AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WORKING PAPER SERIES

CONSPICIOUS CONSUMPTION AND DARWIN’S CRITICAL SEXUAL SELECTION DYNAMIC THAT THORSTEIN VEBLEN MISSED

Jon D. Wisman

Working Paper 2016-03

http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/research/upload/2016-03.pdf

JEL No.: B15, B52, D11, P47

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016-8029

ABSTRACT

Thorstein Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption is one of his most powerful contributions to social science. Conspicuous consumption is undertaken in an attempt to maintain or increase social standing. But why do humans seek to acquire status through their consumption practices? Or more fundamentally, why do they seek status? Veblen does not present it as grounded in an instinct such as his instincts of parental bent, workmanship or idle curiosity, although he claims that “the propensity for emulation is probably the strongest and most alert and persistent of the economic motives proper… a pervading trait of human nature.” But why? Had he read Darwin, or read him more carefully, he would have picked up on Darwin’s concept of sexual selection and recognized it as the driving force behind conspicuous consumption as well as much other behavior intended to favorably impress others, if not the driving force behind all of his instincts. Sexual selection is a form of natural selection that works through mate selection as opposed to physical survival. How much an individual can consume signals an ability to command resources essential for successfully raising children. This article adds the Darwinian depth that Veblen missed to his important concept of conspicuous consumption, and in doing so adds clarity to humanity’s prospects. 1

Working Paper 5-12-16

CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION AND DARWIN’S CRITICAL SEXUAL SELECTION DYNAMIC THAT THORSTEIN VEBLEN MISSED

By Jon D. Wisman1

“Veblen was the first and one of the very few economists to understand the essence of Darwin’s theory and to attempt to bring it in to economics” (Geoffrey Hodgson 2001, 189).

“With respect to proving access to resources and commitment, nothing beats the gift of a diamond, particularly as an engagement ring. Diamonds, since they are both expensive and useless, are indeed a girl’s best friend. They prove one of two conclusions: either he has the resources he claims – money to waste on useless minerals – or, if he does not, he is so committed that he has gone into debt” (Denis Dutton 2010, 154).

“…only two topics can be of the least interest to a serious and studious mind: sex and the dead” (W. B. Yeats, cited in Barfoot 1995, 225).

Abstract: Thorstein Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption is one of his most powerful contributions to social science. Conspicuous consumption is undertaken in an attempt to maintain or increase social standing. But why do humans seek to acquire status through their consumption practices? Or more fundamentally, why do they seek status? Veblen does not present it as grounded in an instinct such as his instincts of parental bent, workmanship or idle curiosity, although he claims that “the propensity for emulation is probably the strongest and most alert and persistent of the economic motives proper… a pervading trait of human nature.” But why? Had he read Darwin, or read him more carefully, he would have picked up on Darwin’s concept of sexual selection and recognized it as the driving force behind conspicuous consumption as well as much other behavior intended to favorably impress others, if not the driving force behind all of his instincts. Sexual selection is a form of natural selection that works through mate selection as opposed to physical survival. How much an individual can consume signals an ability to command resources essential for successfully raising children. This article adds the Darwinian depth that Veblen missed to his important concept of conspicuous consumption, and in doing so adds clarity to humanity’s prospects.

Keywords: Darwin, sexual selection, status, inequality, evolution

JEL Classification Codes: B15, B52, D11, P47

Arguably, Thorstein Veblen’s theory of consumer behavior is his most important contribution to economic science, even if it is essentially ignored by the discipline’s mainstream.

1 The author is Professor of Economics at American University, Washington, D.C. Helpful comments from John Henry are gratefully acknowledged.

2

Veblen understood preference functions as at least partially endogenous -- to some extent, socially created. His theory of consumer behavior is aligned with James Duesenberry’s claim that a “real understanding of the problem of consumer behavior must begin with a full recognition of the social character of consumption patterns” (Duesenberry 1949, 19).2 Central to Veblen’s theory is his concept of conspicuous consumption, which is undertaken in an attempt to maintain or increase social standing. Conspicuous consumption manifests itself in two dimensions. Consumption that permits “invidious comparison” is meant to demonstrate ones status to be above those below. “Pecuniary emulation,” on the other hand, refers to the practice of imitating the consumption standards of those of higher status in quest of appearing also to possess that status. But why do humans seek to acquire status through their consumption practices? Or more fundamentally, why do they seek status? Veblen does not present it as grounded in an instinct such as his instincts of parental bent, workmanship or idle curiosity. He does claim, however, that “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…[and] the propensity for emulation – for invidious comparison – is of ancient growth and is a pervading trait of human nature” (1934a, 110, 109).3 But why would such a powerful propensity have been selected in the evolution of the human species? How especially, could wastefulness fit into a theory of natural selection that privileges fitness? Veblen wrote, “In order to be reputable [consumption] must be wasteful…. It is here called ‘waste’ because this expenditure does not serve human life or human well-being on the whole” (1934a, 96, 97). For all his appeal to evolutionary theory and Darwin, Veblen apparently did not read Darwin very carefully, or perhaps not at all. Had he done so, he could not have failed to pick up on Darwin’s concept of sexual selection and recognized that it is the driving force behind conspicuous consumption as well as much other behavior intended to favorably impress others, if not the driving force behind all of his instincts. This article adds the Darwinian depth of sexual selection to Veblen’s important concept of conspicuous consumption, and in doing so adds clarity to the human predicament and project. It begins with a summary of Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption. The second section surveys Darwin’s concept of sexual selection. The third section demonstrates how consumer behavior, as well as much other behavior that aims to increase social status, is grounded in Darwin’s concept of sexual selection. The fourth section summarizes the world Veblen observed. The fifth section suggests that Veblen’s instincts of predation, parental bent, workmanship and idle curiosity might be fruitfully viewed as also stemming from the dynamics of sexual selection. The sixth section addresses humanity’s social potential. Finally, the article concludes with some

2 Duesenberry drew upon Veblen’s theory to explain the empirical problems faced by Keynes’ consumption function. However, as Taylor points out, “it lacked rational actor ‘foundations,’ which is the main reason why it has almost completely disappeared from view” (Taylor 2011, 227).

3 Veblen makes clear the forcefulness of this propensity: “…this emulation in expenditure stands ever ready to absorb any margin of income that remains after ordinary physical wants and comforts have been provided for, and, further, that it presently becomes as hard to give up that part of one’s habitual ‘standard of living’ which is due to the struggle for respectability, as it is to give up many physical comforts. In a general way, the need of expenditure in this direction grows as fast as the means of satisfying it, and, in the long run, a large expenditure comes no nearer satisfying the desire than a smaller one” (Veblen 1919, 394- 395).

3 general reflections on the dynamics of sexual selection. Conspicuous Consumption Veblen’s theory of consumer behavior is founded upon the fact that social status is critically important to people and thus strongly affects their behavior. His conception of social status conforms to that of Karl Polanyi’s, whereby an individual is motivated “to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, his social assets. He values material goods only in so far as they serve this end” (2001, 46). Veblen gave an expressive account of the dynamics of this behavior in the somewhat socially mobile culture of his times in the following passage: “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....No class of society, not even the most abjectly poor, foregoes all customary conspicuous consumption” (1934b, 84, 85). How people are judged by others constitutes the foundation for self-esteem, which John Rawls claimed to be “perhaps the most important primary good,” such that without it nothing else has much value (1999, 440). As Andrew Sayer notes, “The vulnerability of individuals consists in their dependence on others and not only for material support but for ongoing recognition, respect, approval and trust. While this may be adequately provided by small numbers of others, its absence can cause severe distress, shame and self-contempt – indeed, sometimes individuals may value respect more than their own lives…. [Thus], recognition is not a luxury that ranks lower than the satisfaction of material needs, but is essential for well-being” (2005, 54). This point was forcefully made by Veblen: “The usual basis of self-respect is the respect accorded by one’s neighbors. Only individuals with an aberrant temperament can in the long run retain their self-esteem in the face of the disesteem of their fellows” (1934b, 39). Veblen essentially embraced what later social thinkers such as Pierre Bourdieu (1984) and Sayer (2005) refer to as a Pascalian view of human action, whereby rational deliberation is of lesser importance than socialization and habitualization. Thus conspicuous consumption for Veblen is not so much consciously pursued, but instead the ingrained practice of struggling to maintain respectability: “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” (1934b, 102). How did this need for status, for the positive esteem of others originate? As noted above, Veblen viewed it as “a pervading trait of human nature.” But why? Stephen Edgell and Rick Tilman argue that “evolutionism” was a pervasive influence on Veblen’s social thought and that he drew from “the biological evolutionism of Darwin himself” as opposed to the social Darwinism of Spencer. “The intellectual impact of Darwin on Veblen is both clear and unmistakable, unusually so for Veblen. Unsurprisingly therefore, Veblen can be regarded as a ‘complete Darwinian’ in the sense that he drew heavily upon both his theories and his methods, 4 and often used an identical evolutionary vocabulary” (Edgell and Tilman 1989, 1004, 1005, 1007).4 Although the above view expressed by Edgell and Tilman is not shared by some Veblen scholars, (e.g., Jennings and Waller 1998), had Veblen read Darwin’s work, he would surely have noted the manner in which Darwin explained the human preoccupation with status or relative social position within his theory of evolution. For Darwin, those with higher status, whatever its source, would possess disproportionate access to resources and members of the opposite sex, thus permitting more and better-cared-for progeny. Their specific genes would thereby be more readily passed into the future. The genes of those who failed to successfully mate would perish. In this manner, a proclivity for seeking status would thus be naturally selected, and as Robert Frank has put it, “falling behind ones local rivals can be lethal” (2005, 183). And especially so for the future of ones genes. For all the importance Veblen gave to Darwinism,5 he failed to ground conspicuous consumption and the struggle for status more generally in one of the most central elements in Darwin’s theory of natural selection – sexual selection. This failure raises doubts as to whether Veblen actually read Darwin, or read him with adequate attention. No quotations or direct reference to specific passages in Darwin’s work appear in Veblen’s extensive writings,6 generating the impression that his understanding of Darwin came from secondary works and was therefore incomplete.7 Sexual Selection All living organisms have evolved in a struggle to successfully make use of resources so as to be able to reproduce and thus transmit their genes into the future. The very fact that organisms exist is testimony to the success of their ancestors in doing just this. All animals that sexually reproduce compete for sex and humans are not excepted, even in the most equal society in other terms. Recognition of the competition that occurs in sexual selection enabled Darwin to solve an enigma in his theory of natural selection which views traits as selectively retained when they enhance chances of survival. The challenge Darwin faced was how could his theory of natural selection explain the existence of seemingly unfit traits such as the ornate and heavy male peacock’s feathers, or the enormous racks of antlers found on stags? Such traits are expensive to

4 Further, Tilman notes, “Principles of genetics and evolution are firmly entrenched in Veblen’s analyses” (1996, 50).

5 According to Charles Camic and Geoffrey Hodgson, “Veblen saw Darwinism as the apogee of modern science” (2011, 266).

6 Ann Jennings and William Waller write, “Darwinian concepts were in the air in Veblen’s day, but Veblen made no citations to Darwin’s works anywhere. Darwin’s name, however, appears fairly often, almost always in reference to the nonteleological character of Darwinian methods of study…. He made no use of any Darwinist biology, and his other references to Darwin are consistently methodological and metaphorical…. [Further], Within biology Veblen drew primarily from neurophysiology and secondary accounts of Mendel, not Darwin” (1998, 198, 199, 191). Geoffrey Hodgson notes that “Veblen was the first economist to understand the implications for economics of Darwinism at [the] philosophical level [and] For Veblen, Darwin’s philosophy was even more important than his theory” (2001, 385, 400).

7 A curious question is the extent to which, under the influence of Victorian morality, sexual dynamics were overlooked or downplayed in these secondary writings. Although Veblen himself reputedly left a personal legacy of an active sex life (Tilman 1996, 21–24), references to sex and sexuality rarely appear in his works.

5 grow and maintain. They make their owners less efficient in acquiring nourishment and avoiding predators. The huge tail on the peacock makes it difficult to pass through dense brush, take flight, or stay in the air. The antlers of the stag require huge investments in calories and minerals, slows down flight, and are discarded each year. They appear to be wasteful expenditure. They do not appear to fit the dynamics of natural selection that Darwin set forth in his theory of natural selection. Although Darwin began his answer to this enigma in On the Origin of Species, it was in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex that he provided extensive elaboration. The enigma’s answer was a second subsidiary mode of selection which Darwin called sexual selection. Sexual selection “... depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring” (2003, 88). Thus, “... when the males and females of any animal have the same general habits ... but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection” (Darwin 2003, 89). When these differences are found among males, they provide females with indicators as to which males to choose. They are advertisements of the male’s fitness and thus signs of carrying healthy genes. Darwin elaborated: "The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between the individuals of the same sex, generally the male sex, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners" (1874, 566).8 Natural selection is driven by only one thing – reproductive success. Whereas natural selection occurs as a species undergoes mutations enabling a better fit to the opportunities and challenges of its environment, sexual selection occurs within how members of the species relate to each other. Sexual selection is a form of natural selection that works through mating selection as opposed to physical survival. As Margo Wilson, et. al. put it, “…selection favors whatever contributes to outreproducing others of one's own sex. In a sexual population, all the males are engaged in a "zero-sum game" in which the paternal share of the ancestry of all future generations is divided among them, while the females are engaged in a parallel contest over the maternal share of that ancestry. In a fundamental sense, then, one's principal competitors are same-sex conspecifics” (1996, 146). Those individuals who are unsuccessful in mating with a member of the opposite sex will have a unique complex of genes – their own -- that will become extinct. Individuals of both genders must possess adequately attractive traits if their genes are to survive. For most animals all of these traits are genetically inherited and they survive because they are viewed by the sexual partners as providing a good chance for the latter’s traits to survive. The peacock’s feathers and the stag’s antlers reveal that their carriers must be indeed fit and powerful if they survive with such handicaps. Only the best nourished and healthy peacocks can manage the feat of growing and carrying around such costly ornamentation. Only a very

8 Females are, then, far from passively powerless: “The female could in most cases escape, if wooed by a male that did not please or excite her; and when pursued, as incessantly occurs, by several males, she would often have the opportunity, whilst they were fighting together, of escaping with, or at least temporarily pairing with, some one male” (Darwin 1874, 269).

6 powerful stag could survive with such weighty and otherwise handicapping antlers -- the “handicap principle.”9 The Human Animal Humans, of course, are by no means exempt from this biological imperative of sexual selection. Physical fitness indicators among humans that are important in mate selection include well-proportioned bodies, blemish-free skin, symmetrical faces, and for males especially, size and musculature. Size and muscle generally suggest greater potential for successful hunting and offering protection, and are therefore attractive to mates since they provide greater potential that their offspring, and thus their genes, will survive into future generations. For women, an ideal waist-hip ratio of 7 to 10 signals fertility potential -- “A relatively narrow waist means ‘I’m female, I’m young, and I’m not pregnant’” (Low 2001, 80). At times, corsets and bustles were used by women to attain or accentuate these measurements. These physical features are generally what underlie what humans have judged to be physically beautiful in their species. Denis Dutton points out, for instance, that this waist-hip ratio “occurs in sexy women in art from Botticelli’s Birth of Venus to Modigliani nudes” (2010, 142). However, especially among primates, physical traits such as size, muscle, and body shape are far from all that is important in sexual selection. As Bobbi Low puts it, “While strength isn’t irrelevant to a male’s success in most primates, intelligence and social skills appear to be important as well in gaining status and mates” (2001, 58). Human culture is the totality of existing human creations and humans stand out from other animals in the central importance of cultural traits: “In primate species, and in human societies, social complexities so outweigh the impact of physical size that size alone is a poor predictor of success” (2001, 217). Of course being a highly successful hunter or gatherer would signal a capacity to provide sustenance and protection for offspring and thus be found attractive. But since at least the cultural explosion 30,000 to 60,000 years ago (Mithen 1999), being a fine singer, dancer, story teller, or drawer have also been highly appreciated. Dutton persuasively claims that what we define as arts – as the esthetically beautiful -- evolved as a consequence of the dynamics of sexual selection (2010). Amy Wax agrees: “Men produced art because women liked it and found it sexually appealing. Women liked it because artistic expression is the quintessential form of wasteful display…. The pursuit of beauty requires both talent and the development of talent through sustained effort, which are costly and not easily faked” (2004, 545, 546). She goes on to note that “Sexual selection also appears to explain persistent differences between the sexes in observed patterns of cultural display, with men as the dominant producers of high culture in all its forms” (2004, 556).10 Excepting forced sex (rape),11 individuals must sufficiently please at least one fertile

9 Amy Wax notes that although “A fundamental tenet of sexual selection theory is that traits that signal fitness via the proxy of wasteful display will appeal to the opposite sex and enhance the organism’s reproductive success…, It is difficult to move beyond this generalization… to more specific predictions. The principle of wasteful display is indeterminate because the possibilities for wasteful display are endless” (2004, 559).

10 However, Wax notes that although “…throughout human history, men have overwhelmingly surpassed women as producers of high culture…. [and] Although cultural output is predominantly male, men and women are similarly endowed with the cognitive capacities and artistic sensibilities that would appear to make cultural production possible” (2004, 578, 579).

11 Wax reports that “the leading proponents of the ‘rape is adaptive’ view regard rape as a last-ditch option, a 7 member of the opposite sex if their genes are to survive into the future. They might succeed in doing so if they possess physical characteristics such as handsome faces, blemish-free skin, and strong and well-proportioned bodies.12 Thus there would be a tendency for these characteristic to survive into future generations. But social behavior can be equally if not more important. Those who behave in a manner sufficiently attractive to the opposite sex will successfully mate and the genes that carry these behavioral traits will be found in their offspring. This behavior becomes instinct-driven, the dynamic of gene-culture co-evolution. Humans, like all other organisms, “will act as though they are able to calculate costs and benefits” (Low 2001, xiv). However, humans are not generally conscious, and rarely fully conscious, that the deep force driving their behavior is sexually driven. It might be noted that Veblen appreciated that humans are mostly driven by forces beneath their conscious reason: “Under the Darwinian norm it must be held that men’s reasoning is largely controlled by other than logical, intellectual forces” (Veblen 1961, 401).13 Human signaling for sexual selection can become highly complex and bizarre. In China, for instance, wealthy families bound the feet of their daughters, rendering them unable to do work or much else beyond bearing children and being elegant. Males would be attracted to them because as wives, they signal that their husbands are so wealthy that they can afford a wife incapable of being economically useful – a particularly cruel variation of conspicuous consumption that Veblen noted.14 Being able to signal the ability to afford such a wife would make the male more attractive to potential additional wives. In Qing China (1644-1911), “men who were of high nobility, and whose wealth and rewards were therefore greater, were more likely to be polygynous than the lower nobility – and polygynous men had more children than monogamous men” (Low 2001, 125). Similarly, a woman’s paler skin in agricultural societies, where work was predominantly outdoors, suggested she did not need to work and was therefore of elite status. In industrial society, by contrast, where work moved predominantly indoors, a tan

desperate ploy for the sexually dispossessed” (2004, 585). As Steven Pinker puts it, “rapists tend to be losers and nobodies.” Pinker also reports that “Coerced copulation is widespread among species in the animal kingdom, suggesting that it is not selected against and may sometimes be selected for. It is found in many species of insects, birds, and mammals, including our relatives the orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Rape is found in all human societies” (2002, 362, 367). Margo Wilson and Martin Daly write that “…any creature that is recognizably on track toward complete reproductive failure must somehow expend effort, often at the risk of death, to try to improve its present life trajectory” (1988, 163).

12 Low notes that “In general, male humans, regardless of current marriage system, are slightly larger than females, consistent with our evolutionary history of mild polygyny. This is because much, perhaps most, male-male competition in humans is not a matter of size, but of other traits: wealth, political savvy, and so on – traits that help in complex social competition more than sheer size” (2001, 77).

13 Camic and Hodgson view Veblen’s understanding as consistent with that of John Dewey and modern thinkers such as Henry Plotkin, whereby “instinct is prior to habit, habit is prior to belief, and belief is prior to reason. That is the order in which they have evolved in our human ancestry over millions of years. That too is the order in which they appear in the ontogenetic development of each human individual” (2011, 23).

14 Veblen wrote: “…the constricted waist…and so also the deformed foot of the Chinese… 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… [indicating] conspicuous waste…[and showing] that the person so affected is incapable of useful effort and must therefore be supported in idleness by her owner” (1934b, 149, 148). However, Veblen failed to grasp its full Darwinian dimension.

8 indicated that one had the leisure to lie beneath the sun, impressively at a beach, or even more so on a sailboat or yacht. Wax puts the issue of wasteful behavior as follows: “In general, the signals most likely to guarantee ‘truth in advertising’ and thus to be found desirable are those that call upon extraordinary abilities, demand great effort, and are ostentatiously wasteful. Since only the most healthy and capable individuals can afford to make investments with little survival value, these displays will be difficult for low-fitness individuals to mimic without overly compromising their own survival chances. It follows that it will be in women’s evolutionary interest to develop a refined appreciation for the exercise of rare, expensive, and useless skills with no immediate fitness payoffs and to find such displays ‘sexy.’ And it will be in men’s interest doggedly to cultivate those skills and display them at every opportunity” (2004, 544).15 Humans are a social species for which social coordination was important for survival, and thus a proclivity for this social coordination had been selected. Until agriculture, humans shared food, child care, defense, and practically everything else.16 Thus sexual selection would favor traits that enhanced cooperation and coordination within the group. In a seeming contradiction, cooperation would constitute a form of competition. So too would generosity – “competitive altruism.” Those viewed as most contributing to these group efforts would be appreciated and thus be found more sexually attractive. Their contribution to the well-being of others could be expected to be reciprocated.17 The children of those most appreciated would be most likely to receive the care of others. As complex social beings, for humans, being approved by others is of central importance. Sexual selection may open a window for the possibility of altruism. As Wax puts it, “If… self-sacrificial moral acts operate as fitness-indicating forms of sexual display – to put it bluntly, if women come to like generous men and want to sleep with them – then that is all that is required for these tendencies to take root and flourish in the human repertoire” (2004, 562).18 Veblen’s America In the U.S. since colonial times, there has been a widespread belief that vertical mobility is readily possible.19 Consequently, Americans have generally felt responsible for their own

15 Although he failed to recognize the sexual dimension, Veblen wrote: “Conspicuous waste and conspicuous leisure are reputable because they are evidence of pecuniary strength… it argues success and superior force” (1934a, 181).

16 “Humans are an exception to the primate rule. Human hunter-gatherer societies are much more cooperative than any primate group, extending to virtually all spheres of activity such as childcare, hunting and gathering, and between-group conflict” (D. S. Wilson and Gowdy 2015, 41).

17 “Concern for one’s reputation is an example of a motive that is self-interested in a proximate sense but benefits the common good in an ultimate sense, when reputation is contingent on good conduct” (D. S. Wilson and Gowdy 2015, 43).

18 Dutton reports that “On the serious question of choosing a mate, both men and women on average place kindness first on their respective lists, with both naming intelligence as number two. Men then will choose physical attractiveness… while women will tend to turn their priorities toward the man’s wealth or resources. Other criteria on the list for both sexes are exciting personality, adaptability, generosity, dependability, industriousness, creativity, and a sense of humor” (2010, 144–145).

19 Until recent times, this belief mirrored reality. In the nineteenth century, Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx both noted an exceptionally high degree of vertical mobility in the U.S. and termed it “American exceptionalism.” 9 social status. Through adequate dedication and effort, anyone can move up, even to the very highest rungs of social status. It is the individual’s responsibility; it depends upon the individual’s willingness to work hard. One’s social status is not given, but earned. The upshot is that within Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, being noted for being a good worker would signal being a promising mate for helping insure the care of children and thus the future survival of one’s genes. The harder one works, the greater consumption can be. As Claire Brown notes, “Hard work is viewed as being rewarded by vacations, fancy cars, and second homes. Status markings reinforce the notion that the unequal outcomes are fair rewards” (1994, 8). However, these consumption rewards become more important with the rise of industrialization, since how hard one works became less generally observable. How much one can consume becomes more noticeable and stands, more or less, as a proxy for how hard one has worked. Consumption thus becomes relatively more important for signaling status. The consequence is, as Veblen wrote: “One’s neighbours, mechanically speaking, often are socially not one’s neighbours, 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” (Veblen 1934b, 86–87). Thus, because Americans believe they are individually responsible for their own social standing, they feel strongly compelled to demonstrate status and hence class identity through consumption. Greater inequality means that consumers must stretch further to maintain their relative social standing. Although Veblen took no notice of it, during his lifetime the quality of work was degraded and increasingly unavailable for observation, as craft industries and independent farming declined and ever-more workers entered into industrial occupations where their skill and diligence were not clearly visible.20 A critical source for social approval and self-respect was thereby weakened. As this industrialization led to greater urbanization, communities within which the actual performance of work might be observed also declined, making it more difficult for others to know how hard or well someone worked. Thus, combined with the degraded quality of work, rising industrial urbanization made it more difficult to find social certification in community. Consequently, individuals increasingly seek social certification through consumption, which can serve as an observable consequence, or gauge, of hard work, since presumably, harder work permits greater consumption. Veblen wrote that “The outcome of modern industrial development has been… to intensify emulation and the jealousy that goes with emulation, and to focus the emulation and the jealousy on the possession and enjoyment of material goods” (Veblen 1919a, 397). However, he did not relate this to the degradation of work. He also noted that “Conspicuous consumption

The extreme extent to which de Tocqueville believed this to be true is captured in the following passage from Democracy in America, “To tell the truth, though there are rich men, the class of rich men does not exist…the rich are constantly becoming poor” (1990, 2:160).

20 Davis notes research that concludes that “Wealth in America is often a symbol of occupational achievement which is in many cases the ultimate criterion of status. But our occupational system includes so many complex skills that popular recognition of them is impossible. Hence income is taken as a least common factor, a rough index of achievement. It is an easy step from there to the emphasis on display and conspicuous consumption which Veblen noted so clearly” (1944, 284).

10 claims a relatively larger portion of the income of the urban than of the rural population, and the claim is also more imperative” (1934a, 110, 109).21 It should also be noted that compared to work, consumption is a more efficient way of showing success to large numbers of people, such as in an urban setting. While hard work is visible only to those who can see or know of ones workplace, much consumption is visible to a great number of people with whom there is contact. Veblen wrote, “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…which he is able to make while under their direct observation” (Veblen 1934b, 86). Growing inequality also put pressure on households to consume more to maintain their relative social status or social respectability. As noted above, such consumption served as a proxy for how hard one worked. Although the of consumerism during Veblen’s lifetime was in part due to the technologically-driven durable goods revolution, this revolution was itself fueled by the rising demand for such goods as a consequence of the degradation of work, declining community, and rising inequality (Wisman and Davis 2013).22 Veblen’s Instincts Although Veblen avowed that “the words ‘instinct’ and ‘instinctive’ are no longer well seen among students of those biological sciences where they once had a great vogue,” he continued to see them of value for “the needs of an inquiry into the nature and causes of the growth of institutions” (1914, 1–2).23 For these ends, he identified a very restricted number of instincts -- “irreducible elements of human nature” (1914, 3), which guide behavior. He gave them the names of the predatory instinct, parental bent, the instinct of workmanship, and idle curiosity.24 Although he viewed these as innate in human nature, he saw their expression as

21 In small communities people generally know who is wealthier, who is more honorable, and whose past actions have been most beneficial to their collective ends. It follows that small and relatively isolated communities are freer of the ostentatious consumption practices that characterize the industrial era. Veblen notes that in such small-scale communities, societies’ clothing fashions tend to be more stable and utilitarian (1934b, 175–176).

22 Although Veblen did not mention the manner in which work was being degraded during this period, he wrote that for Americans, “the standard of respectability requires us to shun labor as well as to enjoy the fruits of it” (1919a, 400). He addressed the social attitude toward work as opposed to changes in its quality: “…since the only authentic end of work under the pecuniary dispensation is the acquisition of wealth; since the possession of wealth in so far exempts its possessor from productive work; and since exemption is a mark of wealth and therefore of superiority over those who have nothing and therefore must work; it follows that addition to work becomes a mark of inferiority and therefore discreditable. Thereby work becomes distasteful to all men instructed in the proprieties of the pecuniary culture” (Veblen 1914, 173–174).

23 Rick Tilman notes “Veblen’s use of the term ‘instinct’ has undoubtedly attracted as much criticism as any other aspect of his entire body of thought…. [and] The resolution of these interpretive ‘problems is made even more difficult by the fact that Veblen’s ‘impulses,’ ‘proclivities,’ and ‘propensities’ often substitute for or are synonymous with his use of ‘instinct’” (1996, 75). Notable institutionalists such as John R. Commons and Clarence Ayres downplayed and even rejected much of Veblen’s instinct theory. For an extensive discussion, see (Camic and Hodgson 2011, 10ff). Camic and Hodgson maintain that Veblen consistently held to the instinct theory he drew from Darwin.

24 Veblen qualifies his use of the term instinct, by pointing out that it “denotes the conscious pursuit of an objective end which the instinct in question makes worth while…. The ends of life,… the purposes to be achieved, are assigned by man’s instinctive proclivities; but the ways and means of accomplishing those things which the instinctive proclivities so make worth while are a matter of intelligence…. Men take thought, but… the racial endowment of instinctive proclivities decides what they shall take thought of, and how and to what effect” (1914, 5– 11 plastic, capable of being motivated or inhibited by societies’ institutions (“All instinctive behavior is subject to development and hence to modification by habit”) (1914, 38).25 Rick Tilman claims that “Basically, two clusters [of instincts] are discernable: parental bent, idle curiosity and workmanship blend together as other-regarding traits, as do aggression and predation, which are self-regarding” (Tilman 1996, 99). But had Veblen carefully read Darwin, it is conceivable that he would have noted that insofar as all may be reduced to Darwin’s dynamic of sexual selection, all may be viewed as self-regarding, albeit not necessarily consciously so. This section will briefly explore how he might have come to this conclusion. Veblen wrote that “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… [and thus] The conditions under which men lived in the most primitive stages of associated life… seems to have been of a peaceful and unaggressive, not to say an indolent, cast” (1934b, 219–220). With the exception of quasi-peaceable eras such as those of hunters and later of handicraft producers, aggression and predation always held sway, first through military might and later through pecuniary force. Pace Veblen, more recent evidence suggests that no early peaceable era existed, that warfare in pre-agricultural societies was incessant, driven more by the sexual rewards of being a successful warrior than by economic advantage. Warriors who succeeded in killing enemies sired more children, thereby passing more of their genes into future generations.26 Aggressive routes to prestige included leading warriors into combat, killing large numbers of the enemy, and returning with captive’s heads, scalps, genitalia, or other body parts as proof. Napoleon Chagnon calculated that among the Amazonian Yanomamö, those who had killed had an average of over two and a half more wives and more than three times as many children (Diamond 2012, 163). Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus note that among some peoples, “A man who had beheaded no one was considered such a wimp that he had trouble getting a wife” (2012, 105). They also report that once more modern societies conquered these peoples and outlawed head hunting, complaints such as the following were voiced: “Once we had leaders who lined the walls of our men’s house with enemy skulls, but now we are reduced to squabbling like girly men” (2012, 51). Flannery and Marcus also report the case of an Inca general who had lost a number of battles being sent women’s clothing and forced to wear them upon returning to Cusco (2012, 538). Aggression and predation could also enable advantages in mating to those successful in using violence or economic power to accumulate material wealth, political power, and thus high

6).

25 As to the innate character of his instincts, Hodgson makes clear that according to Veblen, "The instincts of an individual cannot be changed; but 'instinctive behavior' can be. Behaviour promoted by instincts can be modified or repressed, through constraints or countervailing habits or reflection" (2004, 165).

26 Low points out that “Throughout evolutionary history, men have been able to gain reproductively by risky warfare; heroes gain status and access to women” (2001, 217). In fact, this is true of our closest primate relative, chimpanzees. It has been estimated that about 30 percent of all males both among human foragers and among chimpanzees died in warfare (Diamond 2012, 154).

12 status.27 These advantages would signal to potential sexual partners that their bearers would hold greater potential for offering protection and sustenance to them and their offspring. The instinct of parental bent “has a large part in the sentimental concern entertained by nearly all persons for the life and comfort of the community at large, and particularly for the community’s future welfare” (Veblen 1914, 27).28 Modern research by anthropologists and evolutionary biologists finds that among foragers, being cooperative and generous earned the social respect of others and that with this came greater sexual success.29 Thus, because social approval was essential for sexual success, what would appear as egoism, ambition, or greed within hunter-gatherer societies had to be repressed. It was imperative that others be treated generously and thus not shamed by, for instance, being given something so valuable that reciprocity is not possible. The generous were considered superior in virtue which gave them more access to mates and thus more offspring (Flannery and Marcus 2012, 561).30 Veblen claimed that his instinct of workmanship “…is present in all men, and asserts itself even under very adverse circumstances… [it] is the court of final appeal in any question of economic truth or adequacy” (1934a, 93, 99). Further, “The only other instinctive factor of human nature that could with any likelihood dispute this primacy [of workmanship] would be the parental bent” (1914, 25). The instinct of workmanship is serviceable to parental bent: “…the instinct of workmanship is in the main a propensity to work out the ends which the parental bent makes worth while” (1914, 48) Although foragers may not have defined such activities as work,31 being a good hunter or gatherer, a courageous warrior, a skilled tool maker would be highly valued by others32 and provide signals that they would be promising mates who could care for a family’s welfare. They would, therefore, be found sexually attractive. Anthropologists also inform us that in early society the individual's motivation for

27 Veblen noted that in what he called barbarian stages of culture, women were taken as captives, but concludes that “The original reason for the seizure and appropriation of women seems to have been their usefulness as trophies” (1934a, 23), clearly missing Darwin’s theory of sexual selection.

28 However, within predatory culture, the parental instinct may result in “the fighting patriot [becoming] the type and exemplar of the public spirited citizen…. [and] The sentiment of common interest, itself in good part a diffuse working-out of the parental instinct, comes at the best to converge on the glory of the flag instead of the fullness of life of the community at large, or more commonly it comes to be centred in loyalty, that is to say in subservience, to the common war-chief and his dynastic successors” (Veblen 1914, 161).

29 Due to biologically-mandated sexual competition, human societies were never so purely egalitarian as many anthropologists presumed.

30 George Williams writes, “Simply stated, an individual who maximizes his friendships and minimizes his antagonisms will have an evolutionary advantage, and selection would favor those characteristics that promote the optimization of personal relationships. I imagine that this evolutionary factor has increased man’s capacity for altruism and compassion and has tempered his ethically less acceptable heritage of sexual and predatory aggressiveness” (cited in Low 2001, 146).

31 A work-leisure distinction was not apparent among hunter and gathering societies (Wisman 1989).

32 Veblen wrote: “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” (1934b, 16). In reference to the lower classes, “since labour is their recognized 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” (1934a, 35).

13 carrying out productive activity must be seen as more social than material. Work provided a principal means by which individuals achieved the approbation of others. Richard Thurnwald has noted that for early societies, "It is for social distinction that work is done, not for the acquisition of money or material goods, since these do not play the same intermediary role for acquiring reputation that they do in our society" (1932, 178). Similarly, Bronislaw Malinowski noted of the motivation to work of the Trobriand Islands' male that "He wants,...to achieve social distinction as a good gardener and a good worker in general" (1922, 62). Or where wealth is sought, it is for the purpose of giving it away to achieve the approbation of others. As David Wilson and John Gowdy put it, “Concern for one’s reputation is an example of a motive that is self-interested in a proximate sense but benefits the common good in an ultimate sense, when reputation is contingent on good conduct” (2015, 43). Of the fourth of Veblen’s instincts, that of idle curiosity, he wrote, “Human curiosity is doubtless an ‘idle’ propensity, in the sense that no utilitarian aim enters in its habitual exercise…” (Veblen 1914, 88). Within the context of Darwinian sexual selection, this would make it seemingly wasteful, a bit like the male peacock’s elaborate tail feathers, something that might be exercised by someone with the luxury of extra time after other utilitarian needs have been made: “…an ‘idle’ curiosity by force of which men, more or less insistently, want to know things, when graver interests do not engross their attention” (Veblen 1914, 85). Therefore, the reason such a propensity might have been selected over the course of human evolution is that it would signal such survival fitness that surplus idle time was available. Those successful enough to have idle time would make promising mates. Thus in Veblen’s world, the high status of his leisure class. Veblen went on to note that, although no part of its motivation, the results of idle curiosity might wind up having some utilitarian value: “…the material information which is by this means [the exercise of idle curiosity] drawn into the agent’s available knowledge may none the less come to serve the ends of workmanship.” But this need not be the case. It could “lend itself to conceptions of magical efficacy rather than to mechanical efficiency” and thereby “result in a retardation of the technological advance,” by being obstructive of workmanship (1914, 88, 89). Being able to engage in idle curiosity would signal fitness, much as Dutton finds to be the case with art (2010). Those who probe for answers to important questions and demonstrate success in solving them would be attractive. The intelligence this would suggest would be made yet more evident by skillful use of language. Nicholas Wade reports that “…eloquence and articulate speech signal the quality of an individual’s mind, and will be highly favored by both men and women in their sexual partners. Language is a device that lets us learn about potential mates more thoroughly than any other method” (2007, 44–45). Veblen wrote of how “Elegant diction, whether in writing or speaking, is an effective means of reputability” (1934b, 398). Veblen noted that “The distinctive feature by the mark of which any given instinct is identified is to be found in the particular character of the purpose to which it drives” (1914, 4). However, because he had apparently not become familiar with Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, he concerned himself with proximate purposes as opposed to the underlying purpose of mate selection. Institutional Reformulation As a social science discipline, economics has typically viewed humans as motivated by income and wealth. Although this fits with the evolutionary view that humans seek resources to reproduce and insure that their genes make it into the future, economists, like most other social 14 scientists, do not generally view the pursuit of income and wealth as ultimately driven by sex33 or natural selection. This is hardly surprising. As Satoshi Kanazawa puts it: “The fact that many of us do not think that [reproduction] is the ultimate goal of our existence or that some of us choose not to reproduce is irrelevant. We are not privy to the evolutionary logic behind our design, and no matter what we choose to do in our own lifetimes, we are all descended from those who chose to reproduce. None of us inherited our psychological mechanism from our ancestors who remained childless. Everything else in life, even survival, is a means to reproductive success” (2009, 26). Combined with an understanding of human history, comprehending the importance of sexual selection is necessary for understanding humanity’s social potential. What is revealed is the varied manners in which humans may enhance their attractiveness to the opposite sex. Although the amassing of income, wealth, and power have been of central importance in sexual selection since the rise of civilization, this was not the case for the overwhelming history of our species’ existence on earth. For at least 95 percent of this history, humans lived as hunter- gatherers. Because they were generally nomadic, accumulating material wealth was unmanageable. But in addition, these foragers uncompromisingly opposed anyone’s attempts to assume economic or political power.34 Sexual competition had to be expressed in other manners. These included being highly skilled warriors and hunters and gatherers, developing artistic talents, and contributing to the welfare of the community. Being generous could constitute a powerful way for pleasing others, and especially members of the opposite sex. All changed with the evolution of a state and civilization about 5,500 years ago, the pre- condition for which was the adoption of agriculture about 10,000 ago. The concentrated power of the state could protect private property and thus added a new cultural force that would become central to human sexual selection. Those who accumulated or possessed significant property would be more attractive as mates than those without property. Property provided greater material security and thus greater probability that offspring would survive. Thus the rise of the state opened up the potential to compete through amassing wealth and political power. Wealth and power came to be highly unequally distributed and so too did access to sexual partners. Wealthy and powerful men often commanded huge harems, thereby better ensuring that their genes would pass into the future. Although increasing cultural complexity opened up yet new domains in which sexual competition might occur, wealth and power have remained the foremost cultural means of signally sexual attractiveness. The conspicuous consumption so aptly described by Veblen

33 Malthus stands out in the importance he accorded to sexuality, noting that “passions between the sexes” was with humans, like with animals, critical to human behavior and social dynamics. Darwin acknowledged his considerable debt to Malthus.

34 Flannery and Marcus write that they employed “social pressure, disapproval, and ridicule to prevent anyone from developing a sense of superiority…. [Further] their constituents were too skilled at alliance-building to put up with bullies. The fate of a bully was to be lured into the bush and shot with poisoned arrows” (2012, 37, 59). Charles Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson provide an example of this disapproval: “In hunter-gatherer societies such as the !Kung of the Kalahari, conspicuous attempts to improve personal status and to accumulate large quantities of personal goods are met with ridicule and hostility" (1983, 150–151). They go on to note that in those instances where wealth is approvingly sought, it is to the end of giving it away in search of social approval.

15 expressed this sexual competition and continues to do so today. As noted earlier, the degradation of work with industrialization and the accompanying decline of community greatly weakened important alternative ways in which people could acquire social approval and esteem, forcing them to rely increasingly on consumption to signal how skilled and hardworking they are, and thus what good mates they would make. Veblen held that humans always seek to be noted and that they did so especially through conspicuous consumption within the specific institutional framework of private property: “Man as we find him to-day has much regard to his good fame—to his standing in the esteem of his fellowmen. This characteristic he always has had, and no doubt always will have. This regard for reputation may take the noble form of a striving after a good name; but the existing organization of society does not in any way preeminently foster that line of development. Regard for one’s reputation means, in the average of cases, emulation. It is a striving to be, and more immediately to be thought to be, better than one’s neighbor” (1919a, 392). Veblen viewed the solution to be the elimination of private property. In an essay written prior to his The Theory of the Leisure Class, he wrote that “The ultimate ground of this struggle to keep up appearance by otherwise unnecessary expenditure, is the institution of private property… [and that] With the abolition of private property, the characteristic of human nature which now finds its exercise in this form of emulation, should logically find exercise in other, perhaps nobler and socially more serviceable, activities” (1919a, 399).35 Although it may not be possible, or even advisable, to eliminate private property,36 Veblen was right to note that the manner in which humans seek status is culturally or institutionally-determined. There are other institutional reformulations that could move humanity in much the direction that Veblen advised, toward a society in which his instincts of workmanship, parental bent, and idle curiosity could hold considerably greater sway. In broad outline, what would need be done is to significantly reduce inequality in income, wealth, and privilege while restructuring institutions to privilege work and community. This is especially urgent in that continued robust wealth accumulation and conspicuous consumption threaten environmental devastation, the avoidance of which is arguably humanity’s greatest challenge (Wisman 2011). The first step is to reduce inequality.37 This could be substantially achieved by returning to the post-World War Two progressive income tax rates, or better still, replacing the

35 Veblen held to his view that the problem stemmed from private property. In a much later work, he wrote: “Human nature being what it is, the struggle of each to possess more than his neighbor is inseparable from the institution of private property” (Veblen 1919, 397).

36 Veblen died in 1929, before Soviet state monopoly ownership of productive property revealed itself to be totalitarian, crushing freedoms and lacking long-run technological dynamism.

37 In capitalist countries, it is widely believed that substantially different rewards in income are necessary to bring forth the incentives necessary to achieve society’s objectives. However, non-capitalist societies have succeeded through other non-material incentives, at least in specific domains. John Roemer notes that “Cuba, apparently, produces the best physician corps in Latin America, although its doctors are not well paid….The Soviet Union had no dearth of doctors, or mathematicians, although they were paid less than some skilled manual workers” (2011, 92). The point is not to embrace the social institutions of either the Soviet Union or Cuba, but instead to take note of the manner in which humans may excel where wealth and power are not the prime motivators.

16 income tax with a progressive consumption tax, instituting a wealth tax, reregulating financial institutions, and making higher education free. The second step is to guarantee work to all. Those without work have little prospect of convincing mates that they would be suitable fathers. Guaranteed employment would also permit the elimination of all welfare and the social and personal degradation and humiliation that accompanies it for those mentally and physically capable of work. The third step would be to move toward democratic control of the workplace wherein workers would have the dignity of controlling their workplaces, and where they could find a richer sense of community. Although Veblen did not advance the possibility of workplace democracy, he did see the possibility of work becoming ennobled under differing social institutions such as those that might exist with the nationalization of industry and property, whereby “it is conceivable that labor might practically come to assume that character of nobility in the eyes of society at large, which it now sometimes assumes in the speculations of the well- to-do” (1919a, 401). Final Reflections Veblen’s contributions to social thought, although inadequately appreciated within the discipline of economics, stand out as major intellectual advances. Most notably, he recognized that social sciences must be structured in terms of evolution, and that there are critical parallels between the biological evolution that Darwin elaborated and social evolution (Hodgson 2001).38 He also developed deeper understanding of the manner in which human behavior is not only biologically driven, but steered in its expression by prevailing institutions. However, it appears that he did not carefully read, or read at all, the works of Darwin, one of his major intellectual heroes, with the consequence that his grasp of human behavior remained incomplete. As Darwin made clear, all sexually-reproducing animals, including humans, compete for sex. In doing so, they will strive to stand out, to be above others in whatever manner is socially approved and therefore attractive to the opposite sex. No matter how equal a society might be in all other respects, sexual competition will lead to differential access to the opposite sex. And in terms of evolutionary biology, this is the inequality that has always mattered most. However, although humans may be genetically programed to seek status, power, and self- esteem, just what provides these “intangible states” has varied considerable over the course of human history. Depending upon the institutional rules of the game, they might conceivably be provided equally well by generosity and community spiritedness as by wealth and political power. What earns status is thus substantially determined by a society’s institutions, but the results of successfully attaining high status are the same cross-culturally. As David Geary, et. al. put it, “Although the markers for social status can vary somewhat from one culture to the next, the basic relation is the same: Culturally successful men are preferred as mating and marriage partners” (2004, 30). Finally, the sexual dimorphism, or different sexual strategies pursued in the course of history need not foreclose the potential for gender equality. A striking example is the well- documented change in attitudes toward female chastity that has evolved in societies where

38 Wax notes that “In their wariness of efforts to develop a science of human nature, some critics have cast aspersions on the very notion that human behavior has been influenced by evolutionary forces” (2004, 530). For an in-depth analysis of the denial by many social scientists (and others) of the influence of evolution on human behavior and attitudes, see Pinker’s The Blank Slate (2002).

17 women have made significant gains in their rights.39 And this is merely one example in a contemporary dynamically changing landscape where full sexual equality is becoming increasingly embraced and barriers to this goal are rapidly falling away. It is noteworthy, as Wax points out, that “Commitment to the goal of sexual equality can also be understood as a component of sexual display” (2004, 577). From early childhood, we are aware of our actions that are intended to favorably impress members of the opposite sex. And everyone is also aware that members of the same gender are in competition with each other in this pursuit. Everyone knows that at times this competition can be extreme.40 However, few if any are aware of the extent to which striving for excellence is ultimately driven by Darwin’s dynamic of sexual selection. As to how to behave, humans, as well as other animals, generally act on proximate cues and are unaware of the ultimate end driving their actions. Precisely because of the centrality of sexual competition in human behavior and the fact that human society requires cooperation, considerable cultural practices have evolved to mask or soften its expression. Human sexual competition is far less often expressed in physically fighting than is the case among many other mammals. Humans are the only animal to evolve to hide its members’ genitalia. Humans find words referencing sexual acts or genitalia offensive in “polite” company. They are “dirty” or “nasty bits.” An injurious insult is to call someone a prick or cunt. Social attitudes have evolved to highlight the value of cooperation and downplay sexual competition, depicting humans as driven by more “noble” motives. Kanazawa and Still note, for instance, that “Human actors believe that they are choosing to mate with the ones they love and desire, not the ones with characteristics that increase their reproductive success (measured by the number of grandchildren). Human actors are not usually conscious of the evolutionary logic behind their emotions” (1999, 46). The manner in which sexual selection is the ultimate end of the line in the causation of inequality generally runs counter to people’s self-understanding. In spite of the fact that sex permeates virtually all aspects of society, that society is saturated with sexuality, considerable effort is taken to hide or even deny its expression. Yet it shares with violence top billing in our entertainment, from soap operas to high culture opera, from pop to classical music, from pulp fiction to the literature of the classic canon. It is endlessly exploited in commercial advertising. Navigating interaction with the opposite sex begins at practically the earliest ages and continues throughout life. From an evolution perspective, all of this is understandable. If someone fails to mate, their specific set of genes faces oblivion. References

39 On this issue of chastity, David Buss’ well-known survey of 37 cultures found that “Many of the samples indicating no sex differences were concentrated in Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand, China, and Indonesia” (1989, 12).

40 In a rare instance, Veblen took note of sexual competition. What he failed to grasp, and what was so central for Darwin, is that all competition within a gender is ultimately sexual competition. Veblen wrote: “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” (1934a, 19).

18

Barfoot, C. C. 1995. Tumult of Images: Essays on Yeats and Politics. Edited by Peter Liebregts. Amsterdam; Atlanta, GA: Rodopi Bv Editions. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. London: Harvard University Press. Brown, Clair. 1994. American Standards of Living. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Buss, David M. 1989. “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 1–49. Camic, Charles, and Geoffrey M. Hodgson, eds. 2011. Essential Writings of Thorstein Veblen. London: Routledge. Darwin, Charles. 1874. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. ———. 2003. On the Origin of Species. Wildside Press. Davis, Arthur K. 1944. “Veblen on the Decline of the Protestant Ethic.” Social Forces 22 (3): 282–86. doi:10.2307/2571971. Dennett, Daniel C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Penguin Books. de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1990. Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve. Vol. 2. 2 vols. New York: Vintage. Diamond, Jared. 2012. The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies? New York: Viking Adult. Duesenberry, James. 1949. Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. First Edition edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dutton, Denis. 2010. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. First Edition Thus edition. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Edgell, Stephen, and Rick Tilman. 1989. “The Intellectual Antecedents of Thorstein Veblen: A Reappraisal.” Journal of Economic Issues 23 (4): 1003–26. Fieder, Martin, and Susanne Huber. 2012. “An Evolutionary Account of Status, Power, and Career in Modern Societies.” Human Nature 23: 191–207. Flannery, Kent, and Joyce Marcus. 2012. The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery, and Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Frank, Robert H. 2005. “Positional Externalities Cause Large and Preventable Welfare Losses.” American Economic Review 95 (2): 137–41. Geary, David C., Jacob Vigil, and Jennifer Byrd-Craven. 2004. “Evolution of Human Mate Choice.” Journal of Sex Research 41 (1): 27–42. doi:10.1080/00224490409552211. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 2001. “Veblen and the Problem of Causality in Economics.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 23 (3/4): 385–423. ———. 2004. The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutinalism. London: Routledge. Jennings, Ann, and William Waller. 1998. “The Place of Biological Science in Veblen’s Economics.” History of Political Economy 30 (2): 189–217. Kanazawa, Satoshi. 2009. “Evolutionary Psychological Foundations of Civil Wars.” The Journal of Politics 71 (1): 25–34. Kanazawa, Satoshi, and Mary C. Still. 1999. “Why Monogamy?” Social Forces 78 (1): 25–50. Low, Bobbi S. 2001. Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 19

Lumsden, Charles, and Edward O. Wilson. 1983. Promethean Fire: Reflections on the Origin of Mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Dutton. Mithen, Steven. 1999. The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. 1ST edition. London: Thames & Hudson. Pinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank State: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Press. Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 2 edition. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised edition. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press. Roemer, John. 2011. “Ideological and Political Roots of American Inequality.” Challenge 54 (5): 76–98. Sayer, Andrew. 2005. The Moral Significance of Class. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, Lance. 2011. Maynard’s Revenge: The Collapse of Free Market Macroeconomics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Thurnwald, Richard. 1932. Economics in Primitive Communities. London: Oxford University Press. Tilman, Rick. 1996. The Intellectual Legacy of Thorstein Veblen: Unresolved Issues. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Tooby, J, and L Cosmides. 1992. “The Psychological Foundations of Culture.” In The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Veblen, Thorstein. 1914. The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ———. 1919a. “Some Neglected Points in the Theory of Socialism.” In The Place of Science in Modern Civilization, 387–408. New York: B. W. Huebsch. ———. 1919b. “The Place of Science in Modern Civilization.” In The Place of Science in Modern Civilization, 1–31. New York: Russell & Russell. ———. 1934a. The Theory of the Leisure Class; an Economic Study of Institutions. New York: The Modern Library. ———. 1934b. The Theory of the Leisure Class; an Economic Study of Institutions. New York: The Modern library. http://archive.org/details/theoryofleisurec00vebl. ———. 1961. “The Socialist Economics of Karl Marx II.” In The Place of Science in Modern Civilization, by Thorstein Veblen, 431–56. New York: Russell & Russell. Wade, Nicholas. 2007. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York, N.Y.: Penguin. Wax, Amy L. 2004. “Evolution and the Bounds of Human.” Law and Philosophy 23 (6): 527–91. Wilson, David Sloan, and John M. Gowdy. 2015. “Human Ultrasociality and the Invisible Hand: Foundational Developments in Evolutionary Science Alter A Foundational Concept in Economics.” Journal of Bioeconomics 17: 37–52. Wilson, Margo, and Martin Daly. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldine Transaction. Wilson, Margo, Martin Daly, Stephen Gordon, and Adelle Pratt. 1996. “Sex Differences in Valuations of the Environment?” Population and Environment 18 (2): 143–59. doi:10.1007/BF02208408. Wisman, Jon D. 1989. “Straightening Out the Backward-Bending Supply Curve of Labor: From Overt to Covert Compulsion and Beyond.” Review of Political Economy 1 (1): 94–112. 20

———. 2011. “Inequality, Social Respectability, Political Power, and Environmental Devastation.” Journal of Economic Issues 45 (4): 877–900. Wisman, Jon D., and Matthew Davis. 2013. “Degraded Work, Declining Community, Rising Inequality, and the Transformation of the Protestant Ethic in America: 1870-1930.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 72 (5): 1075–1104.