Women & Evolutionary Economics - A comparison of Thorstein Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class" and Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "Women and Economics" in historical perspective

Bobock: 3

I Introduction – Why and Wherefore

Ever since Edward Bellamy’s utopian novel “Looking Backward” ¹ was published in

the year 1888, it became a major influence for thinkers like Charlotte Perkins Gilman, John Dewey, Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas and Thorstein Veblen. What was so unique about the novel, and what fascinated particularly the economist Thorstein Veblen and the feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman, was not only that it presented a vision of a future without war and crime, where men and women were equal, but that it addressed the causes for inequality and injustice in the 19 ^th century, precisely rooted in their own technologically advanced society. In

contrast to many other scholars at the time, Gilman and Veblen chose not to examine other cultures that were far away from their own life experiences. Instead, both were interested in unraveling the roots and causalities that had made their world such an unequal and often unjust place. Therefore, this essay seeks to draw a comparison between Thorstein Veblen’s and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s most respective books “The Theory of the Leisure Class” ² and “Women and

¹ Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward: 2000-1887,1888 (New York: Dover, 1996).

² Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899 (New York: Sentry Press, 1965).

Bobock: 4

Economics. ³ ” It will show that connecting these works, which were both written in the last three years of the 19 ^th century, forms a compelling comparison on how

oppressive class and gender relations came into existence and how Veblen’s ideas, which were shaped by anthropological and economic research, can be used to support, verify, extend and falsify Gilman’s theory of an inherited unhealthy relationship between the sexes.

Following the waves of Darwin’s evolutionary theories, which resulted in Herbert Spencer’s formulation of Social-Darwinism, there was a widespread opinion between 1880 and 1914 that social and biological phenomena were closely connected. ⁴ Although both Gilman and Veblen derived their ideas from comparing

social to biological and anthropological phenomena, they strongly opposed Spencer’s view that social grievances are naturally, i.e. biologically determined. While the concepts of survival and development of the human species are central in “Women and Economics” and “The Leisure Class” alike, Gilman, in contrast to

³ Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics, 1898 (New York: Dover, 1998).

⁴ Geoffrey M. Hodgson, “Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class and the genesis of evolutionary economics,” Founding of Institutional Economics: The Leisure Class and Sovereignty, ed. Warren J. Samuels (London and New York: Routledge, 1998) 170.

Bobock: 5

Veblen, did believe in the progress of civilization ⁵ . She was convinced that social

conditions were not simply imposed by God or Nature but lay in our hands. Veblen and Gilman rejected Spencer’s term, “Survival of the Fittest,” precisely because they were convinced that economical institutions, social relations and cultural habits were historically grown and were themselves results of adaptations to past circumstances and processes. ⁶ It is important to notice the

danger of a metaphorical use of the terms “Natural Law” and “Survival of the Fittest”, which were applied to justify the superiority of the dominant class, explain the predatory nature not only of animal but of human life and demonstrate the inevitability of competitive capitalism in its contemporary form. ⁷ Furthermore, the

term served not only to validate social stratifications within the US, but was used to explain a natural “right” of the superior race to conquer and occupy foreign nations – hence it came to form the basis of imperialism.

⁵ It is understood that the concept of civilization is in itself a dominantly anglo-saxon or eurocentristic concept, and is therefore implicitly excluding less ‘developed’ cultures or races. A close analysis on the importance of race for class and gender relations and discriminations can not be done in this essay.

⁶ Maureen L. Egan, “Evolutionary Theory in the Social Philosophy of Charlotte Perkins Gilman,” Hypatia Vol.4, Number 1, Spring 1989: 105.

⁷ Stephen Edgell, “The Conspicuous Conservation of Leisure Class Culture,” Veblen in Perspective: His Life and Thought (London and Armonk, New York: M.E.Sharpe, 2001) 112.

Bobock: 6

II Methodological Reflection

Starting with Veblen’s analysis of the economic conditions of the rising Leisure Class, this paper identifies the points of intersection between the mechanisms of class formation and social stratification in the United States and what Gilman calls the “sexuo-economic” relationship. The first part of the essay therefore examines common denominators and locates core problems that Veblen and Gilman address in their works. One of them is particularly the dilemma of widespread unawareness to social inequalities, due to adaptation and reception processes of individuals. The second part will take a closer look at what Veblen and Gilman see as the origins and interdependencies of social conditions and discriminations. Why is there such a great disproportion between affluence and poverty in the 19 ^th century and still today? Are economic dependencies of women on men, hidden notions of prowess and honor and revived ideas of patriotism inherent in the capitalistic system? The third part will analyze how class and gender inequalities are historically reproduced. If women's economic situation is limited to gaining their income mainly through the channels of marriage, as was widely the case in the 19th century, how did this affect the education of their children, the future of generations and the

Bobock: 7

"progress" of society in general? Since Veblen and Gilman believed that humans were the agents of social change, it is necessary to understand these developments in order to find solutions that can counter habitual inequalities and injustices, in line with the authors' judgments. The last part will conclude the essay. Looking at Veblen and Gilman in a historical perspective and locating correlations that are still of value for us today, it is important to be aware of and distinguish between those correlations that rely strictly on causality and those that merely reflect existing notions of morality, presumptions, hypotheses or arbitrary transitions. The overall aim of this paper is to better understand the importance of gender constructions for class constructions and to illustrate how Gilman and Veblen are relevant for our own state of social and economic relations today.

III Common Denominators between Veblen and Gilman

In Veblen’s first book, “The Theory of the Leisure Class,” he argues that civilization in its modern form is not actually as civilized as people believe it to be. Instead, he claims, it is merely a continuation of the pre-civilized state. The reader, as a matter of fact, may come to believe that there is no such thing as civilization — just a