The Debate on

Luxury

Vogue India, 2008

Marie Claire, France 2009

18 Century Debate
th

This was a time luxury was accepted as a

valuable part of economic growth

The thinkers of the time can be divided into two

types : those in favour of luxury : Mandeville,
Adam Smith, David Hume, Voltaire

The philosophers against luxury : Rousseau,

Veblen

The Fable of Bees

Bernard Mandeville

Productivity is aligned with growth may have

vice but better than simplicity

2 choices : work ethic and luxury OR simplicity

and virtue

Relationship between work ethic and wealth :

encourages drive for consumption

Work ethic creates respect for luxury unlike

lottery winners 80% instant winnings not
maintained

Second Argument : Not luxury that weakens

man but folly

Goya, the Blind Hen and Witches Sabbath

Other Thinkers take

on Luxury

Adam Smith Believes luxury is a selfish

interest, but f each is driven towards selfish
gain then that makes for a strong society
collectively

David Hume advocates the view that luxury

helps society advance its skills, private
ownership of property is justified

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau contributed to
many branches of social philosophy. The
Social Contract is a classic defense of
the democratic form of government.
Rousseau trusted the general will of a
democratic people, as expressed by a
vote of the majority, to make all
important decisions. He wrote very
directly.

Rousseau
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
Force does not constitute right... obedience is
due only to legitimate powers.
Free people, remember this maxim: we may
acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is
once lost.
It is unnatural for a majority to rule, for a
majority can seldom be organized and united for
specific action, and a minority can.

Rousseau

The luxury generates vanity at those which affect it. This

desire to be characterized by frivolous objects replaces noble
pride.

The unjust inequality of the richnesses which watch the

luxury is harmful with the unit of the social body. It returns
under all their difficult condition: with the rich person who
want to have more and the poor who undergo hard a posted
inequality, when the idleness, by which the luxury is always
accompanied, does not become a contempt discouraging for
the worker.

The enthusiast man of luxury is dependant on factitious

needs. He becomes a slave who does not defend any more
his freedom and prefers to buy his defense with mercenaries.
Conversely freedom, frugality and virtue go in concert and
only the small republics can cultivate such values.

The luxury can be necessary to

give bread to the poor: but if there
were luxury, there would be poor,
because there would be no
inequality.
Rousseau

The common thread that runs through

both
of these types of display is "the element
of waste that is common to both.... In
the one case it is a waste of time and
effort, in the other it is a waste of
goods"
Veblen's Theory of Conspicuous Consumption

Veblen identifies two main ways in which an individual

can display wealth; through extensive leisure activities and
through lavish expenditure on consumption and services. Being
able to engage in such wasteful activities is the key way in which
members of the leisure class display their wealth and status.

The Debate on Luxury is still alive Both in terms

of definition and context.