Veblen argues that activities that don't produce a consumer good, which are supposedly vital to our existence as humans, are wasteful and done by women. Cleaning, for example. Women participate in this wasteful activities and therefore are valued less than men. However men, who stereotypically work and bring home an income, are the true, valued member of society.
In response to The Awakening, Veblen's ideology fits in some places but is also broken in several others. Edna at the beginning would most likely fall more under his "useless" category, because she is staying home and doing nothing while her husband is away in the city working. However, Edna breaks free of being "useless" and begins working- painting, etc. She begins to get "value".
In any circumstance, Veblen is just being rude. "Cleanliness is close to godliness", is the only remotely religious thing that has been presented to me in my life- by my father. Would Veblen follow his own theory if he encountered a stay-at-home-dad? While both of my parents work and produce these "consumer goods", neither of them are valued as worth more or less than each other or any other person.
These "consumer goods" are also not the center of our society- we as a species have lived without them before and we can live without them again.
I may have misunderstood, but I do not think Veblen was condemning women. I think he was more of a cultural critic trying to explain a social phenomenon as an outsider. Either way, though, I think it is important to take into account the time when he wrote this.
ReplyDeleteRather than being offended by Veblen, I think it's important to read his argument as a description of a social phenomenon that contributes to sexism on a larger scale. Veblen does not criticize traditional women's work for not directly producing a profit, but seems to find it to be undervalued and responsible for the lack of appreciation for the traditional housewife.
ReplyDelete