeminine in her to aspire to a self-directing,
      self-centered life; and our common sense tells us that her direct
      participation in the affairs of the community, civil or industrial, is a
      menace to that social order which expresses our habits of thought as they
      have been formed under the guidance of the traditions of the pecuniary
      culture. "All this fume and froth of 'emancipating woman from the slavery
      of man' and so on, is, to use the chaste and expressive language of
      Elizabeth Cady Stanton inversely, 'utter rot.' The social relations of the
      sexes are fixed by nature. Our entire civilization&mdash;that is whatever
      is good in it&mdash;is based on the home." The "home" is the household
      with a male head. This view, but commonly expressed even more chastely, is
      the prevailing view of the woman's status, not only among the common run
      of the men of civilized communities, but among the women as well. Women
      have a very alert sense of what the scheme of proprieties requires, and
      while it is true that many of them are ill at ease under the details which
      the code imposes, there are few who do not recognize that the existing
      moral order, of necessity and by the divine right of prescription, places
      the woman in a position ancillary to the man. In the last analysis,
      according to her own sense of what is good and beautiful, the woman's life
      is, and in theory must be, an expression of the man's life at the second
      remove.
    </p>
    <p>
      But in spite of this pervading sense of what is the good and natural place
      for the woman, there is also perceptible an incipient development of
      sentiment to the effect that this whole arrangement of tutelage and
      vicarious life and imputation of merit and demerit is somehow a mistake.
      Or, at least, that even if it may be a natural growth and a good
      arrangement in its time and place, and in spite of its patent aesthetic
      value, still it does not adequately serve the more everyday ends of life
      in a modern industrial community. Even that large and substantial body of
      well-bred, upper and middle-class women to whose dispassionate, matronly
      sense of the traditional proprieties this relation of status commends
      itself as fundamentally and eternally right-even these, whose attitude is
      conservative, commonly find some slight discrepancy in detail between
      things as they are and things as they should be in this respect. But that
      less manageable body of modern women who, by force of youth, education, or
      temperament, are in some degree out of touch with the traditions of status
      received from the barbarian culture, and in whom there is, perhaps, an
      undue reversion to the impulse of self-expression and workmanship&mdash;these
      are touched with a sense of grievance too vivid to leave them at rest.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this "New-Woman" movement&mdash;as these blind and incoherent efforts
      to rehabilitate the woman's pre-glacial standing have been named&mdash;there
      are at least two elements discernible, both of which are of an economic
      character. These two elements or motives are expressed by the double
      watchword, "Emancipation" and "Work." Each of these words is recognized to
      stand for something in the way of a wide-spread sense of grievance. The
      prevalence of the sentiment is recognized even by people who do not see
      that there is any real ground for a grievance in the situation as it
      stands today. It is among the women of the well-to-do classes, in the
      communities which are farthest advanced in industrial development, that
      this sense of a grievance to be redressed is most alive and finds most
      frequent expression. That is to say, in other words, there is a demand,
      more or less serious, for emancipation from all relation of status,
      tutelage, or vicarious life; and the revulsion asserts itself especially
      among the class of women upon whom the scheme of life handed down from the
      regime of status imposes with least litigation a vicarious life, and in
      those communities whose economic development has departed farthest from
      the circumstances to which this traditional scheme is adapted. The demand
      comes from that portion of womankind which is excluded by the canons of
      good repute from all effectual work, and which is closely reserved for a
      life of leisure and conspicuous consumption.
    </p>
    <p>
      More than one critic of this new-woman movement has misapprehended its
      motive. The case of the American "new woman" has lately been summed up
      with some warmth by a popular observer of social phenomena: "She is petted
      by her husband, the most devoted and hard-working of husbands in the
      world.... She is the superior of her husband in education, and in almost
      every respect. She is surrounded by the most numerous and delicate
      attentions. Yet she is not satisfied.... The Anglo-Saxon 'new woman' is
      the most ridiculous production of modern times, and destined to be the
      most ghastly failure of the century." Apart from the deprecation&mdash;perhaps
      well placed&mdash;which is contained in this presentment, it adds nothing
      but obscurity to the woman question. The grievance of the new woman is
      made up of those things which this typical characterization of the
      movement urges as reasons why she should be content. She is petted, and is
      permitted, or even required, to consume largely and conspicuously&mdash;vicariously
      for her husband or other natural guardian. She is exempted, or debarred,
      from vulgarly useful employment&mdash;in order to perform leisure
      vicariously for the good repute of her natural (pecuniary) guardian. These
      offices are the conventional marks of the un-free, at the same time that
      they are incompatible with the human impulse to purposeful activity. But
      the woman is endowed with her share-which there is reason to believe is
      more than an even share&mdash;of the instinct of workmanship, to which
      futility of life or of expenditure is obnoxious. She must unfold her life
      activity in response to the direct, unmediated stimuli of the economic
      environment with which she is in contact. The impulse is perhaps stronger
      upon the woman than upon the man to live her own life in her own way and
      to enter the industrial process of the community at something nearer than
      the second remove.
    </p>
    <p>
      So long as the woman's place is consistently that of a drudge, she is, in
      the average of cases, fairly contented with her lot. She not only has
      something tangible and purposeful to do, but she has also no time or
      thought to spare for a rebellious assertion of such human propensity to
      self-direction as she has inherited. And after the stage of universal
      female drudgery is passed, and a vicarious leisure without strenuous
      application becomes the accredited employment of the women of the
      well-to-do classes, the prescriptive force of the canon of pecuniary
      decency, which requires the observance of ceremonial futility on their
      part, will long preserve high-minded women from any sentimental leaning to
      self-direction and a "sphere of usefulness." This is especially true
      during the earlier phases of the pecuniary culture, while the leisure of
      the leisure class is still in great measure a predatory activity, an
      active assertion of mastery in which there is enough of tangible purpose
      of an invidious kind to admit of its being taken seriously as an
      employment to which one may without shame put one's hand. This condition
      of things has obviously lasted well down into the present in some
      communities. It continues to hold to a different extent for different
      individuals, varying with the vividness of the sense of status and with
      the feebleness of the impulse to workmanship with which the individual is
      endowed. But where the economic structure of the community has so far
      outgrown the scheme of life based on status that the relation of personal
      subservience is no longer felt to be the sole "natural" human relation;
      there the ancient habit of purposeful activity will begin to assert itself
      in the less conformable individuals against the more recent, relatively
      superficial, relatively ephemeral habits and views which the predatory and
      the pecuniary culture have contributed to our scheme of life. These habits
      and views begin to lose their coercive force for the community or the
      class in question so soon as the habit of mind and the views of life due
      to the predatory and the quasi-peaceable discipline cease to be in fairly
      close accord with the later-developed economic situation. This is evident
      in the case of the industrious classes of modern communities; for them the
      leisure-class scheme of life has lost much of its binding force,
      especially as regards the element of status. But it is also visibly being
      verified in the case of the upper classes, though not in the same manner.
    </p>
    <p>
      The habits derived from the predatory and quasi-peaceable culture are
      relatively ephemeral variants of certain underlying propensities and
      mental characteristics of the race; which it owes to the protracted
      discipline of the earlier, proto-anthropoid cultural stage of peaceable,
      relatively undifferentiated economic life carried on in contact with a
      relatively simple and invariable material environment. When the habits
      superinduced by the emulative method of life have ceased to enjoy the
      section of existing economic exigencies, a process of disintegration sets
      in whereby the habits of thought of more recent growth and of a less
      generic character to some extent yield the ground before the more ancient
      and more pervading spiritual characteristics of the race.
    </p>
    <p>
      In a sense, then, the new-woman movement marks a reversion to a more
      generic type of human character, or to a less differentiated expression of
      human nature. It is a type of human nature which is to be characterized as
      proto-anthropoid, and, as regards the substance if not the form of its
      dominant traits, it belongs to a cultural stage that may be classed as
      possibly sub-human. The particular movement or evolutional feature in
      question of course shares this characterization with the rest of the later
      social development, in so far as this social development shows evidence of
      a reversion to the spiritual attitude that characterizes the earlier,
      undifferentiated stage of economic revolution. Such evidence of a general
      tendency to reversion from the dominance of the invidious interest is not
      entirely wanting, although it is neither plentiful nor unquestionably
      convincing. The general decay of the sense of status in modern industrial
      communities goes some way as evidence in this direction; and the
      perceptible return to a disapproval of futility in human life, and a
      disapproval of such activities as serve only the individual gain at the
      cost of the collectivity or at the cost of other social groups, is
      evidence to a like effect. There is a perceptible tendency to deprecate
      the infliction of pain, as well as to discredit all marauding enterprises,
      even where these expressions of the invidious interest do not tangibly
      work to the material detriment of the community or of the individual who
      passes an opinion on them. It may even be said that in the modern
      industrial communities the average, dispassionate sense of men says that
      the ideal character is a character which makes for peace, good-will, and
      economic efficiency, rather than for a life of self-seeking, force, fraud,
      and mastery.
    </p>
    <p>
      The influence of the leisure class is not consistently for or against the
      rehabilitation of this proto-anthropoid human nature. So far as concerns
      the chance of survival of individuals endowed with an exceptionally large
      share of the primitive traits, the sheltered position of the class favors
      its members directly by withdrawing them from the pecuniary struggle; but
      indirectly, through the leisure-class canons of conspicuous waste of goods
      and effort, the institution of a leisure class lessens the chance of
      survival of such individuals in the entire body of the population. The
      decent requirements of waste absorb the surplus energy of the population
      in an invidious struggle and leave no margin for the non-invidious
      expression of life. The remoter, less tangible, spiritual effects of the
      discipline of decency go in the same direction and work perhaps more
      effectually to the same end. The canons of decent life are an elaboration
      of the principle of invidious comparison, and they accordingly act
      consistently to inhibit all non-invidious effort and to inculcate the
      self-regarding attitude.
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2HCH0014" id="link2HCH0014">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      Chapter Fourteen ~~ The Higher Learning as an Expression of the Pecuniary
      Culture
    </h2>
    <p>
      To the end that suitable habits of thought on certain heads may be
      conserved in the incoming generation, a scholastic discipline is
      sanctioned by the common sense of the community and incorporated into the
      accredited scheme of life. The habits of thought which are so formed under
      the guidance of teachers and scholastic traditions have an economic value&mdash;a
      value as affecting the serviceability of the individual&mdash;no less real
      than the similar economic value of the habits of thought formed without
      such guidance under the discipline of everyday life. Whatever
      characteristics of the accredited scholastic scheme and discipline are
      traceable to the predilections of the leisure class or to the guidance of
      the canons of pecuniary merit are to be set down to the account of that
      institution, and whatever economic value these features of the educational
      scheme possess are the expression in detail of the value of that
      institution. It will be in place, therefore, to point out any peculiar
      features of the educational system which are traceable to the
      leisure-class scheme of life, whether as regards the aim and method of the
      discipline, or as regards the compass and character of the body of
      knowledge inculcated. It is in learning proper, and more particularly in
      the higher learning, that the influence of leisure-class ideals is most
      patent; and since the purpose here is not to make an exhaustive collation
      of data showing the effect of the pecuniary culture upon education, but
      rather to illustrate the method and trend of the leisure-class influence
      in education, a survey of certain salient features of the higher learning,
      such as may serve this purpose, is all that will be attempted.
    </p>
    <p>
      In point of derivation and early development, learning is somewhat closely
      related to the devotional function of the community, particularly to the
      body of observances in which the service rendered the supernatural leisure
      class expresses itself. The service by which it is sought to conciliate
      supernatural agencies in the primitive cults is not an industrially
      profitable employment of the community's time and effort. It is,
      therefore, in great part, to be classed as a vicarious leisure performed
      for the supernatural powers with whom negotiations are carried on and
      whose good-will the service and the professions of subservience are
      conceived to procure. In great part, the early learning consisted in an
      acquisition of knowledge and facility in the service of a supernatural
      agent. It was therefore closely analogous in character to the training
      required for the domestic service of a temporal master. To a great extent,
      the knowledge acquired under the priestly teachers of the primitive
      community was knowledge of ritual and ceremonial; that is to say, a
      knowledge of the most proper, most effective, or most acceptable manner of
      approaching and of serving the preternatural agents. What was learned was
      how to make oneself indispensable to these powers, and so to put oneself
      in a position to ask, or even to require, their intercession in the course
      of events or their abstention from interference in any given enterprise.
      Propitiation was the end, and this end was sought, in great part, by
      acquiring facility in subservience. It appears to have been only gradually
      that other elements than those of efficient service of the master found
      their way into the stock of priestly or shamanistic instruction.
    </p>
    <p>
      The priestly servitor of the inscrutable powers that move in the external
      world came to stand in the position of a mediator between these powers and
      the common run of unrestricted humanity; for he was possessed of a
      knowledge of the supernatural etiquette which would admit him into the
      presence. And as commonly happens with mediators between the vulgar and
      their masters, whether the masters be natural or preternatural, he found
      it expedient to have the means at hand tangibly to impress upon the vulgar
      the fact that these inscrutable powers would do what he might ask of them.
      Hence, presently, a knowledge of certain natural processes which could be
      turned to account for spectacular effect, together with some sleight of
      hand, came to be an integral part of priestly lore. Knowledge of this kind
      passes for knowledge of the "unknowable", and it owes its serviceability
      for the sacerdotal purpose to its recondite character. It appears to have
      been from this source that learning, as an institution, arose, and its
      differentiation from this its parent stock of magic ritual and shamanistic
      fraud has been slow and tedious, and is scarcely yet complete even in the
      most advanced of the higher seminaries of learning.
    </p>
    <p>
      The recondite element in learning is still, as it has been in all ages, a
      very attractive and effective element for the purpose of impressing, or
      even imposing upon, the unlearned; and the standing of the savant in the
      mind of the altogether unlettered is in great measure rated in terms of
      intimacy with the occult forces. So, for instance, as a typical case, even
      so late as the middle of this century, the Norwegian peasants have
      instinctively formulated their sense of the superior erudition of such
      doctors of divinity as Luther, Malanchthon, Peder Dass, and even so late a
      scholar in divinity as Grundtvig, in terms of the Black Art. These,
      together with a very comprehensive list of minor celebrities, both living
      and dead, have been reputed masters in all magical arts; and a high
      position in the ecclesiastical personnel has carried with it, in the
      apprehension of these good people, an implication of profound familiarity
      with magical practice and the occult sciences. There is a parallel fact
      nearer home, similarly going to show the close relationship, in popular
      apprehension, between erudition and the unknowable; and it will at the
      same time serve to illustrate, in somewhat coarse outline, the bent which
      leisure-class life gives to the cognitive interest. While the belief is by
      no means confined to the leisure class, that class today comprises a
      disproportionately large number of believers in occult sciences of all
      kinds and shades. By those whose habits of thought are not shaped by
      contact with modern industry, the knowledge of the unknowable is still
      felt to the ultimate if not the only true knowledge.
    </p>
    <p>
      Learning, then, set out by being in some sense a by-product of the
      priestly vicarious leisure class; and, at least until a recent date, the
      higher learning has since remained in some sense a by-product or
      by-occupation of the priestly classes. As the body of systematized
      knowledge increased, there presently arose a distinction, traceable very
      far back in the history of education, between esoteric and exoteric
      knowledge, the former&mdash;so far as there is a substantial difference
      between the two&mdash;comprising such knowledge as is primarily of no
      economic or industrial effect, and the latter comprising chiefly knowledge
      of industrial processes and of natural phenomena which were habitually
      turned to account for the material purposes of life. This line of
      demarcation has in time become, at least in popular apprehension, the
      normal line between the higher learning and the lower.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is significant, not only as an evidence of their close affiliation with
      the priestly craft, but also as indicating that their activity to a good
      extent falls under that category of conspicuous leisure known as manners
      and breeding, that the learned class in all primitive communities are
      great sticklers for form, precedent, gradations of rank, ritual,
      ceremonial vestments, and learned paraphernalia generally. This is of
      course to be expected, and it goes to say that the higher learning, in its
      incipient phase, is a leisure-class occupation&mdash;more specifically an
      occupation of the vicarious leisure class employed in the service of the
      supernatural leisure class. But this predilection for the paraphernalia of
      learning goes also to indicate a further point of contact or of continuity
      between the priestly office and the office of the savant. In point of
      derivation, learning, as well as the priestly office, is largely an
      outgrowth of sympathetic magic; and this magical apparatus of form and
      ritual therefore finds its place with the learned class of the primitive
      community as a matter of course. The ritual and paraphernalia have an
      occult efficacy for the magical purpose; so that their presence as an
      integral factor in the earlier phases of the development of magic and
      science is a matter of expediency, quite as much as of affectionate regard
      for symbolism simply.
    </p>
    <p>
      This sense of the efficacy of symbolic ritual, and of sympathetic effect
      to be wrought through dexterous rehearsal of the traditional accessories
      of the act or end to be compassed, is of course present more obviously and
      in larger measure in magical practice than in the discipline of the
      sciences, even of the occult sciences. But there are, I apprehend, few
      persons with a cultivated sense of scholastic merit to whom the
      ritualistic accessories of science are altogether an idle matter. The very
      great tenacity with which these ritualistic paraphernalia persist through
      the later course of the development is evident to any one who will reflect
      on what has been the history of learning in our civilization. Even today
      there are such things in the usage of the learned community as the cap and
      gown, matriculation, initiation, and graduation ceremonies, and the
      conferring of scholastic degrees, dignities, and prerogatives in a way
      which suggests some sort of a scholarly apostolic succession. The usage of
      the priestly orders is no doubt the proximate source of all these features
      of learned ritual, vestments, sacramental initiation, the transmission of
      peculiar dignities and virtues by the imposition of hands, and the like;
      but their derivation is traceable back of this point, to the source from
      which the specialized priestly class proper came to be distinguished from
      the sorcerer on the one hand and from the menial servant of a temporal
      master on the other hand. So far as regards both their derivation and
      their psychological content, these usages and the conceptions on which
      they rest belong to a stage in cultural development no later than that of
      the angekok and the rain-maker. Their place in the later phases of devout
      observance, as well as in the higher educational system, is that of a
      survival from a very early animistic phase of the development of human
      nature.
    </p>
    <p>
      These ritualistic features of the educational system of the present and of
      the recent past, it is quite safe to say, have their place primarily in
      the higher, liberal, and classic institutions and grades of learning,
      rather than in the lower, technological, or practical grades, and branches
      of the system. So far as they possess them, the lower and less reputable
      branches of the educational scheme have evidently borrowed these things
      from the higher grades; and their continued persistence among the
      practical schools, without the sanction of the continued example of the
      higher and classic grades, would be highly improbable, to say the least.
      With the lower and practical schools and scholars, the adoption and
      cultivation of these usages is a case of mimicry&mdash;due to a desire to
      conform as far as may be to the standards of scholastic reputability
      maintained by the upper grades and classes, who have come by these
      accessory features legitimately, by the right of lineal devolution.
    </p>
    <p>
      The analysis may even be safely carried a step farther. Ritualistic
      survivals and reversions come out in fullest vigor and with the freest air
      of spontaneity among those seminaries of learning which have to do
      primarily with the education of the priestly and leisure classes.
      Accordingly it should appear, and it does pretty plainly appear, on a
      survey of recent developments in college and university life, that
      wherever schools founded for the instruction of the lower classes in the
      immediately useful branches of knowledge grow into institutions of the
      higher learning, the growth of ritualistic ceremonial and paraphernalia
      and of elaborate scholastic "functions" goes hand in hand with the
      transition of the schools in question from the field of homely
      practicality into the higher, classical sphere. The initial purpose of
      these schools, and the work with which they have chiefly had to do at the
      earlier of these two stages of their evolution, has been that of fitting
      the young of the industrious classes for work. On the higher, classical
      plane of learning to which they commonly tend, their dominant aim becomes
      the preparation of the youth of the priestly and the leisure classes&mdash;or
      of an incipient leisure class&mdash;for the consumption of goods, material
      and immaterial, according to a conventionally accepted, reputable scope
      and method. This happy issue has commonly been the fate of schools founded
      by "friends of the people" for the aid of struggling young men, and where
      this transition is made in good form there is commonly, if not invariably,
      a coincident change to a more ritualistic life in the schools.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the school life of today, learned ritual is in a general way best at
      home in schools whose chief end is the cultivation of the "humanities".
      This correlation is shown, perhaps more neatly than anywhere else, in the
      life-history of the American colleges and universities of recent growth.
      There may be many exceptions from the rule, especially among those schools
      which have been founded by the typically reputable and ritualistic
      churches, and which, therefore, started on the conservative and classical
      plane or reached the classical position by a short-cut; but the general
      rule as regards the colleges founded in the newer American communities
      during the present century has been that so long as the constituency from
      which the colleges have drawn their pupils has been dominated by habits of
      industry and thrift, so long the reminiscences of the medicine-man have
      found but a scant and precarious acceptance in the scheme of college life.
      But so soon as wealth begins appreciably to accumulate in the community,
      and so soon as a given school begins to lean on a leisure-class
      constituency, there comes also a perceptibly increased insistence on
      scholastic ritual and on conformity to the ancient forms as regards
      vestments and social and scholastic solemnities. So, for instance, there
      has been an approximate coincidence between the growth of wealth among the
      constituency which supports any given college of the Middle West and the
      date of acceptance&mdash;first into tolerance and then into imperative
      vogue&mdash;of evening dress for men and of the décolleté for women, as
      the scholarly vestments proper to occasions of learned solemnity or to the
      seasons of social amenity within the college circle. Apart from the
      mechanical difficulty of so large a task, it would scarcely be a difficult
      matter to trace this correlation. The like is true of the vogue of the cap
      and gown.
    </p>
    <p>
      Cap and gown have been adopted as learned insignia by many colleges of
      this section within the last few years; and it is safe to say that this
      could scarcely have occurred at a much earlier date, or until there had
      grown up a leisure-class sentiment of sufficient volume in the community
      to support a strong movement of reversion towards an archaic view as to
      the legitimate end of education. This particular item of learned ritual,
      it may be noted, would not only commend itself to the leisure-class sense
      of the fitness of things, as appealing to the archaic propensity for
      spectacular effect and the predilection for antique symbolism; but it at
      the same time fits into the leisure-class scheme of life as involving a
      notable element of conspicuous waste. The precise date at which the
      reversion to cap and gown took place, as well as the fact that it affected
      so large a number of schools at about the same time, seems to have been
      due in some measure to a wave of atavistic sense of conformity and
      reputability that passed over the community at that period.
    </p>
    <p>
      It may not be entirely beside the point to note that in point of time this
      curious reversion seems to coincide with the culmination of a certain
      vogue of atavistic sentiment and tradition in other directions also. The
      wave of reversion seems to have received its initial impulse in the
      psychologically disintegrating effects of the Civil War. Habituation to
      war entails a body of predatory habits of thought, whereby clannishness in
      some measure replaces the sense of solidarity, and a sense of invidious
      distinction supplants the impulse to equitable, everyday serviceability.
      As an outcome of the cumulative action of these factors, the generation
      which follows a season of war is apt to witness a rehabilitation of the
      element of status, both in its social life and in its scheme of devout
      observances and other symbolic or ceremonial forms. Throughout the
      eighties, and less plainly traceable through the seventies also, there was
      perceptible a gradually advancing wave of sentiment favoring
      quasi-predatory business habits, insistence on status, anthropomorphism,
      and conservatism generally. The more direct and unmediated of these
      expressions of the barbarian temperament, such as the recrudescence of
      outlawry and the spectacular quasi-predatory careers of fraud run by
      certain "captains of industry", came to a head earlier and were
      appreciably on the decline by the close of the seventies. The
      recrudescence of anthropomorphic sentiment also seems to have passed its
      most acute stage before the close of the eighties. But the learned ritual
      and paraphernalia here spoken of are a still remoter and more recondite
      expression of the barbarian animistic sense; and these, therefore, gained
      vogue and elaboration more slowly and reached their most effective
      development at a still later date. There is reason to believe that the
      culmination is now already past. Except for the new impetus given by a new
      war experience, and except for the support which the growth of a wealthy
      class affords to all ritual, and especially to whatever ceremonial is
      wasteful and pointedly suggests gradations of status, it is probable that
      the late improvements and augmentation of scholastic insignia and
      ceremonial would gradually decline. But while it may be true that the cap
      and gown, and the more strenuous observance of scholastic proprieties
      which came with them, were floated in on this post-bellum tidal wave of
      reversion to barbarism, it is also no doubt true that such a ritualistic
      reversion could not have been effected in the college scheme of life until
      the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a propertied class had gone far
      enough to afford the requisite pecuniary ground for a movement which
      should bring the colleges of the country up to the leisure-class
      requirements in the higher learning. The adoption of the cap and gown is
      one of the striking atavistic features of modern college life, and at the
      same time it marks the fact that these colleges have definitely become
      leisure-class establishments, either in actual achievement or in
      aspiration.
    </p>
    <p>
      As further evidence of the close relation between the educational system
      and the cultural standards of the community, it may be remarked that there
      is some tendency latterly to substitute the captain of industry in place
      of the priest, as the head of seminaries of the higher learning. The
      substitution is by no means complete or unequivocal. Those heads of
      institutions are best accepted who combine the sacerdotal office with a
      high degree of pecuniary efficiency. There is a similar but less
      pronounced tendency to intrust the work of instruction in the higher
      learning to men of some pecuniary qualification. Administrative ability
      and skill in advertising the enterprise count for rather more than they
      once did, as qualifications for the work of teaching. This applies
      especially in those sciences that have most to do with the everyday facts
      of life, and it is particularly true of schools in the economically
      single-minded communities. This partial substitution of pecuniary for
      sacerdotal efficiency is a concomitant of the modern transition from
      conspicuous leisure to conspicuous consumption, as the chief means of
      reputability. The correlation of the two facts is probably clear without
      further elaboration.
    </p>
    <p>
      The attitude of the schools and of the learned class towards the education
      of women serves to show in what manner and to what extent learning has
      departed from its ancient station of priestly and leisure-class
      prerogatives, and it indicates also what approach has been made by the
      truly learned to the modern, economic or industrial, matter-of-fact
      standpoint. The higher schools and the learned professions were until
      recently tabu to the women. These establishments were from the outset, and
      have in great measure continued to be, devoted to the education of the
      priestly and leisure classes.
    </p>
    <p>
      The women, as has been shown elsewhere, were the original subservient
      class, and to some extent, especially so far as regards their nominal or
      ceremonial position, they have remained in that relation down to the
      present. There has prevailed a strong sense that the admission of women to
      the privileges of the higher learning (as to the Eleusianin mysteries)
      would be derogatory to the dignity of the learned craft. It is therefore
      only very recently, and almost solely in the industrially most advanced
      communities, that the higher grades of schools have been freely opened to
      women. And even under the urgent circumstances prevailing in the modern
      industrial communities, the highest and most reputable universities show
      an extreme reluctance in making the move. The sense of class worthiness,
      that is to say of status, of a honorific differentiation of the sexes
      according to a distinction between superior and inferior intellectual
      dignity, survives in a vigorous form in these corporations of the
      aristocracy of learning. It is felt that the woman should, in all
      propriety, acquire only such knowledge as may be classed under one or the
      other of two heads: (1) such knowledge as conduces immediately to a better
      performance of domestic service&mdash;the domestic sphere; (2) such
      accomplishments and dexterity, quasi-scholarly and quasi-artistic, as
      plainly come in under the head of a performance of vicarious leisure.
      Knowledge is felt to be unfeminine if it is knowledge which expresses the
      unfolding of the learner's own life, the acquisition of which proceeds on
      the learner's own cognitive interest, without prompting from the canons of
      propriety, and without reference back to a master whose comfort or good
      repute is to be enhanced by the employment or the exhibition of it. So,
      also, all knowledge which is useful as evidence of leisure, other than
      vicarious leisure, is scarcely feminine.
    </p>
    <p>
      For an appreciation of the relation which these higher seminaries of
      learning bear to the economic life of the community, the phenomena which
      have been reviewed are of importance rather as indications of a general
      attitude than as being in themselves facts of first-rate economic
      consequence. They go to show what is the instinctive attitude and animus
      of the learned class towards the life process of an industrial community.
      They serve as an exponent of the stage of development, for the industrial
      purpose, attained by the higher learning and by the learned class, and so
      they afford an indication as to what may fairly be looked for from this
      class at points where the learning and the life of the class bear more
      immediately upon the economic life and efficiency of the community, and
      upon the adjustment of its scheme of life to the requirements of the time.
      What these ritualistic survivals go to indicate is a prevalence of
      conservatism, if not of reactionary sentiment, especially among the higher
      schools where the conventional learning is cultivated.
    </p>
    <p>
      To these indications of a conservative attitude is to be added another
      characteristic which goes in the same direction, but which is a symptom of
      graver consequence that this playful inclination to trivialities of form
      and ritual. By far the greater number of American colleges and
      universities, for instance, are affiliated to some religious denomination
      and are somewhat given to devout observances. Their putative familiarity
      with scientific methods and the scientific point of view should presumably
      exempt the faculties of these schools from animistic habits of thought;
      but there is still a considerable proportion of them who profess an
      attachment to the anthropomorphic beliefs and observances of an earlier
      culture. These professions of devotional zeal are, no doubt, to a good
      extent expedient and perfunctory, both on the part of the schools in their
      corporate capacity, and on the part of the individual members of the corps
      of instructors; but it can not be doubted that there is after all a very
      appreciable element of anthropomorphic sentiment present in the higher
      schools. So far as this is the case it must be set down as the expression
      of an archaic, animistic habit of mind. This habit of mind must
      necessarily assert itself to some extent in the instruction offered, and
      to this extent its influence in shaping the habits of thought of the
      student makes for conservatism and reversion; it acts to hinder his
      development in the direction of matter-of-fact knowledge, such as best
      serves the ends of industry.
    </p>
    <p>
      The college sports, which have so great a vogue in the reputable
      seminaries of learning today, tend in a similar direction; and, indeed,
      sports have much in common with the devout attitude of the colleges, both
      as regards their psychological basis and as regards their disciplinary
      effect. But this expression of the barbarian temperament is to be credited
      primarily to the body of students, rather than to the temper of the
      schools as such; except in so far as the colleges or the college officials&mdash;as
      sometimes happens&mdash;actively countenance and foster the growth of
      sports. The like is true of college fraternities as of college sports, but
      with a difference. The latter are chiefly an expression of the predatory
      impulse simply; the former are more specifically an expression of that
      heritage of clannishness which is so large a feature in the temperament of
      the predatory barbarian. It is also noticeable that a close relation
      subsists between the fraternities and the sporting activity of the
      schools. After what has already been said in an earlier chapter on the
      sporting and gambling habit, it is scarcely necessary further to discuss
      the economic value of this training in sports and in factional
      organization and activity.
    </p>
    <p>
      But all these features of the scheme of life of the learned class, and of
      the establishments dedicated to the conservation of the higher learning,
      are in a great measure incidental only. They are scarcely to be accounted
      organic elements of the professed work of research and instruction for the
      ostensible pursuit of which the schools exists. But these symptomatic
      indications go to establish a presumption as to the character of the work
      performed&mdash;as seen from the economic point of view&mdash;and as to
      the bent which the serious work carried on under their auspices gives to
      the youth who resort to the schools. The presumption raised by the
      considerations already offered is that in their work also, as well as in
      their ceremonial, the higher schools may be expected to take a
      conservative position; but this presumption must be checked by a
      comparison of the economic character of the work actually performed, and
      by something of a survey of the learning whose conservation is intrusted
      to the higher schools. On this head, it is well known that the accredited
      seminaries of learning have, until a recent date, held a conservative
      position. They have taken an attitude of depreciation towards all
      innovations. As a general rule a new point of view or a new formulation of
      knowledge have been countenanced and taken up within the schools only
      after these new things have made their way outside of the schools. As
      exceptions from this rule are chiefly to be mentioned innovations of an
      inconspicuous kind and departures which do not bear in any tangible way
      upon the conventional point of view or upon the conventional scheme of
      life; as, for instance, details of fact in the mathematico-physical
      sciences, and new readings and interpretations of the classics, especially
      such as have a philological or literary bearing only. Except within the
      domain of the "humanities", in the narrow sense, and except so far as the
      traditional point of view of the humanities has been left intact by the
      innovators, it has generally held true that the accredited learned class
      and the seminaries of the higher learning have looked askance at all
      innovation. New views, new departures in scientific theory, especially in
      new departures which touch the theory of human relations at any point,
      have found a place in the scheme of the university tardily and by a
      reluctant tolerance, rather than by a cordial welcome; and the men who
      have occupied themselves with such efforts to widen the scope of human
      knowledge have not commonly been well received by their learned
      contemporaries. The higher schools have not commonly given their
      countenance to a serious advance in the methods or the content of
      knowledge until the innovations have outlived their youth and much of
      their usefulness&mdash;after they have become commonplaces of the
      intellectual furniture of a new generation which has grown up under, and
      has had its habits of thought shaped by, the new, extra-scholastic body of
      knowledge and the new standpoint. This is true of the recent past. How far
      it may be true of the immediate present it would be hazardous to say, for
      it is impossible to see present-day facts in such perspective as to get a
      fair conception of their relative proportions.
    </p>
    <p>
      So far, nothing has been said of the Maecenas function of the well-to-do,
      which is habitually dwelt on at some length by writers and speakers who
      treat of the development of culture and of social structure. This
      leisure-class function is not without an important bearing on the higher
      and on the spread of knowledge and culture. The manner and the degree in
      which the class furthers learning through patronage of this kind is
      sufficiently familiar. It has been frequently presented in affectionate
      and effective terms by spokesmen whose familiarity with the topic fits
      them to bring home to their hearers the profound significance of this
      cultural factor. These spokesmen, however, have presented the matter from
      the point of view of the cultural interest, or of the interest of
      reputability, rather than from that of the economic interest. As
      apprehended from the economic point of view, and valued for the purpose of
      industrial serviceability, this function of the well-to-do, as well as the
      intellectual attitude of members of the well-to-do class, merits some
      attention and will bear illustration.
    </p>
    <p>
      By way of characterization of the Maecenas relation, it is to be noted
      that, considered externally, as an economic or industrial relation simply,
      it is a relation of status. The scholar under the patronage performs the
      duties of a learned life vicariously for his patron, to whom a certain
      repute inures after the manner of the good repute imputed to a master for
      whom any form of vicarious leisure is performed. It is also to be noted
      that, in point of historical fact, the furtherance of learning or the
      maintenance of scholarly activity through the Maecenas relation has most
      commonly been a furtherance of proficiency in classical lore or in the
      humanities. The knowledge tends to lower rather than to heighten the
      industrial efficiency of the community.
    </p>
    <p>
      Further, as regards the direct participation of the members of the leisure
      class in the furtherance of knowledge, the canons of reputable living act
      to throw such intellectual interest as seeks expression among the class on
      the side of classical and formal erudition, rather than on the side of the
      sciences that bear some relation to the community's industrial life. The
      most frequent excursions into other than classical fields of knowledge on
      the part of members of the leisure class are made into the discipline of
      law and the political, and more especially the administrative, sciences.
      These so-called sciences are substantially bodies of maxims of expediency
      for guidance in the leisure-class office of government, as conducted on a
      proprietary basis. The interest with which this discipline is approached
      is therefore not commonly the intellectual or cognitive interest simply.
      It is largely the practical interest of the exigencies of that relation of
      mastery in which the members of the class are placed. In point of
      derivation, the office of government is a predatory function, pertaining
      integrally to the archaic leisure-class scheme of life. It is an exercise
      of control and coercion over the population from which the class draws its
      sustenance. This discipline, as well as the incidents of practice which
      give it its content, therefore has some attraction for the class apart
      from all questions of cognition. All this holds true wherever and so long
      as the governmental office continues, in form or in substance, to be a
      proprietary office; and it holds true beyond that limit, in so far as the
      tradition of the more archaic phase of governmental evolution has lasted
      on into the later life of those modern communities for whom proprietary
      government by a leisure class is now beginning to pass away.
    </p>
    <p>
      For that field of learning within which the cognitive or intellectual
      interest is dominant&mdash;the sciences properly so called&mdash;the case
      is somewhat different, not only as regards the attitude of the leisure
      class, but as regards the whole drift of the pecuniary culture. Knowledge
      for its own sake, the exercise of the faculty of comprehensive without
      ulterior purpose, should, it might be expected, be sought by men whom no
      urgent material interest diverts from such a quest. The sheltered
      industrial position of the leisure class should give free play to the
      cognitive interest in members of this class, and we should consequently
      have, as many writers confidently find that we do have, a very large
      proportion of scholars, scientists, savants derived from this class and
      deriving their incentive to scientific investigation and speculation from
      the discipline of a life of leisure. Some such result is to be looked for,
      but there are features of the leisure-class scheme of life, already
      sufficiently dwelt upon, which go to divert the intellectual interest of
      this class to other subjects than that causal sequence in phenomena which
      makes the content of the sciences. The habits of thought which
      characterize the life of the class run on the personal relation of
      dominance, and on the derivative, invidious concepts of honor, worth,
      merit, character, and the like. The casual sequence which makes up the
      subject matter of science is not visible from this point of view. Neither
      does good repute attach to knowledge of facts that are vulgarly useful.
      Hence it should appear probable that the interest of the invidious
      comparison with respect to pecuniary or other honorific merit should
      occupy the attention of the leisure class, to the neglect of the cognitive
      interest. Where this latter interest asserts itself it should commonly be
      diverted to fields of speculation or investigation which are reputable and
      futile, rather than to the quest of scientific knowledge. Such indeed has
      been the history of priestly and leisure-class learning so long as no
      considerable body of systematized knowledge had been intruded into the
      scholastic discipline from an extra-scholastic source. But since the
      relation of mastery and subservience is ceasing to be the dominant and
      formative factor in the community's life process, other features of the
      life process and other points of view are forcing themselves upon the
      scholars. The true-bred gentleman of leisure should, and does, see the
      world from the point of view of the personal relation; and the cognitive
      interest, so far as it asserts itself in him, should seek to systematize
      phenomena on this basis. Such indeed is the case with the gentleman of the
      old school, in whom the leisure-class ideals have suffered no
      disintegration; and such is the attitude of his latter-day descendant, in
      so far as he has fallen heir to the full complement of upper-class
      virtues. But the ways of heredity are devious, and not every gentleman's
      son is to the manor born. Especially is the transmission of the habits of
      thought which characterize the predatory master somewhat precarious in the
      case of a line of descent in which but one or two of the latest steps have
      lain within the leisure-class discipline. The chances of occurrence of a
      strong congenital or acquired bent towards the exercise of the cognitive
      aptitudes are apparently best in those members of the leisure class who
      are of lower class or middle class antecedents&mdash;that is to say, those
      who have inherited the complement of aptitudes proper to the industrious
      classes, and who owe their place in the leisure class to the possession of
      qualities which count for more today than they did in the times when the
      leisure-class scheme of life took shape. But even outside the range of
      these later accessions to the leisure class there are an appreciable
      number of individuals in whom the invidious interest is not sufficiently
      dominant to shape their theoretical views, and in whom the proclivity to
      theory is sufficiently strong to lead them into the scientific quest.
    </p>
    <p>
      The higher learning owes the intrusion of the sciences in part to these
      aberrant scions of the leisure class, who have come under the dominant
      influence of the latter-day tradition of impersonal relation and who have
      inherited a complement of human aptitudes differing in certain salient
      features from the temperament which is characteristic of the regime of
      status. But it owes the presence of this alien body of scientific
      knowledge also in part, and in a higher degree, to members of the
      industrious classes who have been in sufficiently easy circumstances to
      turn their attention to other interests than that of finding daily
      sustenance, and whose inherited aptitudes and anthropomorphic point of
      view does not dominate their intellectual processes. As between these two
      groups, which approximately comprise the effective force of scientific
      progress, it is the latter that has contributed the most. And with respect
      to both it seems to be true that they are not so much the source as the
      vehicle, or at the most they are the instrument of commutation, by which
      the habits of thought enforced upon the community, through contact with
      its environment under the exigencies of modern associated life and the
      mechanical industries, are turned to account for theoretical knowledge.
    </p>
    <p>
      Science, in the sense of an articulate recognition of causal sequence in
      phenomena, whether physical or social, has been a feature of the Western
      culture only since the industrial process in the Western communities has
      come to be substantially a process of mechanical contrivances in which
      man's office is that of discrimination and valuation of material forces.
      Science has flourished somewhat in the same degree as the industrial life
      of the community has conformed to this pattern, and somewhat in the same
      degree as the industrial interest has dominated the community's life. And
      science, and scientific theory especially, has made headway in the several
      departments of human life and knowledge in proportion as each of these
      several departments has successively come into closer contact with the
      industrial process and the economic interest; or perhaps it is truer to
      say, in proportion as each of them has successively escaped from the
      dominance of the conceptions of personal relation or status, and of the
      derivative canons of anthropomorphic fitness and honorific worth.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is only as the exigencies of modern industrial life have enforced the
      recognition of causal sequence in the practical contact of mankind with
      their environment, that men have come to systematize the phenomena of this
      environment and the facts of their own contact with it in terms of causal
      sequence. So that while the higher learning in its best development, as
      the perfect flower of scholasticism and classicism, was a by-product of
      the priestly office and the life of leisure, so modern science may be said
      to be a by-product of the industrial process. Through these groups of men,
      then&mdash;investigators, savants, scientists, inventors, speculators&mdash;most
      of whom have done their most telling work outside the shelter of the
      schools, the habits of thought enforced by the modern industrial life have
      found coherent expression and elaboration as a body of theoretical science
      having to do with the causal sequence of phenomena. And from this
      extra-scholastic field of scientific speculation, changes of method and
      purpose have from time to time been intruded into the scholastic
      discipline.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this connection it is to be remarked that there is a very perceptible
      difference of substance and purpose between the instruction offered in the
      primary and secondary schools, on the one hand, and in the higher
      seminaries of learning, on the other hand. The difference in point of
      immediate practicality of the information imparted and of the proficiency
      acquired may be of some consequence and may merit the attention which it
      has from time to time received; but there is more substantial difference
      in the mental and spiritual bent which is favored by the one and the other
      discipline. This divergent trend in discipline between the higher and the
      lower learning is especially noticeable as regards the primary education
      in its latest development in the advanced industrial communities. Here the
      instruction is directed chiefly to proficiency or dexterity, intellectual
      and manual, in the apprehension and employment of impersonal facts, in
      their casual rather than in their honorific incidence. It is true, under
      the traditions of the earlier days, when the primary education was also
      predominantly a leisure-class commodity, a free use is still made of
      emulation as a spur to diligence in the common run of primary schools; but
      even this use of emulation as an expedient is visibly declining in the
      primary grades of instruction in communities where the lower education is
      not under the guidance of the ecclesiastical or military tradition. All
      this holds true in a peculiar degree, and more especially on the spiritual
      side, of such portions of the educational system as have been immediately
      affected by kindergarten methods and ideals.
    </p>
    <p>
      The peculiarly non-invidious trend of the kindergarten discipline, and the
      similar character of the kindergarten influence in primary education
      beyond the limits of the kindergarten proper, should be taken in
      connection with what has already been said of the peculiar spiritual
      attitude of leisure-class womankind under the circumstances of the modern
      economic situation. The kindergarten discipline is at its best&mdash;or at
      its farthest remove from ancient patriarchal and pedagogical ideals&mdash;in
      the advanced industrial communities, where there is a considerable body of
      intelligent and idle women, and where the system of status has somewhat
      abated in rigor under the disintegrating influence of industrial life and
      in the absence of a consistent body of military and ecclesiastical
      traditions. It is from these women in easy circumstances that it gets its
      moral support. The aims and methods of the kindergarten commend themselves
      with especial effect to this class of women who are ill at ease under the
      pecuniary code of reputable life. The kindergarten, and whatever the
      kindergarten spirit counts for in modern education, therefore, is to be
      set down, along with the "new-woman movement," to the account of that
      revulsion against futility and invidious comparison which the
      leisure-class life under modern circumstances induces in the women most
      immediately exposed to its discipline. In this way it appears that, by
      indirection, the institution of a leisure class here again favors the
      growth of a non-invidious attitude, which may, in the long run, prove a
      menace to the stability of the institution itself, and even to the
      institution of individual ownership on which it rests.
    </p>
    <p>
      During the recent past some tangible changes have taken place in the scope
      of college and university teaching. These changes have in the main
      consisted in a partial displacement of the humanities&mdash;those branches
      of learning which are conceived to make for the traditional "culture",
      character, tastes, and ideals&mdash;by those more matter-of-fact branches
      which make for civic and industrial efficiency. To put the same thing in
      other words, those branches of knowledge which make for efficiency
      (ultimately productive efficiency) have gradually been gaining ground
      against those branches which make for a heightened consumption or a
      lowered industrial efficiency and for a type of character suited to the
      regime of status. In this adaptation of the scheme of instruction the
      higher schools have commonly been found on the conservative side; each
      step which they have taken in advance has been to some extent of the
      nature of a concession. The sciences have been intruded into the scholar's
      discipline from without, not to say from below. It is noticeable that the
      humanities which have so reluctantly yielded ground to the sciences are
      pretty uniformly adapted to shape the character of the student in
      accordance with a traditional self-centred scheme of consumption; a scheme
      of contemplation and enjoyment of the true, the beautiful, and the good,
      according to a conventional standard of propriety and excellence, the
      salient feature of which is leisure&mdash;otium cum dignitate. In language
      veiled by their own habituation to the archaic, decorous point of view,
      the spokesmen of the humanities have insisted upon the ideal embodied in
      the maxim, fruges consumere nati. This attitude should occasion no
      surprise in the case of schools which are shaped by and rest upon a
      leisure-class culture.
    </p>
    <p>
      The professed grounds on which it has been sought, as far as might be, to
      maintain the received standards and methods of culture intact are likewise
      characteristic of the archaic temperament and of the leisure-class theory
      of life. The enjoyment and the bent derived from habitual contemplation of
      the life, ideals, speculations, and methods of consuming time and goods,
      in vogue among the leisure class of classical antiquity, for instance, is
      felt to be "higher", "nobler", "worthier", than what results in these
      respects from a like familiarity with the everyday life and the knowledge
      and aspirations of commonplace humanity in a modern community, that
      learning the content of which is an unmitigated knowledge of latter-day
      men and things is by comparison "lower", "base", "ignoble"&mdash;one even
      hears the epithet "sub-human" applied to this matter-of-fact knowledge of
      mankind and of everyday life.
    </p>
    <p>
      This contention of the leisure-class spokesmen of the humanities seems to
      be substantially sound. In point of substantial fact, the gratification
      and the culture, or the spiritual attitude or habit of mind, resulting
      from an habitual contemplation of the anthropomorphism, clannishness, and
      leisurely self-complacency of the gentleman of an early day, or from a
      familiarity with the animistic superstitions and the exuberant truculence
      of the Homeric heroes, for instance, is, aesthetically considered, more
      legitimate than the corresponding results derived from a matter-of-fact
      knowledge of things and a contemplation of latter-day civic or workmanlike
      efficiency. There can be but little question that the first-named habits
      have the advantage in respect of aesthetic or honorific value, and
      therefore in respect of the "worth" which is made the basis of award in
      the comparison. The content of the canons of taste, and more particularly
      of the canons of honor, is in the nature of things a resultant of the past
      life and circumstances of the race, transmitted to the later generation by
      inheritance or by tradition; and the fact that the protracted dominance of
      a predatory, leisure-class scheme of life has profoundly shaped the habit
      of mind and the point of view of the race in the past, is a sufficient
      basis for an aesthetically legitimate dominance of such a scheme of life
      in very much of what concerns matters of taste in the present. For the
      purpose in hand, canons of taste are race habits, acquired through a more
      or less protracted habituation to the approval or disapproval of the kind
      of things upon which a favorable or unfavorable judgment of taste is
      passed. Other things being equal, the longer and more unbroken the
      habituation, the more legitimate is the canon of taste in question. All
      this seems to be even truer of judgments regarding worth or honor than of
      judgments of taste generally.
    </p>
    <p>
      But whatever may be the aesthetic legitimacy of the derogatory judgment
      passed on the newer learning by the spokesmen of the humanities, and
      however substantial may be the merits of the contention that the classic
      lore is worthier and results in a more truly human culture and character,
      it does not concern the question in hand. The question in hand is as to
      how far these branches of learning, and the point of view for which they
      stand in the educational system, help or hinder an efficient collective
      life under modern industrial circumstances&mdash;how far they further a
      more facile adaptation to the economic situation of today. The question is
      an economic, not an aesthetic one; and the leisure-class standards of
      learning which find expression in the deprecatory attitude of the higher
      schools towards matter-of-fact knowledge are, for the present purpose, to
      be valued from this point of view only. For this purpose the use of such
      epithets as "noble", "base", "higher", "lower", etc., is significant only
      as showing the animus and the point of view of the disputants; whether
      they contend for the worthiness of the new or of the old. All these
      epithets are honorific or humilific terms; that is to say, they are terms
      of invidious comparison, which in the last analysis fall under the
      category of the reputable or the disreputable; that is, they belong within
      the range of ideas that characterizes the scheme of life of the regime of
      status; that is, they are in substance an expression of sportsmanship&mdash;of
      the predatory and animistic habit of mind; that is, they indicate an
      archaic point of view and theory of life, which may fit the predatory
      stage of culture and of economic organization from which they have sprung,
      but which are, from the point of view of economic efficiency in the
      broader sense, disserviceable anachronisms.
    </p>
    <p>
      The classics, and their position of prerogative in the scheme of education
      to which the higher seminaries of learning cling with such a fond
      predilection, serve to shape the intellectual attitude and lower the
      economic efficiency of the new learned generation. They do this not only
      by holding up an archaic ideal of manhood, but also by the discrimination
      which they inculcate with respect to the reputable and the disreputable in
      knowledge. This result is accomplished in two ways: (1) by inspiring an
      habitual aversion to what is merely useful, as contrasted with what is
      merely honorific in learning, and so shaping the tastes of the novice that
      he comes in good faith to find gratification of his tastes solely, or
      almost solely, in such exercise of the intellect as normally results in no
      industrial or social gain; and (2) by consuming the learner's time and
      effort in acquiring knowledge which is of no use except in so far as this
      learning has by convention become incorporated into the sum of learning
      required of the scholar, and has thereby affected the terminology and
      diction employed in the useful branches of knowledge. Except for this
      terminological difficulty&mdash;which is itself a consequence of the vogue
      of the classics of the past&mdash;a knowledge of the ancient languages,
      for instance, would have no practical bearing for any scientist or any
      scholar not engaged on work primarily of a linguistic character. Of
      course, all this has nothing to say as to the cultural value of the
      classics, nor is there any intention to disparage the discipline of the
      classics or the bent which their study gives to the student. That bent
      seems to be of an economically disserviceable kind, but this fact&mdash;somewhat
      notorious indeed&mdash;need disturb no one who has the good fortune to
      find comfort and strength in the classical lore. The fact that classical
      learning acts to derange the learner's workmanlike attitudes should fall
      lightly upon the apprehension of those who hold workmanship of small
      account in comparison with the cultivation of decorous ideals: Iam fides
      et pax et honos pudorque Priscus et neglecta redire virtus Audet.
    </p>
    <p>
      Owing to the circumstance that this knowledge has become part of the
      elementary requirements in our system of education, the ability to use and
      to understand certain of the dead languages of southern Europe is not only
      gratifying to the person who finds occasion to parade his accomplishments
      in this respect, but the evidence of such knowledge serves at the same
      time to recommend any savant to his audience, both lay and learned. It is
      currently expected that a certain number of years shall have been spent in
      acquiring this substantially useless information, and its absence creates
      a presumption of hasty and precarious learning, as well as of a vulgar
      practicality that is equally obnoxious to the conventional standards of
      sound scholarship and intellectual force.
    </p>
    <p>
      The case is analogous to what happens in the purchase of any article of
      consumption by a purchaser who is not an expert judge of materials or of
      workmanship. He makes his estimate of value of the article chiefly on the
      ground of the apparent expensiveness of the finish of those decorative
      parts and features which have no immediate relation to the intrinsic
      usefulness of the article; the presumption being that some sort of
      ill-defined proportion subsists between the substantial value of an
      article and the expense of adornment added in order to sell it. The
      presumption that there can ordinarily be no sound scholarship where a
      knowledge of the classics and humanities is wanting leads to a conspicuous
      waste of time and labor on the part of the general body of students in
      acquiring such knowledge. The conventional insistence on a modicum of
      conspicuous waste as an incident of all reputable scholarship has affected
      our canons of taste and of serviceability in matters of scholarship in
      much the same way as the same principle has influenced our judgment of the
      serviceability of manufactured goods.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is true, since conspicuous consumption has gained more and more on
      conspicuous leisure as a means of repute, the acquisition of the dead
      languages is no longer so imperative a requirement as it once was, and its
      talismanic virtue as a voucher of scholarship has suffered a concomitant
      impairment. But while this is true, it is also true that the classics have
      scarcely lost in absolute value as a voucher of scholastic respectability,
      since for this purpose it is only necessary that the scholar should be
      able to put in evidence some learning which is conventionally recognized
      as evidence of wasted time; and the classics lend themselves with great
      facility to this use. Indeed, there can be little doubt that it is their
      utility as evidence of wasted time and effort, and hence of the pecuniary
      strength necessary in order to afford this waste, that has secured to the
      classics their position of prerogative in the scheme of higher learning,
      and has led to their being esteemed the most honorific of all learning.
      They serve the decorative ends of leisure-class learning better than any
      other body of knowledge, and hence they are an effective means of
      reputability.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this respect the classics have until lately had scarcely a rival. They
      still have no dangerous rival on the continent of Europe, but lately,
      since college athletics have won their way into a recognized standing as
      an accredited field of scholarly accomplishment, this latter branch of
      learning&mdash;if athletics may be freely classed as learning&mdash;has
      become a rival of the classics for the primacy in leisure-class education
      in American and English schools. Athletics have an obvious advantage over
      the classics for the purpose of leisure-class learning, since success as
      an athlete presumes, not only waste of time, but also waste of money, as
      well as the possession of certain highly unindustrial archaic traits of
      character and temperament. In the German universities the place of
      athletics and Greek-letter fraternities, as a leisure-class scholarly
      occupation, has in some measure been supplied by a skilled and graded
      inebriety and a perfunctory duelling.
    </p>
    <p>
      The leisure class and its standard of virtue&mdash;archaism and waste&mdash;can
      scarcely have been concerned in the introduction of the classics into the
      scheme of the higher learning; but the tenacious retention of the classics
      by the higher schools, and the high degree of reputability which still
      attaches to them, are no doubt due to their conforming so closely to the
      requirements of archaism and waste.
    </p>
    <p>
      "Classic" always carries this connotation of wasteful and archaic, whether
      it is used to denote the dead languages or the obsolete or obsolescent
      forms of thought and diction in the living language, or to denote other
      items of scholarly activity or apparatus to which it is applied with less
      aptness. So the archaic idiom of the English language is spoken of as
      "classic" English. Its use is imperative in all speaking and writing upon
      serious topics, and a facile use of it lends dignity to even the most
      commonplace and trivial string of talk. The newest form of English diction
      is of course never written; the sense of that leisure-class propriety
      which requires archaism in speech is present even in the most illiterate
      or sensational writers in sufficient force to prevent such a lapse. On the
      other hand, the highest and most conventionalized style of archaic diction
      is&mdash;quite characteristically&mdash;properly employed only in
      communications between an anthropomorphic divinity and his subjects.
      Midway between these extremes lies the everyday speech of leisure-class
      conversation and literature.
    </p>
    <p>
      Elegant diction, whether in writing or speaking, is an effective means of
      reputability. It is of moment to know with some precision what is the
      degree of archaism conventionally required in speaking on any given topic.
      Usage differs appreciably from the pulpit to the market-place; the latter,
      as might be expected, admits the use of relatively new and effective words
      and turns of expression, even by fastidious persons. A discriminative
      avoidance of neologisms is honorific, not only because it argues that time
      has been wasted in acquiring the obsolescent habit of speech, but also as
      showing that the speaker has from infancy habitually associated with
      persons who have been familiar with the obsolescent idiom. It thereby goes
      to show his leisure-class antecedents. Great purity of speech is
      presumptive evidence of several lives spent in other than vulgarly useful
      occupations; although its evidence is by no means entirely conclusive to
      this point.
    </p>
    <p>
      As felicitous an instance of futile classicism as can well be found,
      outside of the Far East, is the conventional spelling of the English
      language. A breach of the proprieties in spelling is extremely annoying
      and will discredit any writer in the eyes of all persons who are possessed
      of a developed sense of the true and beautiful. English orthography
      satisfies all the requirements of the canons of reputability under the law
      of conspicuous waste. It is archaic, cumbrous, and ineffective; its
      acquisition consumes much time and effort; failure to acquire it is easy
      of detection. Therefore it is the first and readiest test of reputability
      in learning, and conformity to its ritual is indispensable to a blameless
      scholastic life.
    </p>
    <p>
      On this head of purity of speech, as at other points where a conventional
      usage rests on the canons of archaism and waste, the spokesmen for the
      usage instinctively take an apologetic attitude. It is contended, in
      substance, that a punctilious use of ancient and accredited locutions will
      serve to convey thought more adequately and more precisely than would be
      the straightforward use of the latest form of spoken English; whereas it
      is notorious that the ideas of today are effectively expressed in the
      slang of today. Classic speech has the honorific virtue of dignity; it
      commands attention and respect as being the accredited method of
      communication under the leisure-class scheme of life, because it carries a
      pointed suggestion of the industrial exemption of the speaker. The
      advantage of the accredited locutions lies in their reputability; they are
      reputable because they are cumbrous and out of date, and therefore argue
      waste of time and exemption from the use and the need of direct and
      forcible speech.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Theory of the Leisure Class, by
Thorstein Veblen

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS ***

***** This file should be named 833-h.htm or 833-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
        http://www.gutenberg.org/8/3/833/

Produced by David Reed, and David Widger

Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.



*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).


Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.

1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
     License.  You must require such a user to return or
     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
     Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
     of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.

1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.


Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.


Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:
     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
     Chief Executive and Director
     gbnewby@pglaf.org


Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate


Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.


Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.


Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.


</pre>
  </body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-06-28 11:30:00 +0000