Are Upper Classes Members Still a Class: Revisiting Veblen through the Argentinian Case

HEREDIA MARIANA

Nueva York

Conferencia; SASE, Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics; 2019

The New School

As social inequality increase in most western countries, socioeconomic analyses tend to focus on the poorest and most vulnerable social groups. At the other extreme, thanks to Piketty (2014) and his colleagues, the attention is concentrated in the top 1% of the wealth distribution. The super-rich would have become the new expression of Veblen?s leisure class. But the approach of economists and their statistical delimitations, as well as the unreflective repetition of concepts, leave crucial questions unsolved: What happened to the structure of classes under globalization? Is economic dominance similar to that prevailing in the last decades of the XIX century? Is the evidence of power the source of esteem for wealthy and powerful men today (Veblen, 1934: 36)? Is conspicuous consumption the strategy of low-status people to emulate the members of upper classes and gain their respect? And finally, are these insights -originally motivated by XIX century United States- useful to understand today societies in the Global South?Revisiting the contribution of Thorstein Veblen is a great opportunity to revise and update ideas about upper classes and their appeal for other members of society. While the drop of lower incomes and the reduction of secure jobs lead many authors to conclude that working and middle classes are now much more diverse and disjointed than before the 1970s, little has been done to understand how economic, political and cultural transformations have affected upper classes and their relation with other social groups. Everything goes as if the upper class was unchanged, just concentrating more privileges but exerting the same ancient forms of domination. Coming back to Veblen can be a rewarding task because, as some of his ideas have been integrated into Bourdieu?s distinction theory (1987); they have become kind of common sense for many sociologists. The assumption of the unity of upper-classes based a single and persisting economic dominance as well as that of the convergence between economic and symbolic authority remain parts of the orthodox theoretical framework guiding most studies about upper classes and elites (Cousin, Khan and Mears, 2018).If upper classes reproduce and consolidate their economic and symbolic strength during periods of relative calm and prosperity, tumultuous times may open opportunities and risks for social dislocation. That is why the Argentinian case can be particularly interesting. Since the 1970s, this country has experienced a transition from a closed internal market with a developed welfare state to a very liberal market-oriented economy. But this transition was not easy: deep socio-economic instability ?steps forward and backward in economic policy, growing inflation, national debt default, abrupt variations in its currency exchange rates- accompanied the whole period and deeply increased social inequality.According to Veblen and Bourdieu, the upper class includes those families with a long stay in well-off positions with the ability to concentrate the greatest benefits and dominating, through their decisions, the largest private and public organizations. Lower classes people could recognize and legitimate these wealthy and powerful families as they showed a life of luxury and comfort ?in Veblen formulation- or one of erudition and polished manners- in Bourdieu´s parlance.Based on several years of research, the aim of this paper is to test two of Veblen and Bourdieu?s main ideas for Argentinian upper classes. The first considers their reproduction and unity. In order to examine their degree of reproduction, we use an original database of political and economic elites from 1976 to 2015 as well as a dozen of interviews with managers of elite institutions (clubs, schools, associations). In both cases, we inquired about the presence of big (traditional) names as well as the stability of their members. For the present composition of upper classes, we make use of diverse economic information to profile different types of wealth (companies ownership and management, real state assets, equity, liquid capital) in order to analyze ?economic utility? and consider how capital sophistication dislocated upper classes structural relationships with other members of society. This data is complemented with interviews to brokers and accountants. The second consideration is about the importance of distinction and emulation to legitimate and reproduce social inequality. On the one hand, through ethnographic observations and in-depth interviews, we consider the predisposition of upper classes members to be seen and emulated. On the other hand, we provide insights into the strong criticism of Argentinian society at large against upper classes.As a result, we conclude that reproduction, closure, and distinction are not the main features of Argentinian elites but rather what we find is renewal, porosity, and invisibility. Social benefits are considered undeserved privileges that can only be shown and enjoyed in private, among peers, the consequence of both the frustrating path of the country and the retreat of many social rights provoked by economic crises and liberal reforms. In Argentina, globalization weakened social bonds and solidarity in every social group. In the case of those that monopolize resources, the sophistication of assets and the multiplicity of scales the elites engaged with, enabled greater opportunities for social mobility at the cost of fading their direct recognition by the lower classes.ReferencesBourdieu, P. (1987): Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cousin, B. Khan, S. and Mears, A. (2018): ?Theoretical and methodological pathways for research on elites?, Socio-Economic Review, 16, 2: 225?249. Piketty, T. (2014): Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Veblen, T. (1934): The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: The Modern Library.