Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/849

 REVIEWS 833

respect. The dependent class is low, debased, degraded. The inde- pendent class is high, noble, exalted. This is not merely the judgment of the higher class, but also that of the lower. It is the universally recog- nized relation and constitutes what is called the regime of status. AH the occupations of the dependent class are, in our author's happy phrase, "humilific," and all the occupations in which the independent class can engage must be " honorific." These occupations must not cross each other. They must be wholly different. The humilific occu- pations are all industrial, productive. Therefore the leisure class must pursue no industrial or productive occupations under pain of being suspected of dependence. The humilific occupations are the only ones that are "useful" in the economic sense. Therefore no member of the leisure class may do anything useful. The leisure class derive pleasure from the exercise of their faculties, but such exercise must involve no " utility," and must be characterized by " futility." There are certain directions in which the pleasures of activity may be indulged without the suspicion of dependence or necessity. Among these purely futile occupations we find war, the chase, gaming, politics, ruling, religious observances, etc. Then there are many incidental ways in which the leisure class, when in full power, are able to enjoy them- selves. Thus it is said that a common amusement of the Roman nobles was to knock down a plebeian and then hand over a sesterce, which was the amount of the fine fixed by law for such offenses ; and the idea of "fun" that the young British gentry entertained in the six- teenth century was to disfigure the faces of the poor they met in the streets by means of a sharp-pointed cane that they carried for such purposes. Everything done must be in the nature of sport, nothing must have the character of work. The surplus energy must express itself in wholly non-industrial and absolutely parasitic ways, other- wise there is loss of caste.

The above may give some idea of the general nature of the funda- mental antithesis that sprang up naturally, as shown, and has persisted even down to our own times. The distinction has been characterized as "invidious." and this word has been criticised as imputing blame- worthy motives. But it is used in a literal sense, as that which has envy at its root, for not only does the industrial class envy the leisure class, but every member of the leisure class is perpetually striving to gain the envy of others of that class. Though all the members of the leisure class are exempt from drudgery, they are by no means all equal in their "ability to pay," and, as there is no limit to the possibility of