ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT

Mitchell / VEBLEN
/ December
AND2001ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY

Articles

THORSTEIN VEBLEN
Pioneer in Environmental Sociology

ROSS E. MITCHELL
University of Alberta

This article investigates the writings of American institutional economist Thorstein Bunde
Veblen (1857-1929) on capitalism and environment. The two main queries concern
(a) Veblen’s stand on natural resource utilization as a consequence of capitalism and (b) its
current relevance to environmental sociology. Veblen’s theories of conspicuous consump-
tion, absentee ownership, and natural resource exploitation are examined from several of his
seminal contributions. The article concludes that Veblen’s pioneering analysis of wasteful
use of natural resources and emulative consumerism is essential to environmental sociology
and timely because of current environmental crises. Future research is suggested in two
areas: (a) applying Veblen’s theoretical approaches to the ecological aspects of capitalism
and (b) comparing Veblen with other classical theorists such as Marx and Weber within the
subfield of environmental sociology.

G rowing up on a Norwegian homestead in America during the 19th cen-

tury may not seem like good fodder for scholarly achievement. Then
again, the frontier lands of America may have been the perfect staging ground for
the institutional economist Thorstein Bunde Veblen (1857-1929). Undoubtedly, his
pioneering background in the backwoods of northern Minnesota had an influential
effect on all he valued and abhorred in society. The indefatigable Veblen was never
far removed from his homesteader roots. Like a true pioneer, he broke new ground
in capitalistic and institutionalist theory, yet he continues to be misunderstood and
misinterpreted by both critics and admirers.
Veblen (1899/1967b) is renowned for his classic The Theory of the Leisure
Class: An Economic Study of Institutions (hereafter TLC). With characteristic
aplomb and sardonic wit, Veblen’s principal methodology was an application of
Darwinian notions of evolution to the study of modern economic life. His prescient
analysis of capitalism and society arguably ranks him alongside Karl Marx, Émile
Durkheim, and Max Weber. As a “rebel economist (or sociologist) of the left,” he
was deeply influenced by the works of Marx, although he was no Marxist (Foster &
Szlajfer, 1984, p. 13). Regrettably, his critical-sardonic take on American big busi-
ness at the turn of the 20th century, when industrialization was in full throttle, and

Author’s Note: I would like to express my gratitude to Michael Hughey, Naomi Krogman, Jeff Masuda, and P. A. Saram for their
invaluable comments and support at critical stages in the preparation of this article. I would also like to thank the Organization & Envi-
ronment reviewers for their assistance in strengthening my arguments in this article. Special appreciation is owed to John Bellamy
Foster for his many helpful contributions. Comments may be sent via e-mail to [email protected].
Organization & Environment, Vol. 14 No. 4, December 2001 389-408
© 2001 Sage Publications
389
390 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

an academic career beset with controversy have often sold Veblen short of his fair
due of recognition. Above all, many have failed to recognize how Veblen (1923/
1967a) so astutely situated environment and society, or his habitually mentioned
“American Plan of seizure and conversion . . . [and] of hurried exploitation instead
of economical use” (pp. 186-188).
Veblen (1899/1967b) argued that all modern materialism can be reduced to
waste by nonproductive consumption of time and visible displays of wealth, or
what he called “the great economic law of wasted effort” (p. 83). As a result, some
scholars have asserted that Veblen regarded resource scarcity problems as coupled
to societal needs, industrial shortcomings, and/or business manipulations (e.g.,
Baran & Sweezy, 1966; Barkley & Seckler, 1972; Bell, 1998; Boles, 1998; Com-
moner, 1971; Foster, 1994; Gould, Schnaiberg, & Weinberg, 1996; Hughey &
Vidich, 1993; Jacobs, 1980; Kapp, 1950, 1963; Larson, 1992; Solomon, 1999;
Szlajfer, 1984). Still, as demonstrated by the mid-1960s publication of Monopoly
Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order (Baran & Sweezy,
1966), with its Veblen-like critique of waste due to capitalism, the socio-
environmental aspects of Veblen’s work have been most fully appreciated and
developed within radical and institutionalist economic traditions in the United
States. This reflects the fact that Veblen has been more influential within economics
than sociology. Certainly, these deep-seated traditions overlap with sociology, but
until now, no comprehensive attempt has explored Veblen’s relevance to the
subfield of environmental sociology.
Recognizing that humanity has become increasingly reliant on the wasteful use
of resources to meet the North’s insatiable need to consume, I argue in this article
that Veblen’s writings offer precious insights on the role of humanity in both caus-
ing and exacerbating global environmental crises. By positioning Veblen along
these lines, my contention is that we can acquire a classical perspective to improve
our understanding of the critical hub linking environment and society.
To begin, environment not only represents the integration of living (biotic) and
nonliving elements in the environment; it is also the locus of all material support of
humanity (Schnaiberg, 1980). Environment not only embraces the physical world
and its natural resources, such as forests, land, air, and water; it implicates human
interventions and impacts as well. Ultimately, environmental crisis is inevitable
because pollution and consumption of energy and raw materials can be controlled
and restrained, but not completely avoided (O’Connor, 1988).
Environmental sociology, then, was conceived as a criticism of conventional
sociology for its lack of attention to the physical-biological-material bases of
human existence (Burch, 1971; Catton & Dunlap, 1978; Humphrey & Buttel, 1982;
Murphy, 1994; Schnaiberg, 1975). Environmental sociology as a distinct discipline
emerged from the environmental movement of the late 1960s and began to appear in
mainstream sociological journals in the 1970s (Dunlap & Catton, 1979, 1994;
Humphrey & Buttel, 1982; Krogman & Darlington, 1996). Although many envi-
ronmental sociologists remain critical of society’s ability to address environmental
dilemmas, most do not reject capitalist economic or democratic political systems in
their search for alternative solutions to such problems (Humphrey & Buttel, 1982).
Even more troubling is the assertion that the classical sociology tradition is devoid
of systematic insights into environmental problems. Contrary to this view, recent
work has indicated how much we can learn by applying classical foundations to
contemporary environmental sociology (e.g., Boles, 1998; Buttel, 1996; Dunlap,
1997; Foster, 1999; Gimenez, 2000; Murphy, 1994, 1996; Vaillancourt, 1995).
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 391

Whereas Marx achieved widespread popularity, Veblen’s notoriety as a radical

critic of American capitalism and unconventional academic has continued to
marginalize his theoretical contributions long after his death in 1929. During the
early to mid-20th century, Veblen’s influence was undeniably evident on such great
political and economic thinkers as Harold Innis, Wesley C. Mitchell, John R. Com-
mons, John Kenneth Galbraith, K. William Kapp, Paul Baran, and Paul Sweezy. All
of these credit Veblen to some extent in having helped formulate their heretical per-
spectives. But, what of more recent sources on the theory and practice of environ-
mental and natural resource sociology? As a critical theorist of conspicuous con-
sumption and wasteful extractive processes of natural resources, it is odd indeed
that Veblen has rarely been cited within the environmental sociology subfield. Sev-
eral sources in this subfield include foundational works by Bell (1998); Buttel,
Larson, and Gillespie (1990); Dunlap and Catton (1994); Field and Burch (1988);
Metha and Ouellet (1995); Redclift and Woodgate (1997); and Schnaiberg (1980).
Although many consider Durkheim, Marx, and Weber for their potential contribu-
tions to environment and society, Veblen is given short shrift—either downplayed
or ignored entirely.
Veblen’s critical thought vis-à-vis wasteful and exploitative practices of capital-
ism is evident in works such as TLC (1899/1967b) and The Theory of Business
Enterprise (1904). Although both achieved critical acclaim, or unfavorable reviews
in some circles, Veblen’s (1923/1967a) last book, Absentee Ownership and Busi-
ness Enterprise in Recent Times: The Case of America (hereafter AO) has been
largely overlooked. With several chapters on the exploitative use of natural
resources, AO is a penetrating account of all Veblen found wrong with the Ameri-
can economic system; above all, uses of property “that were speculative, unproduc-
tive, wasteful, and/or exploitative” (Vaughn, 1999, p. 716). In AO, Veblen bore wit-
ness to an age of great industrial expansion and unbridled optimism as the “taming”
of the great western frontier came to a close. His account of natural resource scar-
city and waste that had begun to plague America by the mid-19th century was
remarkably prophetic. So why have Veblen’s writings within the subdiscipline of
environmental sociology been mostly ignored or underestimated until now?
Difficult to pigeonhole and harder still to interpret, the enigmatic Veblen has
been categorized as a maverick, a radical economist, a philosophical radical, an
American Marxist, a social reformer, even an artist!1 But, what he accomplished
and may still offer us by way of broadening our understanding of human society
goes far beyond any such labels. Veblen urged his students to dispute what was con-
sidered etched in stone. His essay on the scientific aspects of modern civilization
proclaimed the elementary truth that one only knows something by the questions
that have been asked (W. Hamilton, 1958). Veblen (1919/1990) also once wrote,
“the outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow
where only one grew before” (p. 33). Consequently, I make two principal queries in
this article: (a) How did Veblen explain the capitalistic mechanisms of American
industrial and agricultural society as relevant to natural resource utilization? and
(b) Can Veblen’s work offer any insight to contemporary environmental sociology?
After examining Veblen’s (1923/1967a) examples of natural resource exploitation
in AO, I discuss some 20th-century writings on environment and society to illus-
trate how Veblen influenced and even inspired their respective views. I conclude by
suggesting environmentally relevant research that would benefit from Veblen’s the-
oretical guidance.
392 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

VEBLEN’S THOUGHT ON
SOCIETY AND ENVIRONMENT
This section addresses the first question posed in this article, namely, How did
Veblen relate capitalism to environmental issues? I explain three principal con-
structs to illustrate Veblen’s understanding of the relationship between environ-
mental exploitation and capitalism: (a) predatory-industrial class distinction;
(b) social-psychological concepts of conspicuous consumption, conspicuous lei-
sure, and conspicuous waste; and (c) absentee ownership. I stress that Veblen’s
treatment of a consumer-oriented society based on reckless waste by profit-hungry
corporations underpins the root causes of environmental degradation and pollution,
a premise even more applicable in today’s global context of rapid environmental
and socioeconomic change. If this is what concerns environmental sociology, then
Veblen represents a vitally important and largely untapped resource.

The Predation of Labor

Overall, Veblen conceptualized society as materialistically grounded, class-

divided, and evolutionary in form. As elaborated in TLC, Veblen (1899/1967b)
believed that societal development depended on the growth of technical knowledge
and the use of tools, with an emergent fundamental distinction between two classes
of persons: the industrious class (or workers) and the predatory class (also the
pecuniary or business class). Veblen’s industrious class is composed of those who
engage in productive activity, which he held to include manual craft and machine-
aided labor, engineering work, and the technical organization of labor. Workers,
engineers, and technicians produce the actual wealth (the useful goods) of modern
society. In contrast, the predatory class is made of “parasitic” business members
living off the innovation and productiveness of the rest of society. Veblen asserted
that such persons do not produce anything of benefit to the well-being of society;
instead, they rely on competitive manipulations to maximize their own personal
wealth and hinder the coordinated running of an advanced industrial society. To fur-
ther distinguish these two classes, Veblen considered the industrious class as the
bulk of society’s population, whereas the predatory class forms a numerically
smaller, privileged, upper-class segment including business owners, politicians,
lawyers, accountants, and managers.
Hence, Veblen’s predators are commensurate with Marx’s bourgeoisie or capi-
talists, John Kenneth Galbraith’s new class, and Joseph Schumpeter’s entrepre-
2
neurs. Veblen felt that the business class began to engage in predatory behavior
most acutely in the 19th century, when exploitation of human and nonhuman fac-
tors became paramount in the name of “industrial efficiency.” For Veblen, a preda-
tory life is possible only after technology has advanced enough to create a surplus
beyond what is required for sustenance. Moreover, Veblen (1898) claimed that the
“instinct for workmanship” is the most important sense for collective well-being.
Yet, workmanship pride was being perverted by the rise of pecuniary interests—
essentially, the birth of corporate America.
For Veblen, then, industry was viewed as the production of useful wealth and
business as the accumulation of profit. Moreover, the endeavor of all business
enterprises that look to a permanent continuance of their interests is to establish a
monopoly (Veblen, 1904, chap. 3). This monopoly position may be a legally estab-
lished one or based on comparative advantage due to a privileged location or control
of natural resources. In any case, the motivation was essentially the same: market
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 393

domination and profiteering to the detriment of what Veblen referred to as the

“underlying population,” or mainstream society. Veblen believed that the increas-
ing separation of financial (business) and technical skills would end in competitive
business manipulations and eventually produce an unprecedented economic col-
lapse. To a great extent, then, Veblen predicted the Great Depression, which would
follow his death by only a few months (Ashley & Orenstein, 1998). His criticisms
of monopoly control of societal institutions and mechanisms would be later taken
up by authors such as Baran and Sweezy. As I will show in the following section,
the exploitation and waste of natural resources was described and theorized by
Veblen in his critique of the “American plan” of resource utilization.

Consumption and Waste

In TLC, Veblen (1899/1967b) maintained that a large part of people’s behavior,

especially patterns of consumption and leisure, could be explained by individual
struggles for high standing. By conspicuous consumption, Veblen asserted that the
wasteful consumption of wealth (i.e., consumable goods) is held to be a symbol of
high status that typifies the upper, predatory class. He defined conspicuous leisure
as those who spend their time by not engaging in any sort of productive or socially
beneficial work. Veblen regarded conspicuous waste as an amalgamation of con-
spicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, postulating that they are two forms
of the same social phenomenon (namely, both involve a socially nonproductive
waste of time and effort).
Veblen (1899/1967a) felt that goods are used by society in two ways: to satisfy
conspicuous consumption (waste) and to achieve some end purpose. His expendi-
ture test of “goodness” is “whether it serves directly to enhance human life on the
whole—whether it furthers the life process” (p. 99). Consumption and leisure, then,
induce lower status individuals to increase their social status by emulating those
displaying obvious signs of wealth. As sociologist Robert Merton indicated, “the
Veblenian paradox is that people buy expensive goods not so much because they are
superior but because they are expensive” (quoted in Tilman, 1991, p. 176). Bur-
dened with the mark of conspicuous consumption, style and fashion lose touch with
function. Envy and emulation motivate consumption, and their continuance main-
tains the domination of the upper, predatory classes. Yet, such behaviors demon-
strate the near total irrelevance of healthy and equitable economic growth capable
of providing the material means of life for all community members to share.
Veblen (1923/1967a) was also one of the first to write on advertising and market-
ing as symbols of contemporary aspects of capitalism. Marketing became the new
“Propaganda of the Faith,” only less efficient as he described religion and sales-
manship in AO (see chap. 11, “Manufactures and Salesmanship”). The end result of
the development of new sales techniques was to powerfully encourage consump-
tion and waste. Even the sheer volume of waste (raw materials, labor, and equip-
ment) being generated by newsprint publicity to entice the masses did not pass
Veblen by:

It is, accordingly, scarcely an over-statement to say that something like one half of
the wood-pulp that goes through the paper mills, together with one-half the man-
power and mechanical equipment engaged in the paper industry and the printing
trades, is consumed in the making of competitive sales, the net effect of which is to
raise the prices paid for goods by the consumers. (p. 317)
394 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

Marketing and advertising were also the institutional mechanisms that con-
nected Veblen’s writings on the leisure class to the middle classes. Its cultural
mechanism is the absolutely decisive significance of emulation, which is central to
Veblen’s understanding of how society works. The middle classes and working
classes emulate the honorific waste and consumption styles of the upper classes so
that waste and consumption broaden out from the leisure classes to become a defin-
ing feature of the whole culture of capitalism, not just of its leisured strata (M. W.
Hughey, personal communication, July 10, 2001). The importance of emulation
also frames Veblen’s underdeveloped conception of political power. That is, he
thought emulation was so effective at keeping the other classes in line that state
coercion was less necessary.
By waste, at least in the context of TLC, Veblen (1899/1967a) was not referring
to pollution and refuse generated from industry and other human activities (i.e., the
“externalities” of modern economics); rather, he was referring to economic ineffi-
ciencies and societal consumptive patterns. To Veblen, inefficient use of natural
resources meant that their full potential for human use was unsatisfied. But, we
should not injudiciously characterize Veblen’s contribution as a simple gospel-of-
efficiency approach to conservation (ignoring issues of ecological degradation and
the intrinsic value of nature) for two reasons: (a) Although pollution was a major
problem in the 19th century in industrial centers such as Chicago, it was still behind
the scope of extensive damage that would typify the late 20th century (e.g., consider
the 1987 Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion and the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off
the Alaska coastline); and (b) Veblen’s critical discourse of conspicuous waste, lei-
sure, and consumption as immaterial status symbols, and of resource scarcity
caused by corporate and state wastefulness, makes an important contribution to the
critique of ecologically damaging capitalism. As we shall see in the next section,
waste of natural resources was a principal concern for Veblen.

The Exploitation of Natural Resources

Veblen’s (1923/1967a) considerable familiarity of natural resource exploitation

is perhaps best manifested in AO, his last work, which has been virtually ignored by
environmental sociologists. Several relevant arguments to this article presented in
AO, for example, are land expropriation by absentee owners, wasteful natural
resource extraction, and rapid deterioration of the productive land base. Examples
of natural resource utilization discussed at length include the fur trade, gold mining,
the coal and steel industries, timber extraction, waterpower, and crude oil explora-
3
tion and production. Throughout AO, Veblen severely criticized lumbermen, oil
producers, and other “Captains of Industry” who in accordance with “sound busi-
ness principles” carried out dubious practices of “seizure and conversion,” “land-
grabbing,” “disemboweling resources,” and “waste and destruction.” Veblen held
that “absentee ownership has become the master institution in American civilisa-
tion” (p. 119). Such absentee ownership was established not by virtue of workman-
ship “but on the ancient feudalistic ground of privilege and prescriptive tenure,
vested interest, which runs back to the right of seizure by force and collusion”
(p. 51); in short, by those who did not rightfully own the land but nonetheless
exploited natural, material, and human resources (or land, capital, and labor) for
financial gain.
Veblen accused “predatory” businesses of not bearing their share of environ-
mental costs because of their “business as usual” rationale. Those who acted in self-
interest especially incensed him (e.g., speculators, profiteers, or even cash crop
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 395

farmers more preoccupied with real estate values and collusive arrangements than
food production). Such preoccupations as Veblen described have continued to
motivate commercial farming operations, more so now than ever; for example,
export “luxury” crops such as coffee and tea in many tropical countries and large-
scale hog or poultry operations of the American Midwest.

The End of the Frontier

Not only pioneering in his prescient articulation of production and consumption

societal interstices, Veblen was a pioneer in the true sense of the word. Raised in a
farming community of northern Minnesota under the influence of his Norwegian
carpenter father Thomas, Veblen was personally familiar with the agricultural and
forestry practices of his day.
The frontier expansion as Veblen described it was essentially a seizure of spe-
cific natural resources for pecuniary ends. Veblen was incensed that the country’s
abundant natural and public resources were being deliberately exhausted on the
opportunistic principles of “sound business” as laid out in the American plan. For
example,

[Absentee ownership] is not particularly American, except in the sense that it has
been worked out more consistently and more extensively here than elsewhere, and
that it has been worked into the texture of American life and culture more faith-
fully. . . . This American plan or policy is very simply a settled practice of convert-
ing all public wealth to private gain on a plan of legalised seizure. (Veblen, 1923/
1967a, p. 168)

As Veblen noted, the first natural resources to fall under this plan were the fur-
bearing animals. Veblen must have witnessed the last stages of this depletion of
wildlife resources, which once formed the basis of prosperous industries (Kapp,
1963, p. 139). Veblen (1923/1967a) felt that the fur trade, “now a scarce-
remembered episode of pioneering enterprise,” was ruined by business interests
“with exemplary thoroughness and expedition and has left the place of it bare”
(p. 168). The once abundant “community goods” had been squandered away with-
out heeding the ensuing social or ecological consequences: “but the Americans
have forgiven themselves for the fur trade and its hideous accessories and have
nearly forgotten it all” (p. 169).
After the “despoliation” of wildlife for the fur trade came the taking of gold and
other precious minerals, according to Veblen, followed by the confiscation of tim-
ber, iron, other metals, oil, natural gas, waterpower, and irrigation rights. Modern
industry came of age, of which Veblen distinguished three classes: key industries,
manufactures, and farming. Key industries for Veblen were coal, steel, oil, lumber,
waterpower, or other operations that rely on natural resources. Perhaps in the com-
mon parlance of his era, Veblen included means of transportation (e.g., railways,
rights-of-ways, and harbors) in his definition of natural resources.

Forest Exploitation

In the chapter entitled “The Timber Lands and the Oil Fields,” Veblen (1923/
1967a, pp. 186-201) outlined the historical development of the lumber industry to
illustrate “how absentee ownership functions in taking over the country’s natural
resources and uses them up” (p. 187). Veblen deplored the destruction of the eastern
396 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

and Midwest forests of America in the expeditious pursuit of net gain by “enterpris-
ing” lumbermen. As Veblen described it, most of the evergreens east of the plains
(i.e., pine, hemlock, spruce, and cedar) were “run through and virtually exhausted
during the latter half of the nineteenth century” (p. 188). Veblen felt the production
of lumber more than any other natural resource exemplified “how absentee owner-
ship functions in taking over the country’s natural resources and using them up”
(p. 187).
Attesting to his pioneering background, Veblen’s (1923/1967a) use of forestry-
related terminology was highly specialized. Veblen explained how “waste prod-
ucts” were increasingly turned into usable goods as technology developed. Veblen
also felt that shortsightedness in viewing the timber lands as inexhaustible had led
to the destruction of the biggest (or most economically valuable) and accessible tree
species. Citing the example of “the pineries of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minne-
sota,” Veblen described how the lumbermen would take out only the marketable,
large diameter grades of pine timber, leave the slashings (unwanted woody mate-
rial) on the ground, and wait 2 or 3 years for the material to dry. Then, either by acci-
dent or intentionally, the land would be burned and any remaining timber destroyed
(pp. 189-190). Veblen observed that fires from logged-over areas would frequently
spread into nearby forests, wiping out more than half of the original stands of
timber.
Veblen (1923/1967a) also blamed “independent farmers” (or pioneers) for their
part in the forest destruction. Driven by their “nearly penniless” situation, they
would hastily fell stands of hardwood timber in “half-wild country . . . far out of
reach of reasonable transportation,” burn the timber, and sell the ash, which was
later converted into potash (p. 188). As Veblen stated, “they took this way out of
present [financial] difficulties at the cost of the future; and the future, which has
now become the present, is paying the cost in a scarcity of timber” (p. 188). This
perceptive concern was a forerunner of the current sustainable development thrust,
which has become so widely touted by trade proponents and mainstream environ-
mentalists alike. By denouncing fraudulent and wasteful logging practices, Veblen
stated the case for a judicious utilization of forest resources. Hence, Veblen was an
early advocate of sound forestry stewardship, a tribute to his small-scale farming
and forestry experience.
More than anything, Veblen (1923/1967a) decried this uneconomical use of for-
ested stands using “dubious practices . . . carried through at the cost of the commu-
nity at large” (p. 189). Veblen indicated that “this enterprise of the lumber-
men . . . has destroyed appreciably more timber than it has utilised,” although he
added that better logging and milling practices were being employed at the begin-
ning of the 20th century, evidence of improved technological and management
expertise (p. 190). To be sure, Veblen exonerated the lumbermen somewhat by stat-
ing “none of this passionate endeavor to get rich quick has been willfully [italics
added] destructive” (p. 191). Yet, Veblen accused the lumbermen of not only mate-
rially profiting from the timber exploitation but also gaining enhanced prestige and
power through fraudulent means if need be: “[Many] find their way into the federal
senate, sometimes even at a cash outlay . . . and have honorably kept faith with all
the vested interests” (p. 192).
Veblen (1923/1967a) also elaborated how corporate interests with government
support expropriated land resources. As he noted, “there was a shady side to
some—quite a large proportion they say—of the transactions involved in so acquir-
ing title to these timber-lands or to the stand of timber on them” (pp. 188-189). Still,
Veblen allowed that “this somewhat prevalent shady complexion of the enterprise”
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 397

was less malicious than what was actually done to the land itself in the rush for prof-
its (p. 189). Interested individuals and corporations, and large absentee owners in
particular operated under a concerted plan of seizure and conversion to gain control
of the remaining timber stands. As Veblen stated,

Under this American plan of expeditious seizure and conversion to private owner-
ship, the spectacularly wasteful competition among enterprising pioneers has now
run its course and has worked out in a system of collusive management in behalf of
these larger absentee owners who have acquired title to (virtually) all that is left.
(p. 193)

Monopolistic efforts served to secure title to landholdings as the lumbermen col-

lectively waited for an eventual rise in lumber prices before converting the trees to
valuable timber. Inefficient resource use, collusive management, and tariff protec-
tion were all designed to drive up lumber prices and hence profits. Veblen (1923/
1967a) maintained that what remained after logging by absentee owners would cost
society dearly, whereas it should have been managed “on a plan of deliberate econ-
omy and conservation from the outset” (p. 193).

Other Natural Resources

Veblen (1923/1967a) wrote that what transpired with other natural resources did
not substantially differ from the case of America’s timberlands; “these others, too,
show the characteristic traits of the American plan—initial waste and eventual
absentee ownership on a large scale and on a quasi-monopolistic footing” (p. 194).
Veblen indicated that coal, iron, and waterpower had already reached a reasonably
settled state “of collusive management under corporation control on a basis of
unqualified absentee ownership,” and the extraction of crude oil, “resembling the
earlier lumbering enterprise,” was already “marked by a headlong competitive rush
to disembowel the available resources expeditiously at any cost” (p. 197). In many
ways, Veblen’s satirical description of natural resource use for capitalistic ends
approximates Marxian notions of industrial bourgeoisie exploitation of land and
raw materials into surplus value.
Veblen (1923/1967a) also described the plight of American farmers as being
manipulated by “background vested interests” (p. 133).4 Veblen’s main criticism of
farmers was their often wasteful agricultural practices to satisfy pecuniary inter-
ests. Simply, modern farmers were caught between merchants who paid them little
for their agricultural produce but sold to unwary consumers at inflated prices.
According to Veblen,

the margin of benefit that comes to [the modern farmer] from his work is com-
monly at a minimum. He is commonly driven by circumstances over which he has
no control, the circumstances being made by that system of absentee ownership.
(p. 130)

For Veblen (1923/1967a), then, large agricultural holders were also absentee
owners; by investing in their own farms, they believed themselves to have vested
interests in their earning capacities. Veblen asserted that farmers tend to acquire
more land than they can afford and maintain, with negative economic, social, and
environmental impacts. Traditional values of teamwork, workmanship, and com-
munity spirit were being replaced by pecuniary interests. Modern farming methods
398 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

were run “on such a scale that no individual owner can carry on by use of his own
personal work alone” (p. 131). In short, Veblen was concerned that the interdepen-
dence of farming areas and country towns magnified speculation in the rural econ-
omy, in turn fueled by increasingly available credit. He lamented that the oversup-
ply of agricultural land would drastically reduce farmland prices and lead to farm
foreclosures and bankruptcies during times of recession. Such a scenario was to be
borne out during the dust bowl era of the 1930s and again during the 1980s in Amer-
ica’s Midwest.

Technology and Nature

At first glance, Veblen’s (1923/1967a) views on natural resources and technol-

ogy seem to contain some striking inconsistencies with the preceding analysis on
waste and exploitation. Notably, Veblen felt that natural resources are valuable as a
social construct because society is willing to pay for their use. For instance, in his
chapter “The Technology of Physics and Chemistry,” Veblen spoke of natural
resources (including timber, coal, oil, and ores) as constantly increasing as a result
of improved technical knowledge. He observed that rapidly evolving technologies
had brought new tools, designs, and processes to make better use of natural
resources, such as more efficient cutting methods in sawmills.5 In praise of techno-
logical advances, Veblen maintained that natural resources are resources, not
merely features of the landscape, “because the technicians know how to turn them
to account” (p. 272); in fact, so much so that by the early part of the 20th century,
Veblen claimed that the technicians had become a standard factor of production.
Still, his faith in technology did not stop Veblen (1923/1967a) from severely
criticizing those who applied it irrationally, inefficiently, or even unjustly. In the
haste to exploit the nation’s crude oil and gas, for instance, Veblen complained that
the “wild-cat” enterprises of large absentee corporations operating on a “shoe-
string” budget were ill prepared and undermanned (pp. 198-199). Lacking “compe-
tent technical advice and experience,” the petroleum industry was yet another
example of “the vested interests that move in the background” (p. 199). It was not
technology in itself to be held responsible for the misuse of natural resources.
Veblen blamed the (mis)management of industry in which business owners shed all
responsibility “for any derangement, waste or unemployment which this ‘safe and
sane’ business practice entails on the rest of the industrial system” (p. 277). In
essence, greedy profiteers distorted the sound application of technology, wasting
productive labor and natural resources in the process.
What Veblen can add to our understanding of the use of technology is a more
critical approach to industrial and bureaucratic management. He believed engi-
neers and technicians, with their greater knowledge of industrial processes, to be
intrinsically more adept at the “business” of production.6 Evidence of this technical
ingenuity in modern times to reduce waste and hence increase production effi-
ciency includes state-of-the-art waste treatment facilities, bioremediation, and
other “environmentally friendly” techniques. Veblen bemoaned that businessmen,
accountants, and managers of money had displaced the engineers and others profi-
cient at producing goods. Nineteenth-century cultural values of pragmatism, thrift,
industriousness, and productive efficiency gave way to a system of accountancy
resting on salesmanship, speculation, and loan credit. In short, fine workmanship
and stewardship of natural resources were cast aside during the “successful” emer-
gence of monopoly capitalism.
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 399

Additionally, as much as Veblen (1923/1967a) advocated modern technology,

there is no denying his strong convictions in the sustainable use of natural resources
for the enjoyment of future generations. Veblen insisted that natural resources
could not be managed in any sort of sustainable way if the land continued to be
senselessly exploited by avaricious land barons. For example,

The natural resources of America are, or have been, unexampled in abundance and
availability, and they have always been the main factor on which the life and com-
fort of the inhabitants have depended. . . . What stands in the way of this material
good fortune, immediately and directly, is the absentee ownership of these natural
resources. (p. 124)

Veblen’s views on natural resources as having to serve some productive end to be

useful to society would undoubtedly be well appreciated by contemporary
resource-dependent communities. Also, as demonstrated in this section, Veblen
foresaw problems associated with the wanton destruction of natural resources,
which eventually leads to scarcity and possible elimination if appropriate (albeit
technical) measures are not taken. If Stephen Tyler (1999) was right in claiming that
there are no more resource frontiers, and the emphasis has shifted to technological
solutions, Veblen would have wholeheartedly concurred, as long as such solutions
were linked to small-scale and needs-based production and consumption as
opposed to the exploitative control of state-sanctioned profit mongers.

VEBLEN’S INFLUENCE ON
CAPITALISM AND ENVIRONMENT
In Veblen’s historical treatment of the rise of capitalism, wealth, and property
represent not only reward for labor and savings but predation and exploitation on
labor and land alike. Veblen claimed that this was not only due to predacious busi-
ness opportunists and profiteers but also to the proclivity of the North’s “leisure”
and middle classes to engage in extravagant consumerism. But, Veblen also fore-
saw that the working class, or “underlying population,” as he preferred, would
attempt to emulate the wasteful habits and symbolic trappings of the middle
classes. False conscientiousness rears its ugly head, with “invidious consumption”
as its progeny.
As pointed out in the introduction, Veblen’s most significant influences have
been in ecological economics rather than environmental sociology. For example,
Harold Innis (1894-1952), a former University of Toronto economics professor and
an early follower of Veblen dating to when the latter was at the University of Chi-
cago, studied North American natural resource–based industries: the fur trade, cod
fishing, and the pulp and paper industries. Innis (1929) felt that Veblen’s influence
on economic theory was a result of the frontier, “but it was the frontier of the indus-
trial revolution which influenced his thought and not of American agriculture”
(p. 59). In The Fur Trade in Canada, Innis (1930) was less critical of the fur trade
than Veblen, who felt that this period was representative of the predatory conver-
sion of public resources for private gain. Veblen (1923/1967a) felt the fur trade
“was an unwritten chapter on the debauchery and manslaughter entailed upon the
Indian population of the country,” a rotten business so distasteful that it produced
“the sclerosis of the American soul” (pp. 168-169).
Veblen’s theories apparently also influenced multiple-use land management
during the New Deal policies of the U.S. federal administration. One of Veblen’s
400 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

students, Claud Franklin Clayton, was a leading figure in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture during the formative years of research on land economics up to World
War II (Vaughn, 1999). Clayton contributed to planning and overseeing the U.S.
Resettlement Administration’s submarginal land-utilization program of the 1930s.
Vaughn described a Maryland project launched by Clayton in 1935 as evidence of
Veblen’s multiple-use concepts to improve efficiency and reduce waste. The pro-
ject demonstrated that wildlife management is compatible with forestry while
enhancing scenic beauty, outdoor recreation, and opportunities for environmental
education (Vaughn, 1997, as cited in Vaughn, 1999).
Other authors on industrialism, modernization, and consumerist behavior have
borrowed from Veblen. Undoubtedly adopting both Marxist and Veblenian
thought, ecological historian Christopher Vecsey (1980) asserted that American
wealth has depended on the colonization of Native Americans to raise capital for
industry and transform nature. In the same volume, Wilbur Jacobs (1980) identified
several reasons for environmental problems faced by modern society, of which at
least three appear to draw on Veblenian ideology. Firstly, the competitive exploita-
tion of nonrenewable natural resources (such as oil, gas, and minerals) has greatly
exceeded the extent to which this natural wealth has been sacrificed to meet societal
demands (i.e., by states, industry, and consumers in the name of “progress”). Sec-
ond, recognizing that American (and other) pioneers from the earliest times wasted
resources too, both the overall quantity and the cumulative impacts of environmen-
tal degradation have intensified and caused permanent damage in many cases.
Third, the state has had an increasing role in environmental despoliation because of
its links with predatory business interests and scientists. In Veblen’s (1923/1967a)
words, “in the last analysis the nation remains a predatory organism, in practical
effect an association of persons moved by a community interest in getting some-
thing for nothing by force and fraud” (p. 442). Jacobs (1980) also noted that Veblen
was an eyewitness to wasteful farming practices and to business domination of gov-
ernment in his analysis of America’s 19th-century dilemma and praised his
advanced understanding of environmental social costs (p. 56).
Veblen also greatly influenced the pioneering social ecologist James Rorty,
stemming from their brief friendship when Rorty took Veblen’s classes at the New
School for Social Research in New York City (Boles, 1998). Rorty based much of
his analysis on Veblenian principles, especially on capitalistic waste and ineffi-
ciency. Like Veblen, Rorty’s social criticisms included how the profit system inhib-
its the formation of an ecologically sustainable society, the problems of an advertis-
ing-controlled media, and how capitalism distorts the efficient use of technology
(Boles, 1998). Again in pure Veblenian fashion, Rorty felt the advancement of tech-
nology necessitated a corresponding change and reorientation in social institutions
(Boles, 1998). Yet, there are some major differences in their respective views.
Chiefly, Veblen’s (1921/1933) brief emphasis on engineers as leaders of a new soci-
ety in The Engineers and the Price System had all but disappeared in his gloomy
outlook for American capitalism as substantiated throughout AO (1923/1967a),
from which he could see no escape. In contrast, Rorty moved away from a theoreti-
cal position critical of capitalism and technology in his later years. Yet, his recogni-
tion that “ecological problems are social problems” was as relevant then as now
(Boles, 1998, p. 155), to which Veblen would have most likely concurred.
Remarkably, not one of these illustrations of Veblen’s approach to capitalism
and environment originates from the academic realm of environmental sociology.
Instead, his epistemology is usually situated within environmental economics or
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 401

politics—even consumer studies. One exception is environmental sociologist

Michael Bell (1998), who highlighted the ecological implications of his work as
follows:

Veblen argued that . . . because of your wealth and position, you do not have to
engage in productive activities yourself. You can command the environment
through your command of other people, a command made possible by wealth and
social position. Environmental power thus indicates social power. (p. 44)7

Still, while providing a commendable synopsis of one of Veblen’s principal

beliefs (i.e., conspicuous consumption), Bell (1998) fell short of extending
Veblen’s ideological thought on societal materialism to cutthroat and exploitative
corporate practices and government complicity. In the process, a grand opportunity
is missed to infer a production-consumption relationship in genuine Veblenesque
fashion; the supercilious statesmen, manufacturers, and merchants so adroit at
exploiting consumers and resources. Also, the singular reverence aimed at TLC
(Veblen, 1899/1967b) is typical of most sociological discussions of Veblen. Most
analyses tend to disregard his separation of industry and business, for instance, or
how large corporate interests employed advertising and credit to their pecuniary
advantage.
Allan Schnaiberg and Kenneth Gould have also considered Veblen from within
environmental sociology, albeit to a very limited extent. For instance, Gould et al.
(1996) emphasized Veblen’s contention that the steadily increasing control of pro-
duction decision making by accountants over engineers represented a qualitative
shift in modern industry. In a corresponding alignment of Veblen’s own conten-
tions, Gould et al. asserted that production and transportation details, including
how to obtain raw materials and where to dispose of waste, are still dealt with by
engineers and lower level workers, “but the management of these enterprises is
increasingly concerned only with fiscal considerations—the so-called bottom line
of the modern period” (p. 172). Veblen’s influence was clearly reflected as
Schnaiberg and Gould (1994) made the case that “firms are increasingly owned by
‘absentee’ investors: actors who neither live in nor particularly care about the com-
munity in which the firm is located” (p. 60). It is a shame, though, that Veblen was
only briefly discussed in this otherwise excellent contribution to environmental
sociology.
In contrast, Veblen is given extensive credit in at least two significant radical
economic works highly critical of capitalism: Baran and Sweezy’s (1966) Monop-
oly Capital and Kapp’s (1963) Social Costs of Business. Kapp’s analysis, though
influenced by welfare economics, was Veblenian to the core in its institutional
study of the social costs associated with the competitive utilization of resources,
planned obsolescence, and destructive modern technologies. For example,

What Veblen has to say on “sabotage” and the delay and obstruction of industry
and output (“the conscientious withdrawal of efficiency”) . . . on waste and dupli-
cation in industry, transportation, and distribution . . . the cumulative growth of
salesmanship (and publicity) and their play on human credibility and the sensibili-
ties of fear and shame; or on pecuniary waste . . . [on] personal futility and [on] the
retardation and repression of civilization by the price system and its commercial
standards of truth—these will always remain important suggestions [italics
added] . . . define[d] as “social costs.” (p. 43)8
402 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

Evidently, Veblen’s inspiration on the social and environmental impacts of capi-

talism has arguably been more deeply explored within fields other than environ-
mental sociology. As one journalist has stated, some see in Veblen’s writing “an
early understanding of the train wreck that awaits when insatiable desires meet
finite natural resources—particularly as growing nations begin to mimic America’s
consumer culture” (Solomon, 1999, p. E1). Others feel Veblen is “an early environ-
mentalist standing opposed to the irrational (and in our day, dangerous) wasteful-
ness of an industrial civilization guided by business interests alone” (Hughey &
Vidich, 1993, p. 500). A Veblenian economist criticizing corporations, waste, and
natural resource exploitation at the time of unbridled economic growth in America,
then, does appear to have much to say on society and environment.

CONCLUSION
Can environmental sociology do without Veblen? My argument is that without
him and the particular insights that he provided—which, sadly, have not been ade-
quately embraced within the field—environmental sociology is essentially impov-
erished. So, how can Veblen enlighten those who concern themselves within this
subfield? If, as Buttel (1997) indicated, the environmental implications of eco-
nomic, political, and cultural institutions dominate research in environmental soci-
ology, then we would do well to revisit and apply Veblenian institutional logic to
such challenges.
To summarize, the three main areas with which Veblen largely concerned him-
self, which are entirely relevant to the study of environmental sociology, are capi-
talism, waste (both production and consumption), and absentee ownership. The
thrust of Veblen’s analysis is on the contradiction between the capitalistic system,
devoted to predatory, pecuniary ends, and the required engineering or technology to
transform raw materials into consumable goods, or production of use values. Profit
making at any social or environmental cost is the guiding principle that threads
most of his later works. As Veblen so forcefully articulated time and time again,
business interests are foreordained to exploit and squander resources. Sane, ratio-
nal, efficient use of the environment and its resources is cast aside as externalities in
cornucopian revelry. Any socioeconomic and political system built on the belief of
“getting something for nothing” has no other choice but to satisfy its vested inter-
ests, leaving the rest of humanity to pay the costs of reduced availability of
resources and environmental degradation.
Incessant waste of natural resources and relentless consumption in an age of
“globalness” are environmental problems that many sociologists and economists
treat as contemporary problems. These are not novel problems for society, although
they most certainly have intensified to crisis or near crisis levels during the 20th
century. At the core of TLC, Veblen (1899/1967b) believed that society is inher-
ently wasteful. However, TLC has often been misinterpreted to refer to the foibles
and follies of the rich engaged in excessive consumption; “those who take this inter-
pretation then superimpose Veblen upon utilitarianism” (D. B. Hamilton, 1987,
p. 1539). Veblen was not saying that conspicuous consumption was a kind of social
aberration or irrational consumption, or that we should always consider the useful-
ness of our conduct and its consequences. To the contrary, Veblen rejected any kind
of hedonistic explanation of consumption behavior. His was a theory of consump-
tion in cultural as opposed to individual terms, in that all behavior is a culturally
conditioned and derived form (D. B. Hamilton, 1987).
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 403

How does this all tie into capitalism? One of the main consequences of capital-
ism has been the transformation of consumption and waste into an honorific
endeavor. Consumption for its own sake, with all the waste that it entails, becomes a
defining feature of any culture under corporate capitalism. Thus, it is very difficult
to read Veblen without understanding that he was both skeptical and critical of this
development. One of the prevailing problems with capitalism in his view was that
as industry became increasingly specialized, a state of affairs would be reached in
which the business controllers of the industrious sphere would have little knowl-
edge or understanding of its functioning. To increase profits by producing and sell-
ing more goods rather than improve production technologies and processes, Veblen
felt that businessmen would turn instead to wasteful business practices or manipu-
lations such as market speculation and state-sanctioned collusion. Although Veblen
was concerned with waste, it was the cultural consequences and implications of
contemporary capitalism that drew his wrath.
Absentee ownership is another pioneering concept that Veblen critiqued during
an age of expansionary industrial growth. Veblen saw that wasteful industrial and
civil practices become “normalized” as the leadership direction of businesses
change, especially under absentee ownership. For Veblen, among those who com-
prehend his position, there is an inseparable connection among business corpora-
tions and government complicity to help them achieve their financial objectives.
Thus, Veblen understood business leadership as an important social change dimen-
sion, a fact that tends to be ignored by many sociologists. Accusing managers of
“trained incapacity” with their narrow, profit-oriented, and bureaucratic outlook,
Veblen argued that an inherently poor understanding of efficient (and sustainable)
production practices leads most managers and owners to wantonly exploit
resources. He foresaw that the increased processing efficiency of (absentee) firms
was responsible for the extraction of unprecedented volumes of raw materials,
often leaving local communities at the mercy of corporate boardroom decisions.
Thus, his analysis is especially relevant to those areas dependent on natural
resources for livelihood, particularly those adversely affected by external, monop-
oly control.
Additionally, Veblen was among the first to make the connection between indus-
try and its inherent waste as a class-based phenomena. As Saram (1994) has
observed, Veblen not only located gender and class as crucial, interactive dynamics
within a single stratification system; he outlined how these dynamics are further
shaped by ethnicity (e.g., Black and White populations), nationality (e.g., North
and South states), and patterns of residence (e.g., rural and urban areas). Yet, this is
not to say that Veblen was the only theorist of his time or earlier to discuss such
issues. Marx, for example, understood exploitation of labor on the basis of class as
the controlling dynamic of capitalism and, as argued by Foster (1999), was very
concerned about the enormous waste generated in agriculture and industry, even
municipal sewage.9 By providing us with a classical perspective for environmental
sociology, then, Veblen provided something analogous to Marx.
The ubiquitous Veblen is far from having served out his usefulness to society.
Veblen’s works represent an absolutely essential contribution to environmental and
natural resource sociology. Two valuable points can be made here. First, and most
regrettably so, most environmental sociologists have chosen not to take a serious,
comprehensive look at Veblen’s writings. Veblen has been mainly positioned
within ecological economics or political economy, including noteworthy scholars
such as Innis and Kapp, but his contributions have not carried forward to environ-
404 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

mental sociology. Second, most allusions to the environmental sociological aspects

of Veblen’s writings are brief and nonsystemic. At best, he has warranted minor
deliberation, and at worst, his critique of consumer society has been misconstrued
to affect a small segment: the so-called leisure or predatory class. It is a mystery
why Veblen’s (1923/1967a) final book, AO, a damning critique of the ecologically
destructive and wasteful aspects of capitalism, and other relevant works have not
merited significant discussion within environmental sociology.
So, where does this spotlight on Veblen, society, and environmental exploitation
lead? I believe that environmental sociology could categorically benefit from a
more systematic form of attention to the conjoint effects of technology, environ-
ment, and broader societal forces. Most crucially, Veblen made an early connection
between the production-consumption nexus, especially among rapidly expanding
countries of the North, and predatory businesses that rely on mass marketing and
trendy consumerism for profits. Specifically building on the preceding analysis,
environmental and natural resource sociology could profit immensely from
Veblen’s theoretical underpinnings in the following two areas.
Linking Veblen’s thought on production and consumerism. Capitalism-
environmental models could be better informed by a Veblenian perspective. His
many useful prescriptions, such as incorporating technical input in corporate deci-
sion making, implementation of efficient extraction and production processes, rein-
forcement of workmanship values, and encouragement of responsible consumer
habits, all have relevance to the interrelationship of environment and society.
Veblen’s insistence that political and economic leaders should exercise some sense
of responsibility for the sake of humanity and his call for a societal reordering to
halt ever-expanding consumption and waste can provide some viable guidelines for
the formulation of responsive, sane public policy.
Examining environmental sociology from a classical perspective. An improved
understanding of environmental crises as linked to increasing production and con-
sumption trends could be obtained by comparing the works of Marx, Weber,
Veblen, and other social critics. Although Marx has been substantially analyzed
from an ecological perspective (see Benton, 1996; Burkett, 1999; Foster, 1999,
2000; Gimenez, 2000; O’Connor, 1988), Veblen’s detailed distinctions of gender,
class, and consumerism in an industrial-capitalism discourse have much to offer
that many have either failed to recognize or simply chosen to ignore. According to
Michael Hughey and Arthur Vidich (1993), Veblen’s understanding of modern cap-
italism surpasses that of Marx and Weber. For example,

Weber did not recognize the systematic irregularities which Veblen found in the
“imbecile institutions” and pecuniary calculus of the price system, including its
irresponsible ecological wastefulness, its disregard for the management of
resources in relation to human needs (“human serviceability”), and its periodic
overexpansion of loan credit. (p. 500)

In contrast, Raymond Murphy (1994) drew on the implications of Weber’s anal-

ysis of Western rationalization by considering the complex relationship between
social action and the processes of nature. Murphy’s conception of environmental
classes is explored in terms of who benefits or not from an environmental degrada-
tion perspective, and he contended that nature must matter, even to sociologists.
This position has also been taken by Matthias Gross (2000), who suggested that the
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 405

reflections of classical sociologists such as Émile Durkheim and Georg Simmel

may be used “as a basis for a positive, intimate relationship between society and the
rest of nature” (p. 277). Such views are worth exploring further in relation to
Veblen’s own interpretation of the political economy of waste, consumption, and
environmental crises.
As one author has pleaded, “Where is Thorstein Veblen now that we need him?”
(Diggins, 1993, p. 481). It is hoped that this inquiry may foment a deeper under-
standing of the socioenvironmental impacts of global economic activities from a
Veblenian perspective. His three iconoclastic works, The Theory of the Leisure
Class (1899/1967b), The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904), and Absentee
Ownership (1923/1967a), should be reconsidered within disciplines such as envi-
ronmental sociology and political ecology. The irrationalities of consumption
owing to envy and emulation as Veblen saw it at the turn of the 20th century have
entrenched themselves in a global economy (i.e., the “New Order of Business,” as
Veblen called it long before Reaganomics and Thatcherism, which so preoccupied
the 1980s). The spread of consumerism abetted “by force or fraud” through sleek
marketing and stockholder demands has led to a worldwide corporate stranglehold.
To a much greater extent today than in Veblen’s era, productive efficiency and
workmanship are sacrificed for the reification of money making and planned obso-
lescence. Leisure itself has become a consumable good, as Veblen predicted. In
short, “the greatest voice from the frontier world of America” (Galbraith, 1958/
1969, p. 52) still has much to offer contemporary society and the environment we
all share.

NOTES
1. An interesting account of Veblen as artist, economist, and radical philosopher can be
found in Joseph Dorfman (1958).
2. On this point, and for an excellent analysis of Veblen’s theoretical treatment of Ameri-
can capitalism as distinct from Marx and Schumpeter, see Paul Sweezy (1958).
3. For more on Veblen’s account of natural resources, see “The Case of America”
(Veblen, 1923/1967a, pp. 119-201), especially the subchapters “The Independent Farmer,”
“The Country Town,” “The New Gold,” and “The Timber Lands and The Oil Fields.”
4. For Veblen’s (1923/1967a) description of rural America at the turn of the 20th century,
see his subchapters “The Independent Farmer” and “The Country Town” (pp. 129-165). See
also Veblen’s (1919/1969) The Vested Interests and the Common Man.
5. Concurringly, Freudenburg, Frickel, and Gramling (1995) asserted that increases in
technical ingenuity have allowed humans to extract previously inaccessible resources.
6. See Veblen’s (1921/1933) The Engineers and the Price System.
7. Allan Schnaiberg (1980) also mentioned Veblen for his views on corporate “sabotage”
of production, whereby product prices are kept high, but supply is restricted to increase prof-
its (pp. 254-255).
8. Kapp (1963) defined social costs as “all direct and indirect losses sustained by third
persons or the general public as a result of unrestrained economic activities” (p. 13).
9. See Marx’s (1894/1981, pp. 195-197) section entitled “Utilization of the Refuse of
Production” in Capital, Vol. 3.

REFERENCES
Ashley, D., & Orenstein, D. M. (1998). Sociological theory: Classical statements (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
406 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

Baran, P. A., & Sweezy, P. M. (1966). Monopoly capital: An essay on the American eco-
nomic and social order. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Barkley, P. W., & Seckler, D. W. (1972). Economic growth and environmental decay. New
York: Harcourt Brace.
Bell, M. M. (1998). An invitation to environmental sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Benton, T. (Ed.). (1996). The greening of Marxism. New York: Guilford.
Boles, J. M. (1998). James Rorty’s social ecology: Technology, culture, and the economic
base of an environmentally sustainable society. Organization & Environment, 11, 155-
179.
Burch, W. R., Jr. (1971). Daydreams and nightmares: A sociological essay on the American
environment. New York: Harper & Row.
Burkett, P. (1999). Marx and nature: A red and green perspective. New York: St. Martin’s.
Buttel, F. H. (1996). Environmental and resource sociology. Rural Sociology, 61(1), 56-76.
Buttel, F. H. (1997). Social institutions and environmental change. In M. Redclift & G. Wood-
gate (Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 40-54).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Buttel, F. H., & Humphrey, C. R. (1996). Sociological theory and the natural environment.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Buttel, F. H., Larson, O. L., & Gillespie, G. W. (1990). The sociology of agriculture.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Catton, W. R., Jr., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The
American Sociologist, 13, 252-256.
Commoner, B. (1971). The closing circle: Nature, man, and technology. New York: Knopf.
Diggins, J. P. (1993). Thorstein Veblen and the literature of the theory class. International
Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 6(4), 481-490.
Dorfman, J. (1958). The source and impact of Veblen’s thought. In D. F. Dowd (Ed.),
Thorstein Veblen: A critical reappraisal (pp. 1-12). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Dunlap, R. E. (1997). The evolution of environmental sociology. In M. Redclift & G. Wood-
gate (Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 21-39).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Dunlap, R. E., & Catton, W. R., Jr. (1979). Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Soci-
ology, 5, 243-273.
Dunlap, R. E., & Catton, W. R., Jr. (1994). Struggling with human exemptionalism: The rise,
decline and revitalization of environmental sociology. The American Sociologist, 25, 5-29.
Field, D. R., & Burch, W. R., Jr. (1988). Rural sociology and the environment. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Foster, J. B. (1994). The vulnerable planet: A short economic history of the environment.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental
sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366-405.
Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s ecology: Materialism and nature. New York: Monthly Review
Press.
Foster, J. B., & Szlajfer, H. (Eds.). (1984). The faltering economy: The problem of accumula-
tion under monopoly capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Freudenburg, W. R., Frickel, S., & Gramling, R. (1995). Beyond the nature/society divide:
Learning to think about a mountain. Sociological Forum, 10(3), 361-391.
Galbraith, J. K. (1969). The affluent society (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (Original
work published 1958)
Gimenez, M. E. (2000). Does ecology need Marx? Organization & Environment, 13, 292-
304.
Gould, K. A., Schnaiberg, A., & Weinberg, A. S. (1996). Local environmental struggles: Cit-
izen activism in the treadmill of production. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
 Mitchell / VEBLEN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 407

Gross, M. (2000). Classical sociology and the restoration of nature: The relevance of Émile
Durkheim and Georg Simmel. Organization & Environment, 13, 277-291.
Hamilton, D. B. (1987). Institutional economics and consumption. Journal of Economic
Issues, 21(4), 1531-1554.
Hamilton, W. (1958). Veblen—Then and now. In D. F. Dowd (Ed.), Thorstein Veblen: A criti-
cal reappraisal (pp. 13-23). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hughey, M. W., & Vidich, A. J. (1993). Veblen, Weber and Marx on political economy. Inter-
national Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 6(4), 491-505.
Humphrey, C. R., & Buttel, F. H. (1982). Environment, energy and society. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Innis, H. A. (1929). A bibliography of Thorstein Veblen. The Southwestern Political and
Social Science Quarterly, 10(1), 56-68.
Innis, H. A. (1930). The fur trade in Canada: An introduction to Canadian economic history.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jacobs, W. (1980). Indians as ecologists and other environmental themes in American fron-
tier history. In C. Vecsey & R. W. Venables (Eds.), American Indian environments: Eco-
logical issues in Native American history (pp. 46-64). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univer-
sity Press.
Kapp, K. W. (1950). The social cost of private enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Kapp, K. W. (1963). Social costs of business enterprise. New York: Asia.
Krogman, N. T., & Darlington, J. D. (1996). Sociology and the environment: An analysis of
journal coverage. The American Sociologist, 27(3), 39-55.
Larson, J. (1992). Elegant technology: Economic prosperity from an environmental blue-
print. Westwood, MA: Riverdale.
Marx, K. (1981). Capital, Vol. 3. New York: Vintage. (Original work published 1894)
Metha, M. D., & Ouellet, E. (Eds.). (1995). Environmental sociology: Theory and practice.
North York, Canada: Captus.
Murphy, R. (1994). Rationality and nature: A sociological inquiry into a changing relation-
ship. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Murphy, R. (1996). Sociology and nature: Social action in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
O’Connor, J. (1988). Capitalism, nature and socialism: A theoretical introduction. Capital-
ism, Nature, Socialism, 1(1), 11-23.
Redclift, M., & Woodgate, G. (Eds.). (1997). The international handbook of environmental
sociology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Saram, P. A. (1994). Gender and stratification in Veblen’s economic sociology. California
Sociologist, 17, 59-79.
Schnaiberg, A. (1975). Social synthesis of the societal-environmental dialectic: The role of
distributional impacts. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 5-20.
Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment: From surplus to scarcity. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Schnaiberg, A., & Gould, K. A. (1994). Environment and society: The enduring conflict.
New York: St. Martin’s.
Solomon, C. (1999, November 22). “Leisure Class” author/critic may have been on the
money. The Seattle Times, p. E1.
Sweezy, P. M. (1958). Veblen on American capitalism. In D. F. Dowd (Ed.), Thorstein
Veblen: A critical reappraisal (pp. 177-197). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Szlajfer, H. (1984). Waste, Marxian theory, and monopoly capital: Toward a new synthesis.
In J. B. Foster & H. Szlajfer (Eds.), The faltering economy: The problem of accumula-
tion (pp. 297-321). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Tilman, R. (1991). Thorstein Veblen and his critics, 1891-1963: Conservative, liberal, and
radical perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, S. R. (1999). Policy implications of natural resource conflict. In D. Buckles (Ed.), Cul-
tivating peace: Conflict and collaboration in natural resource management (pp. 263-
280). Washington, DC: World Bank Institute.
408 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / December 2001

Vaillancourt, J. (1995). Sociology of the environment: From human ecology to eco-

sociology. In M. D. Metha & E. Ouellet (Eds.), Environmental sociology: Theory and
practice (pp. 3-32). North York, Canada: Captus.
Vaughn, G. F. (1999). Veblen’s possible influence on the New Deal Land-Utilization Pro-
gram as evidenced by his student Claud Franklin Clayton. Journal of Economic Issues,
33(3), 713-727.
Veblen, T. B. (1898). The instinct of workmanship and the irksomeness of labor. American
Journal of Sociology, 4(2), 187-201.
Veblen, T. B. (1904). The theory of business enterprise. New York: Scribner.
Veblen, T. B. (1933). The engineers and the price system. New York: Viking. (Original work
published 1921)
Veblen, T. B. (1967a). Absentee ownership and business enterprise in recent times: The case
of America. Boston: Beacon. (Original work published 1923)
Veblen, T. B. (1967b). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New
York: Funk & Wagnalls. (Original work published 1899)
Veblen, T. B. (1969). The vested interests and the common man. New York: Capricorn.
(Original work published 1919)
Veblen, T. B. (1990). The place of science in modern civilisation and other essays. New
York: Huebsch. (Original work published 1919)
Vecsey, C. (1980). American Indian environmental religions. In C. Vecsey & R. W. Venables
(Eds.), American Indian environments: Ecological issues in Native American history
(pp. 1-37). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.