You would be excused if you balk at the title of this article. After all, what has conspicuous consumption got to do with English Spellings? The ordinary applicability of this phrase, as you would have rightly assumed, avers to lavish display of wealth to demonstrate a social status. The essential point of the obnoxious display is not to advertise the great utility of the goods and services but the import of acquisition of the goods and services itself. The acquirer of the goods flaunts the goods unabashedly as if to say: I have it, do you? Embedded in these five innocuous words is the message that because of this acquisition, the acquirer is at a far higher rung on the social ladder than the plebeians. Conspicuous consumption differentiates him from the commonplace.
Still, what has conspicuous consumption got to do with English Spellings?
Quite a lot actually, if 19th century sociologist Thorstein Veblen is to be believed. Veblen, in his book “The theory of the leisure class”, tells us how the then emerging nouveau riche of the 19th century developed their conspicuous consumption trait.
As he moves forcefully through the chapters, he argues that for the nouveau riche “…The utility of consumption as an evidence of wealth is to be classed as a (derivative) growth.” He goes on to say, “Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentleman of leisure. As wealth accumulates on his hands, his own unaided effort will not avail to sufficiently put his opulence in evidence by this method. The aid of friends and competitors is therefore brought in by resorting to the giving of valuable presents and expensive feasts and entertainments.”
Still, where is the connection to conspicuous consumption? I am coming to that in a bit.
The last chapter of the book is titled, ‘The Higher learning as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture’. In this chapter he argues that any ‘recondite’ learning is analogous to reputation enhancement. The more a piece of writing is abstruse and obfuscated with ‘classicism’, the more it finds favor with the leisure class.
Veblen says, “So the archaic idiom of the English language is spoken of as ‘classic’ English. Its use is imperative in all speaking and writing upon serious topics, and a facile use of it lends dignity to even the most commonplace and trivial string of talk.”
He reasons that anything with connotations of waste, of conspicuous consumption, is a likely candidate for the leisure class to adopt. The learning of the confusing English spellings is torturous and a huge waste of time. Therefore, paradoxically, it warrants closer attention and study by the leisure class to propound its superiority.
Finally, Veblen moves in for the kill and concludes, “As felicitous an instance of futile classicism as can well be found, outside of the Far East, is the conventional spelling of the English language. A breach of the proprieties in spelling is extremely annoying and will discredit any writer in the eyes of all persons who are possessed of a developed sense of the true and beautiful. English orthography satisfies all the requirements of the canons of reputability under the law of conspicuous waste. It is archaic, cumbrous, and ineffective; its acquisition consumes much time and effort; failure to acquire it is easy of detection. Therefore it is the first and readiest test of reputability in learning, and conformity to its ritual is indispensable to a blameless scholastic life.”
Comments on this entry are closed.