Thorstein Veblen and "The Great Gatsby"

Author(s): E. Ray Canterbery

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp. 297-304
Published by: Association for Evolutionary Economics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4227440 .
Accessed: 13/10/2012 23:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for Evolutionary Economics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Economic Issues.

http://www.jstor.org

JOURNAL
OFECONOMICISSUES
Vol. XXNII

No. 2

June 1999

ThorsteinVeblenand TheGreatGatsby

E. Ray Canterbery

F. Scott Fitzgerald's short novel T7heGreat Gatsby is set in the 1920s; like its
author, it is strongly identifiedwith the Jazz Age-that temporalslice of self-indulgence sandwichedbetween the Great War and the Great Depression. Yet Fitzgerald's original setting for Gatsbywas the middle of the Gilded Age (1885), and the
theme of the novel is widely recognizedas an indictmentnot so much of the Roaring Twenties as of the "AmericanDream," which had attainedan honored place in
American mythology well before the opening of the twentieth century.1 It is my
contentionin this paper that much of the socioeconomic satire informing The Great
Gatsby is not original with Fitzgerald, but reflects the influence, both directly and
indirectly, of that earlier adversaryof conspicuousconsumptionand pecuniaryemulation, ThorsteinVeblen.
The Dominance of Social Darwinismdurng the GildedAge
During the Gilded Age (1870-1910), when cutthroatcompetition and unbridled
capitalismled to the accumulationof wealth and capitalin a few hands, a need arose
to justify the excesses of the newly rich and their corruptbusiness practices. Thus
emerged the "AmericanDream"-a blend of the Newtonian belief in a beneficent,
finely tuned universe and the American versions of Calvinism and Puritanism,
which condoned and encouraged the accumulationof wealth as a way of doing
God's work.
Since the rich of the Gilded Age chose to display their great wealth in vulgar
ways, their continuedrespectabilityrequiredsome blend of science with religion to
7he author is Professor of Economics, Florida State University. This paper was presented at the
annual meeting of the Associationfor EvolutionaryEconomics, New YorkCity, New York,January 3-5,
1999.

297

298

E. Ray Canterbery

make their wealth appear not only just, but inevitable. The American Social Darwinism of William GrahamSumnerserved this purpose, particularlyas set forth in
Horatio Alger, Jr.'s popularfiction for boys, which injects into the Protestantethic
an element from Newtonianscience, the idea of a universe that rewards.
In the view of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903),the English founder of sociology,
the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is just nature'sway of improving the species and the economy at the same time. Spencer'sbooks sold by the
hundreds of thousands, and his reception in New York in 1882, two years before
Gatsby originally was to arrive there, would have been the envy of Madonna'spress
agent.
Though a generationof scholars wallowed in Spencer's wake, the most eminent
of the American Social Darwinists was William GrahamSumner(1840-1910), Veblen's professor at Yale. Sumnerwas direct, proclaimingthat "themillionairesare a
productof naturalselection . . . the naturallyselected agents of society for certain
work. They get high wages and live in luxury, but the bargainis a good one for society" [Sumner 1914, 90]. Thus, while HoratioAlger's heroes could achieve in fiction the AmericanDream of rising to the top, the doctrinesof the Social Darwinists
helped to preserve a social process thatmade sure such successes were infrequent.
Sumneringeniously put Newtonian naturallaw, the Protestantethic, and a misunderstandingof Darwiniannaturalselection all on the side of classical economics.
Evoking both Calvin and science, his sociology equated the hard-working,thrifty
person of the Protestantethic with the "fittest"in the struggle for survival. Monetary success in the capitalistic society was the fulfillment of an automaticallybenevolent, free competitive order. In the competitive struggle, people went from
naturalselection to social selection of fitter persons and from "organicforms with
superior adaptabilityto citizens with a greater store of economic virtues" [Sumner
1914, 57]. Not surprisingly,Andrew Carnegieand John D. Rockefellerbecame disciples.2
Veblen's Counterpoint:The Theory of the Leisure Class (TLC)
Social Darwinism met its antithesisin The Theoryof the Leisure Class [Veblen
1899]. When Veblen applied the law of natural selection to human institutions
(broadlydefined to include ideas and habits of thought),he found not progress, but
regression. Human institutions (environment)perpetually lagged behind material
change. Still, the successful individualsare those who can best adaptto changinginstitutions-more a Lamarkianthan a Darwinian process. Because people are also
creatures of habit, changes are made reluctantlyand rarely. Because the leisure
class is sheltered from pressures of subsistence, its members have no urgency to
change and so retain their old habits of living. The social or cultural environment
makes the survival of some characteristicsmore likely thanothers.3

ThorsteinVeblenand The Great Gatsby

299

A state of savagery requires people to be community-centeredfor survival.

When technology advances sufficientlyto create surpluses,predationand barbarism
emerge, as do classes distinguishedby wealth holdings. Barbarismpromotes not
only selfishness and emulation, but brutality[Veblen 1899, esp. chap. 9]. Though
such characteristicsassure survivalin an economy of surpluses, they are neithernoble nor progressive. Aggressive behavior is rewarded;the most cunning and competitive of the leisure class have the upper hand. If Veblen is correct, it is neither
surprisingthat the "AmericanDream"is to become ever more affluent nor that the
affluentpromoteexclusive institutions.
Since pecuniary emulation is an individual's strongest motive, the standard of
living shared by a particularclass determines the "acceptedstandardof expenditure." As Veblen put it,
To accept and practisethe standardof living which is in vogue is both agreeable and expedient, commonlyto the point of being indispensableto personal
comfort and to success in life. The standardof living of any class, so far as
concerns the element of conspicuouswaste, is commonlyas high as the earning capacity of the class will permit-with a constanttendencyto go higher
[Veblen 1899, 111-112].
EmulationdominatesVeblen's chapter"Dressas an Expressionof the Pecuniary
Culture,"where he writes that "admittedexpenditurefor display is more universally
practised in the matter of dress than in any other line of consumption"[Veblen
1899, 167]. Sharpeningthe edge of his sarcasm, Veblen writes, "thewoman'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 manualwork extremely difficult" [1899, 171]. Of course, much more complex and subtle sociology is at work in TLC, including the woman's service as a
"chiefornament"aroundthe house and an adequatelyadorned"trophy"for her husband. Women indeed comprisean abusedclass in ThC.
Taboos also play roles in consumption.Ceremonialconsumptionsuch as "choice
articles of food, and . . . 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" [Veblen 1899, 69]. Certainintoxicatingbeverages and narcoticsare reserved
for the use of men. Such taboos separateone class from another;members of the
"superiorclass" identify themselves not only by what they consume, but by their
power to prevent the consumptionof the same items by others. The taboo is a way
of preventingemulationof the upperclasses by the lower classes.

300

E. Ray Canterbery

Parallels Between The Theory of the Leisure Class and The Great Gatsby
All of which brings us to Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby [1925]. Fitzgerald's
masterpieceis the supreme Veblenian parableof conspicuousconsumption,of conspicuous emulation, of pecuniary culture, and of vicarious consumption-even of
waste and the leisure class itself. Jay Gatsbywants to live with Daisy Buchananbecause she is a member of the established American aristocracyof wealth. Gatsby
lacks the maturityto realize that Daisy cannotbe obtainedby money alone and in a
vulgar display of conspicuous consumption,he flauntshis nouveauwealth. Despite
Daisy's infinite price (perhaps "priceless"), Gatsby is most attracted to Daisy's
voice (not the supra-price),which he describesas "fullof money," a voice fostering
an illusion he considers real. Fitzgeraldhere has put on display Veblen's "secondary
utility," based on emulationthat "seizedupon the consumptionof goods as a means
to an invidious comparison, . . . as evidence of relative ability to pay" [Veblen
1899, 154]. The "evidence"of ability to pay, however, is not the same as the actual
ability to pay, especially in the instance of "purchasing"Daisy whose price is infinite. Gatsbyattemptedto display a purchasingability thatwas out of his reach.
Surpluses, so essential to Veblenianeconomics, allow ostentatiousdisplay; they
also promote advertising. During the Gilded Age, of course, the rich engaged in
self-advertisement.By the 1920s, advertisinghad become an importantallied industry. (Not accidentally, Fitzgerald's first post-GreatWarjob was writing for the Barron Collier advertisingagency in New York City.) Daisy, in her turn, is attractedto
Gatsby because he reminds her of "an advertisement,"the superficial illusion he
represents.She sobs when she sees "suchbeautifulshirts"[Fitzgerald1925, 93]. As
Veblen would predict, for Fitzgerald's central charactersthe cultural illusions are
more importantthanwealth.
The first dust jacket for Gatsby depicted the painted eyes of an oculist's billboard advertisement,the source of symbolismfor a business dedicatedto persuasion
throughfallacies and exaggerations.But the eyes look out over a wasteland.George
Wilson, after his wife Myrtle's death (from the careless driving of Daisy), mistakes
the "eyes"on such a sign for the all-seeing eyes of God and cannotbelieve that they
are "justan advertisement."
As to snobbery, Fitzgerald's Gatsby again provides instruction.Tom and Daisy
Buchananlive in a Georgiancolonial mansionrepresentingestablishedwealth. Gatsby, not unlike the robberbarons at the turnof the century, has purchaseda pretentious, vulgar imitation of a Europeanmansion in East Egg. Even Gatsby's ivy is
nouveau and not in the same league as the Buchanans'. The establishmentsees
clearly that Gatsby, having no sense of tradition,simply copies the style of others,
much as an American university will pattern its library on a medieval Gothic
chapel. Worse, Gatsby's sartorialchoice, a pink suit, is as vulgar and nouveau as
his gaudy, cream-coloredcar, his mansion, and his lavish parties.

ThorsteinVeblenand The Great Gatsby

301

Daisy could never leave Tom for Gatsby because she and Tom are partnersin a
"secretsociety" of wealth, one that Gatsbycannot recognize, much less join. Daisy
cannot leave the trappingsof the old aristocracy.Tom, having originally "bought"
Daisy with the gift of a $350,000 necklace, deploys brutalityto keep her-even at
the far greatercost to Gatsby of his (American)dreamsand his life. Though Gatsby
does not know it, no matterhow great his acquisitivespirits as a bootlegger, the acquisitionof Daisy is taboo.
Members of the upper-middleclass or even middle-middleclass who want to
emulate the rich leisure class must do so by buying cheap imitationsor by borrowing, even at the risk of bankruptcyor worse, which I have called the "Gatsbyeffect" [Canterbery1998, 142-146]. The Gatsby effect, of course, intimatesdisasters
beyond bankruptcyfrom which recovery is possible. After all, Jay Gatsby died for
the sins of his own emulation,a conspicuouswaste.
Before Fitzgerald, only Veblen seems to have capturedthis culturalrichness and
the culture of the rich with just the proper subtle balance, mixing satire, irony, and
realism to expose the false values and social waste of the upperclasses. At the center of the American dream, as well as Gatsby's own, is the belief that sufficient
wealth can recaptureand fix everything, even the ephemeral, illusory qualities of
youth and beauty. It was the same kind of "beauty"satirizedby Veblen.
In Gatsby, both new wealth (Jay Gatsby's) and old wealth (Daisy's) lead to human failings, though the failings are manifesteddifferently. Early in the novel, Jay
Gatsby is observed in the attitudeof a worshipper,alone, stretchinghis arms toward
a single, faraway green light at the end of the Buchanans'dock across the waterthe visible symbol of his aspirations.Green is the color of promise, of hope and renewal, and, of course, of money. For Gatsby, ideals are wrappedup with wealth,
and so the means corruptthe ends. But it turnsout that Daisy Buchananis unworthy
of his vision of her, and her "vulgar,meretriciousbeauty,"her pretentiousness,is a
snare. Gatsby dies disillusioned, while Daisy lives on, oblivious. So much for Gatsby-like hope, so much for the shallow end of the AmericanDream.
Ultimately, WasFitzgeraldInfluenced by Veblen?
The Theoryof the Leisure Class was a scholarlyyet satiricalprotest against the
false values and social waste of the upper classes duringthe Gilded Age. The Great
Gatsbywas the exemplarynovel of the Jazz Age in which Fitzgerald's sharpsocial
sense enabled him to vividly depict the excesses and false values of the upper class
at a time when gin was the nationaldrink and sex the nationalobsession. The two
works share not only a set of themes and a moral stance, they also exhibit many of
the same writing qualities-humor, satire, teasing, exaggeration, poetic imagery,
symbolism, allegory, and folklore. Nevertheless, the parallelsmight be dismissed as
coincidental,were it not for two pieces of evidence directlylinking the two writers.

302

E. Ray Canterbery

TheDirect Evidence
Fitzgeraldfirst describedan East Egg type of society in a March 30, 1924, syndicated article originally titled "OurIrresponsibleRich." Although Fitzgeralddoes
not refer to Veblen in the article itself, his notes relating to the article make clear
that he was consciously documentingVeblen's theme of conspicuousconsumption
and waste [Fitzgerald 1972, 104]. In May of the same year, Fitzgerald, with three
chapters of Gatsby in manuscript,abandonedLong Island's lavish parties and escaped with Zelda to the more sedate Riviera, where he completed the draft. It is
thus plausible to assume that the Veblenian sentimentsexplored in the article were
much on Fitzgerald'smind as he wrote and rewrotethe novel.
One paragraphof the syndicatedarticle is especially revealing. In it Fitzgerald
writes: "Herewe come to somethingthat sets the American 'leisure class' off from
the leisure class of all other nations-and makes it probablythe most shallow, most
hollow, most perniciousleisure class in the world"[Fitzgerald1924, 7].
Fitzgerald continues in high Veblenian style: "At no period in the world's history, perhaps, has a larger proportionof the family income been spent upon display . . ." And the waste goes on: "All thatleisure-for nothing!All thatwealth-it
has begotten waste and destruction and dissipation and snobbery-nothing
He [the young man of inheritedwealth] stocks his cellar with liquor and
more....
then votes righteouslyfor prohibition'for the good of the masses'."
Fitzgerald even appears to update Veblen's view of rich, oppressed women:
"Theboy watches his mother's almost insane striving towarda social position commensuratewith her money. He sees her change her accent, her clothes, her friends,
her very soul, as she pushes her way up in life, pulling her busy husbandwith her."
Overall, Fitzgerald's theme is that the American upper class had no sense of
stewardshipof society so thatcorruption,such as the TeapotDome scandal(thenafflicting the Harding administration),was to be expected, given the premises of the
AmericanDream associatingmoney with success. The statusof the upperclass is at
once gracious in its advantagesand privileges but not worthy of aspirationand vision in its callous treatmentof those below. The inheritedrich are families in decay.
An earlier direct reference to Veblen appearedin a paragraphintended for a
published review of a 1921 book by H. L. Mencken. "It seems cruel," wrote
Fitzgerald, "thatthe privilege [of reviewing Mencken]could not have gone to Thorstein Veblen" [Bruccoli and Duggan 1980, 75]. The paragraph,deleted by a party
unknown, was apparentlya Fitzgeraldjoke, given the fact that Menckenhad earlier
published an assault on Veblen's critique of capitalismas a "wraithof balderdash"
[Mencken 1949, 273].

ThorsteinVeblenand The Great Gatsby

303

The IndirectEvidence
While Fitzgerald(who consideredhimself not only a good historian, but a practicing socialist) often refers to Karl Marx's Das Kapital and other socialist writers
such as Upton Sinclair, none of his publishedwritings cite or even mentionVeblen.
And when Fitzgerald designed "courses"for the educationof Sheilah Graham, he
did not list any of Veblen's books, though he included Marx [see Graham 1967,
213]. Nonetheless, the class distinctionsmade in The Great Gatsbyare clearly Veblenian, not Marxist. We can only speculateabout the motives for Fitzgerald's failure to acknowledge fully his debt to Veblen. It may be simply a matter of ego.
Though he was generousin attributions,Fitzgeraldpridedhimself in his originality.
The parallels between his depiction of class, especially in The Great Gatsby, and
Veblen's sharpest satire may have been too close for comfort, providing a motive
for distancing himself from Veblen. Alternatively, Veblen's influence may have
been more subliminalby the time Fitzgeraldwrote Gatsby.
Other evidence of the Veblen-Fitzgeraldconnection may be lost to history.
Fitzgerald had no secretaryuntil 1932; thereafter,he retainedcarbon copies of his
correspondence. Out of a total of 6,000 known letters, an estimated 3,000 were
written prior to 1932, Fitzgerald'spre-carbonage [Bruccoli and Duggan 1980, xv].
Thus, much of the missing correspondencecovers the Gatsbyperiod. We may never
know the extent of Fitzgerald'sdebt to Veblen.

Notes
1. The original time and locales-the Midwest and New York City-are characterizedin a
letter to Max Perkins, Fitzgerald'slong-timeeditor [see Bryer and Kuehl 1971, 61].
2. Carnegie describes in his autobiographyhis troubledmental state concerning what he believed was the collapse of Christiantheology, a tension miraculouslyrelieved by his reading of Darwin and Spencer.
I had found the truth of evolution. "All is well since all grows better," became my
motto, my true source of comfort.... Nor is there any conceivable end to his [the human being's] marchto perfection[Carnegie 1920, 327].
3. This is a very compressed summaryof my understandingof Veblen's methodology. For a
full explication of anthropologicalinfluences, see Mayhew [1998]. For much more detail
on Veblen, Darwin, and biology, see Tilman [1996]. For an expanded version of my
views, see Canterbery[1987, 1999].

References
Bruccoli, Matthew J., and Margaret M. Duggan. Correspondenceof F. Scott Fitzgerald. New York:
RandomHouse, 1980.
Bryer, Jackson, and John Kuehl, eds. Dear Scott/DearMax. New York: Scribner's, 1971.
Canterbery,E. Ray. TheMakingof Economics. 3d ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1987, chap. 14.

304

E. Ray Canterbery

"The Theory of the Leisure Class and the Theory of Demand." In The Founding of Institutional Economics: 7he Leisure Class and Sovereignty,edited by WarrenJ. Samuels, 139-156. London: Routledge, 1998.
. 7TheLiterateEconomist:A Brief History of Economics. 2d ed. River View, N.J.: World Scientific, 1999, chap. 22.
Carnegie, Andrew. Autobiographyof AndrewCarnegie. Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1920.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Vegetabk, or from Presidentto Postman. New York: Charles Scribner'sSons,
1923.
. "WhatKind of Husbands Do 'Jimmies' Make?" (also titled elsewhere, "Our Irresponsible
Rich") BaltimoreAmerican, 30 March, 1924, p. 7; reprintedin Bruccoli, MatthewJ., and Jackson
R. Bryer, eds. F. Scott FitzgeraldIn His Own rTme:A Miscellany. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1971.
. 7he Great Gatsby. New York: CharlesScribner'sSons, 1925.
. F. Scott Fitzgerald's Ledger: A Facsimile, introducedby Matthew Bruccoli. Washington,
D.C.: MicrocardEditions, 1972.
Graham,Sheilah. College of One. New York: The Viking Press, 1967.
. Beloved Infidel. 1958. Reprint. New York: QualityPaperbackBook Club, 1989.
Mayhew, Anne. "Veblen and the AnthropologicalPerspective." In The Founding of InstitutionalEconomics: 7he Leisure Class and Sovereignty,edited by WarrenJ. Samuels, 234-249. London: Routledge, 1998.
Mencken, H. L. A Mencken Chrestomathy,edited by H. L. Mencken. New York: Knopf, 1949.
Sumner, William Graham. 7he Challenge of Facts and OtherEssays, edited by Albert Galoway Keller.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1914.
Tilman, Rick. The Intellectual Legacy of Thorstein Veblen: UnresolvedIssues. Westport, Conn. and
London: Greenwood Press, 1996, 47-71.
Tomlinson, EverettT. "ThePerpetual'Best-Sellers'." World'sWork20 (June 1910).
Turnbull,Andrew. Scott Fitzgerald. New York: CharlesScribner'sSons, 1962.
Veblen, Thorstein. The 7heory of the Leisure Class. 1899. Reprint. New York and London: Penguin
Books, 1994.
_