The Theory of the Leisure Class

As the title would suggest, this article is an exploration of the culture of the leisure class. In the first excerpt, the author examines how the existence of a leisure class affects working attitudes. In the second excerpt, the author theorizes on how the members of the leisure class distinguish themselves through their dietary preferences. And finally, the third excerpt the author dissects the relationship between classes and employment. 

First, does the existence of a leisure class encourage effort in the lower classes? If the first excerpt is to be trusted, that answer is yes. However, the author is quick to qualify that the incentive only applies to the lower half of the middle class, since this is how they acquire status and move up The upper half actually absorbs more of the attitudes of leisure, and as a result is incentivized to work less, for to work is to associate with inferiority. This victimization of work especially impacts the "dirty jobs", as Mike Rowe explored in his Ted Talk. To do these jobs is repugnant, for the enlightened do not deal with that which is unclean or "unenlightened. Therefore, the dichotomy created by the leisure class is both beneficial and detrimental. Some are inspired to work more, others to work less. I agree with the author's assessment in this case. There is little to dispute.

Moving on to the second excerpt, a new question arises: How do the leisure class distinguish themselves through their dietary choices? The author's hypothesis here was that in the base classes, women are more likely to prepare, and men more likely to consume. Even states like drunkenness have become associated with being "manly" and indicative of class, since it shows that the drunk person has the ability to afford alcohol. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to show restraint in these areas. Personally, I think this a valid hypothesis, but am skeptical of how influential class is on consumption. I suspect it is less than what the author would suppose. There are probably other factors, primarily those that are biological, evolutionary, or cultural imbedded by elements other than wealth. Proving causation here would be extraordinarily difficult. Freudian theories about consumption are hard to assess without objective data, and the author does not offer any. 

Now, does the existence of a leisure class lead to the victimization of blue-collar labor? This is the truest of the author's hypotheses.  Our American culture is a prime example of this. Watching the Mike Rowe talk on this exact topic made it clear that we have shifted towards a culture of idealism and dreaming rather than what is practical. Instead of being instructed to "make a living", kids are told to follow the vague, amorphous concept that is their "dreams". This is admirable, but often is mis-interpreted, especially if the dream becomes unattainable. At this point, people often refuse to fall back to Earth and find pleasure in more simple living. Instead of approaching work with a top-down approach of dreams first, employment later, we should approach it with the mentality that through hard-work we should create our dreams. In short, we should let our means build our end, rather than our end build our means.