Editing Thorstein Veblen (section)

==Veblen's economics and politics==
Veblen and other American institutionalists were indebted to the [[Historical school of economics|German Historical School]], especially [[Gustav von Schmoller]], for the emphasis on historical fact, their [[empiricism]] and especially a broad, evolutionary framework of study.{{sfn|Veblen|1901}} Veblen admired Schmoller, but criticized some other leaders of the German school because of their over-reliance on descriptions, long displays of numerical data, and narratives of industrial development that rested on no underlying economic theory. Veblen tried to use the same approach with his own theory added.{{sfn|Chavance|2009|p=10}}

Veblen developed a 20th-century [[evolutionary economics]] based upon [[Darwinism|Darwinian]] principles and new ideas emerging from [[anthropology]], sociology, and [[psychology]]. Unlike the [[neoclassical economics]] that emerged at the same time, Veblen described economic behavior as socially determined{{vague|date=May 2023}}{{dubious|date=May 2023}} and saw economic organization as a process of ongoing evolution. Veblen rejected any theory based on individual action or any theory highlighting any factor of an inner personal motivation. He considered such theories to be "unscientific". This evolution was driven by the human instincts of [[emulation (observational learning)|emulation]], [[predation]], [[workmanship]], parental bent, and idle curiosity. Veblen wanted economists to grasp the effects of social and cultural change on economic changes. In ''[[The Theory of the Leisure Class]]'', the instincts of emulation and predation play a major role. People, rich and poor alike, attempt to impress others and seek to gain advantage through what Veblen termed "conspicuous consumption" and the ability to engage in "[[conspicuous leisure]]." In this work Veblen argued that consumption is used as a way to gain and signal status. Through "conspicuous consumption" often came "conspicuous waste," which Veblen detested. He further spoke of a "predatory phase" of culture in the sense of the predatory attitude having become the habitual spiritual attitude of the individual.{{sfn|Veblen|1899|loc=Ch. 1}}

===Political theories===
Politically, Veblen was sympathetic to [[state ownership]]. Scholars disagree about the extent to which Veblen's views are compatible with [[Marxism]],{{sfn|Simich|Tilman|1982|}} [[socialism]], or [[anarchism]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Plotkin |first1=Sidney |title=The Political Ideas of Thorstein Veblen |date=2011 |publisher=Yale University Press |location=New Haven |isbn=9780300159998 |pages=1–43}}</ref>

===Veblenian dichotomy<!--'Veblenian dichotomy' redirects here-->===
The '''Veblenian dichotomy'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> is a concept that Veblen first suggested in ''[[The Theory of the Leisure Class]]'' (1899), and made fully into an analytical principle in ''[[The Theory of Business Enterprise]]'' (1904).<ref>William T. Waller Jr. "The Evolution of the Veblenian Dichotomy," ''Journal of Economic Issues'' 16, 3 (Sept. 1982): 757–71</ref> To Veblen, institutions determine how [[technology|technologies]] are used. Some institutions are more "[[ceremony|ceremonial]]" than others. A project for Veblen's idealized economist is to identify institutions that are too wasteful and pursue institutional "adjustment" to make instituted uses of technology more "instrumental".<ref name=":2" />

Veblen defines "ceremonial" as related to the past, supportive of "tribal legends" or traditional conserving attitudes and conduct; while the "instrumental" orients itself toward the technological imperative, judging value by the ability to control future consequences.<ref name=":2">J. Fagg Foster, "The Theory of Institutional Adjustment," ''Journal of Economic Issues'' 15, 4 (Dec. 1981): 923–28</ref>

The theory suggests that, although every society depends on tools and skills to support the life process, every society also appears to have a "ceremonial" stratified structure of status that runs contrary to the needs of the "instrumental" (technological) aspects of group life.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.utmark.org/utgivelser/pub/2006-2/art/Arnesen_2_Utmark_2_2006.html|title=Thorstein Veblen – A Critic of Society, Tradition and Technology|website=www.utmark.org|accessdate=August 1, 2022|archive-date=March 8, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080308200613/http://www.utmark.org/utgivelser/pub/2006-2/art/Arnesen_2_Utmark_2_2006.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> The Veblen Dichotomy is still very relevant today and can be applied to thinking around digital transformation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-transformation-economic-social-cultural-chris-goodman|title=Digital Transformation – Economic, Social and Cultural Considerations|website=www.linkedin.com|accessdate=August 1, 2022}}</ref>

===Publications on "The Blond Race" and "Aryan Culture"===
Historiographical debates continue over Veblen's commissioned 1913 writings on "the blond race" and "the Aryan culture" in the context of [[Cultural anthropology|cultural]] and [[social anthropology]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Veblen |first1=Thorstein |title=The Blond Race and the Aryan Culture: By Thorstein B. Veblen |date=1913 |publisher=University of Missouri |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DaVPAQAAMAAJ |language=en}}</ref> [[Mendelian inheritance|Mendelian]] concepts shaped both his praise of [[cultural anthropology]] and critique of [[social anthropology]], as well as his contrasts between [[Mendelian inheritance|Mendelian]] and [[Universal Darwinism|Darwinian]] ideas in [[antediluvian]] racial typologies such as "dolicho-blond" and "brachycephalic brunet."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Veblen |first1=Thorstein |title=The Mutation Theory and the Blond Race |journal=The Journal of Race Development |date=1913 |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=491–507 |doi=10.2307/29737973 |jstor=29737973 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/29737973 |issn=1068-3380}}</ref> Historians argue that Veblen preferred [[melting pot]] ideas as well as his own approach to [[monoculturalism]] and [[cultural evolution]] in cultural anthropology. Many, if not most, of these historical studies, as well as scholarly appraisals of his 1915–19 articles on [[Japan]]ese industrial expansion and the distinct politics of the [[Jews]], maintain strict distinctions between Veblen's renunciation of "invidious" [[scientific racism]] and Veblen's [[Eurocentrism|eurocentric]] assumptions, if any.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Broda |first1=Philippe |title=Egalitarianism and Bias: Veblen and the Jewish Question |journal=Jewish Political Studies Review |date=2020 |volume=31 |issue=1/2 |pages=245–264 |jstor=26870796 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26870796 |issn=0792-335X}}</ref>