Veblen

这是凡勃伦《有闲阶级论 ：关于制度的经济研究》第五章中的一些精彩片段。

文献来源：

Veblen, T. 1899. The theory of the leisure class: an economic study in the evolution of institutions. New York : Macmillan.

text 1

在任何现代社会中，大多数人（the great body of the people）之所以会在超出身体舒适（physical comfort）所需之外进行支出（expenditure），其直接原因（proximate ground）

并不是要有意识地努力（a conscious effort）去在可见消费（visible consumption）的昂贵程度（expensiveness）上胜过别人，

而主要是因为他们希望（a desire）在所消费商品的数量与等级（amount and grade of goods consumed）上达到一种约定俗成的体面标准（conventional standard of decency）。

这种欲望（desire）并不受一个严格不变的标准（rigidly invariable standard）所支配——这个标准是必须达到的，但超过这个标准之后，就没有动力（incentive）再去追求了。

For the great body of the people in any modern community, the proximate ground of expenditure in excess of what is required for physical comfort is not a conscious effort to excel in the expensive- ness of their visible consumption, so much as it is a desire to live up to the conventional standard of decency in the amount and grade of goods consumed. This desire is not guided by a rigidly invariable standard, which must be lived up to, and beyond which there is no incentive to go.（Veblen，1899：102）

text 2

这表明，通常指导我们努力（commonly guides our efforts）的支出标准（standard of expenditure）并不是已经达到的平均的、普通的支出（average, ordinary expenditure），而是一种刚好超出我们能力范围（just beyond our reach）的消费理想（ideal of consumption），要达到它需要费些力气（strain）。

其动机（motive）是竞赛（emulation）——即歧视性对比（an invidious comparison）的刺激（stimulus），这种对比促使我们超越（outdo）那些我们习惯上视为与自己同类（classing ourselves）的人。

实质上，同样的命题（proposition）体现在一句常言（commonplace remark）中：每个阶级都羡慕并竞相仿效（envies and emulates）社会等级（social scale）中紧挨其上的一级（next above），而很少同低于（below）自己的阶级或远远领先于自己（considerably in advance）的阶级相比较。

换句话说，我们在支出（expenditure）上的体面标准（standard of decency），如同在其他竞赛目的（other ends of emulation）上一样，是由那些在声誉（reputability）上紧挨我们之上的人的惯例（usage）设定的（set）；

以这种方式向上追溯，尤其是在阶级界限（class distinctions）有些模糊（vague）的共同体中，所有关于声誉与体面的准则（canons of reputability and decency）以及所有消费标准（standards of consumption），都会通过难以察觉的渐变（insensible gradations）追溯到最高的社会与金钱阶级（highest social and pecuniary class）——即富裕的有闲阶级（wealthy leisure class）——的惯例和思维习惯（usages and habits of thought）。

This suggests that the standard of expenditure which commonly guides our efforts is not the average, ordinary expenditure already achieved; it is an ideal of consumption that lies just beyond our reach, or to reach which requires some strain. The motive is emulation—the stimulus of an invidious comparison which prompts us to outdo those with whom we are in the habit of classing ourselves. Substantially the same proposition is expressed in the commonplace remark that each class envies and emulates the class next above it in the social scale, while it rarely compares itself with those below or with those who are considerably in advance. That is to say, in other words, our standard of decency in expenditure, as in other ends of emulation, is set by the usage of those next above us in reputability; until, in this way, especially in any community where class distinctions are somewhat vague, all canons of reputability and decency, and all standards of consumption, are traced back by insensible gradations to the usages and habits of thought of the highest social and pecuniary class—the wealthy leisure class.（Veblen，1899：103-104）

text 3

很明显，这些支出准则（canons of expenditure）在决定任何共同体（community）和任何阶级（class）的生活水平（standard of living）方面有很大影响。

同样明显的是，在任何时期或在任何特定社会高度（social altitude）上通行的生活水准（standard of living），反过来又会在很大程度上决定（have much to say）荣誉性支出（honorific expenditure）所采取的形式（forms），以及这种“更高”需要（“higher” need）将在多大程度（the degree）上支配（dominate）一个民族的消费（consumption）。

在这方面，公认的生活水准（accepted standard of living）所施加的控制（control）主要是消极性质的（a negative character）；它几乎仅仅是为了防止从一度已经成为习惯（habitual）的炫耀性支出规模（scale of conspicuous expenditure）倒退（recession）。

It is evident that these canons of expenditure have much to say in determining the standard of living for any community and for any class. It is no less evident that the standard of living which prevails at any time or at any given social altitude will in its turn have much to say as to the forms which honorific expenditure will take, and as to the degree to which this “higher” need will dominate a people’s consumption. In this respect the control exerted by the accepted stan- dard of living is chiefly of a negative character; it acts almost solely to prevent recession from a scale of conspicuous expenditure that has once become habitual. （Veblen，1899：105）

text 4

除自我保存本能（instinct of self-preservation）之外，竞赛倾向（propensity for emulation）很可能是严格意义上的经济动机（economic motives proper）中最强烈（strongest）、最活跃且最持久（most alert and persistent）的一种。

在工业共同体（industrial community）中，这种竞赛倾向（propensity for emulation）以金钱竞赛（pecuniary emulation）的形式表现出来；

而就当今西方文明共同体（Western civilised communities）而言，这实际上等于（equivalent）说它是以某种形式（form）的炫耀性浪费（conspicuous waste）表现出来的。

因此，一旦最基本的物质需要（the most elementary physical wants）得到满足，炫耀性浪费的需要（need of conspicuous waste）便随时准备吸收（absorb）共同体工业效率（industrial efficiency）或商品产出（output of goods）的任何增长（any increase）。

在现代条件下（modern conditions），若没有出现这种结果（this result），造成这种出入（discrepancy）的原因通常在于，个人财富（individual’s wealth）的增长速度（rate of increase）太快，以致支出习惯（habit of expenditure）跟不上；或者也可能是相关个人（individual in question）将增量（increment）的炫耀性消费（conspicuous consumption）推迟到日后——通常是为了增强所打算进行的总支出（aggregate expenditure）的壮观效果（spectacular effect）。

随着工业效率（industrial efficiency）的提高使得以较少劳动（less labour）获得生计手段（means of livelihood）成为可能，共同体中勤劳成员（industrious members）的精力（energies）便转向在炫耀性支出（conspicuous expenditure）中追求更高结果（higher result），而不是放松到更舒适的节奏（more comfortable pace）。

随着工业效率（industrial efficiency）提高并使得更轻的负担（lighter strain）成为可能，这种压力（strain）并未减轻（not lightened），而是产出的增量（increment of output）被用来满足这种需要（this want），而这种需要是无限扩张的（indefinitely expansible），其方式通常在经济理论（economic theory）中被归属于（imputed）更高需要或精神需要（higher or spiritual wants）。

主要由于生活水准（standard of living）中这一因素（this element）的存在，约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒（J. S. Mill）才能说：“迄今为止，所有已作出的机械发明（mechanical inventions）是否减轻了任何人的日常劳苦（day’s toil），仍然是值得怀疑的（questionable）。”

【注】一些中文译本将“J. S. Mill”译为“詹姆斯·穆勒”。实际上，应是“约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒”，这句话出自约翰·穆勒在1848年《政治经济学原理及其在社会哲学上的应用》第一版第二卷第312页。

With the exception of the instinct of self-preservation, the propensity for emulation is probably the strongest and most alert and persistent of the economic motives proper. In an industrial community this propensity for emulation expresses itself in pecuniary emulation; and this, so far as regards the Western civilised communities of the present, is virtually equivalent to saying that it expresses itself in some form of conspicuous waste. The need of conspicuous waste, therefore, stands ready to absorb any increase in the community’s industrial efficiency or output of goods, after the most elementary physical wants have been provided for. Where this result does not follow, under modern conditions, the reason for the discrepancy is commonly to be sought in a rate of increase in the individual’s wealth too rapid for the habit of expenditure to keep abreast of it; or it may be that the individual in question defers the conspicuous consumption of the increment to a later date—ordinarily with a view to heightening the spectacular effect of the aggregate expenditure contemplated. As increased industrial efficiency makes it possible to procure the means of livelihood with less labour, the energies of the industrious mem- bers of the community are bent to the compassing of a higher result in conspicuous expenditure, rather than slackened to a more com- fortable pace. The strain is not lightened as industrial efficiency increases and makes a lighter strain possible, but the increment of output is turned to use to meet this want, which is indefinitely expansible, after the manner commonly imputed in economic theory to higher or spiritual wants. It is owing chiefly to the presence of this element in the standard of living that J. S. Mill was able to say that“hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being.” （Veblen，1899：110-111）

text 5

一个人所属的共同体（community）或阶级（class）中公认的支出标准（accepted standard of expenditure），在很大程度上决定了他的生活水平（standard of living）将会是怎样的。

它（公认的支出标准）直接做到这一点：通过使其自身作为正当、良善（right and good）之物而受到这个人的常识（common sense）的认可，其途径是这个人习惯性地对它加以审视（habitually contemplating it）并同化（assimilating）它所属的那套生活方案（scheme of life）；

但它也间接地做到这一点：大众坚持（popular insistence）要求遵守（conformity）公认的支出尺度（accepted scale of expenditure），将其视为得体（propriety）之事，否则就会遭受轻视（disesteem）与排斥（ostracism）。

The accepted standard of expenditure in the community or in the class to which a person belongs largely determines what his standard of living will be. It does this directly by commending itself to his common sense as right and good, through his habitually contemplating it and assimilating the scheme of life in which it belongs; but it does so also indirectly through popular insistence on conformity to the accepted scale of expenditure as a matter of propriety, under pain of disesteem and ostracism. （Veblen，1899：111）

这是凡勃伦《有闲阶级论》第四章中的一些精彩片段。

文献来源：

Veblen, T. 1899. The theory of the leisure class. New York : Macmillan.

text 1

有闲阶级（The leisure class）在社会结构（the social structure）中享有最高声望（reputability），其生活方式（manner of life）和价值标准（ standards of worth）因此成为社会声望的标杆（norm）。

对这些标准的遵守（observance），在某种程度的近似之下，成为层级中所有下层阶级义不容辞的责任（incumbent）。

The leisure class stands at the head of the social structure in point of reputability; and its manner of life and its standards of worth therefore afford the norm of reputability for the community. The observance of these standards, in some degree of approximation, becomes incumbent upon all classes lower in the scale. （Veblen，1899：83-84）

在现代文明共同体中，社会阶级（social classes）之间的划分界限已经变得模糊且短暂（vague and transient）；

而凡是这种情况发生之处，由上层阶级所施加的声望规范（the norm of reputability），几乎不受什么阻碍（ slight hindrance），将它的强制性影响力（coercive influence）沿着社会结构（the social structure）向下延伸，直达最底层的各个阶层（the lowest strata）。

In modern civilised communities the lines of demarcation between social classes have grown vague and transient, and wherever this happens the norm of reputability imposed by the upper class extends its coercive influence with but slight hindrance down through the social structure to the lowest strata. （Veblen，1899：83-84）

其结果是，每一个阶层的成员，把紧邻上一阶层（the next higher stratum）盛行的生活范式（the scheme of life in vogue）接纳（accept）为自身的体面理想（ideal of decency），并且竭尽自身精力去达到这一理想。

倘若失败，便要冒着丧失自己的好名声（good name）与自尊（self-respect）的风险；

迫于这一后果，他们必须遵从这套被普遍接受的行为准则（the accepted code），至少在表面（appearance）上要如此。

The result is that the members of each stratum accept as their ideal of decency the scheme of life in vogue in the next higher stratum, and bend their energies to live up to that ideal. On pain of forfeiting their good name and their self-respect in case of failure, they must conform to the accepted code, at least in appearance.（Veblen，1899：83-84）

text 2

任何高度组织化的工业社会（highly organised industrial community）里，良好声望（good repute）最终赖以建立的基础是金钱实力（pecuniary strength）；

而展现（showing）金钱实力，借此赢得或保住名望（a good name）的两种手段，便是有闲（leisure）与财物的炫耀性消费（a conspicuous consumption of goods）。

The basis on which good repute in any highly organised industrial community ultimately rests is pecuniary strength; and the means of showing pecuniary strength, and so of gaining or retaining a good name, are leisure and a conspicuous consumption of goods.（Veblen，1899：84）

但是实际的发展进程与这一理想范式多少有所不同。

在最初阶段，有闲（Leisure）占据首要地位；并且在准和平文化阶段（the quasi-peaceable culture），无论作为财富的直接表征（a direct exponent of wealth），还是作为体面标准当中的一项构成要素（an element in the standard of decency），有闲所占据的地位都远高于财物的浪费性消费（wasteful consumption of goods）。

But the actual course of development has been somewhat different from this ideal scheme. （Veblen，1899：91）
Leisure held the first place at the start, and came to hold a rank very much above wasteful consumption of goods, both as a direct exponent of wealth and as an element in the standard of decency, during the quasi-peaceable culture. （Veblen，1899：91-92）

自那个节点往后，消费（consumption）逐步占据优势，直至当下，它无可置疑地取得首要地位（primacy）；尽管它仍远未能吸纳生存最低限度（the subsistence minimum）之上的全部生产剩余（entire margin of production）。

From that point onward, consumption has gained ground, until, at present, it unquestionably holds the primacy, though it is still far from absorbing the entire margin of production above the subsistence minimum.（Veblen，1899：91-92）

text 3

炫耀性有闲（conspicuous leisure）作为声望（repute）基础，其后续的相对衰落（relative decline），一部分源于消费（consumption）作为财富证据（an evidence of wealth）的相对效力（relative effectiveness）不断增强；

但另一部分，这一衰落可以归因于另一股力量（force），这股力量与炫耀性浪费的惯例（the usage of conspicuous waste）相异（alien），并且在某种程度上与之相互对立（antagonistic）。

The subsequent relative decline in the use of conspicuous leisure as a basis of repute is due partly to an increasing relative effectiveness of consumption as an evidence of wealth; but in part it is traceable to another force, alien, and in some degree antagonistic, to the usage of conspicuous waste.（Veblen，1899：92-93）

这一异质因素（alien factor）即是作业本能（workmanship）。

This alien factor is the instinct of workmanship.（Veblen，1899：93）

在其他条件允许的情况下，这一本能（instinct）促使人们对生产效率（productive efficiency）以及一切对人类有用之物（human use）抱持赞许态度（favour）。

Other circumstances permitting, that instinct disposes men to look with favour upon productive efficiency and on whatever is of human use. It disposes them to deprecate waste of substance or effort. （Veblen，1899：93）

作业本能存在于一切人（ all men）身上，即便在极为不利的环境（adverse circumstances）之下，也会彰显自身（asserts itself）。

The instinct of workmanship is present in all men, and asserts itself even under very adverse circumstances. （Veblen，1899：93）

因此，一笔特定开销无论在现实当中多么具有浪费性质（however wasteful），它至少必须凭借某种表面用途（an ostensible purpose），拥有一些似是而非的托词。

So that however wasteful a given expenditure may be in reality, it must at least have some colourable excuse in the way of an ostensible purpose. （Veblen，1899：93）

在特定环境之下，这一本能最终演变为对掠夺行为的嗜好（a taste for exploit），以及对高贵阶级与卑贱阶级（noble and ignoble classes）之间带有歧视性的区别对待（an invidious discrimination）；这一发生方式已在前一章予以说明。

The manner in which, under special circumstances, the instinct eventuates in a taste for exploit and an invidious discrimination between noble and ignoble classes has been indicated in an earlier chapter. （Veblen，1899：93）

就其与炫耀性浪费法则（ the law of conspicuous waste）发生冲突（conflict）的范围而言，作业本能的自我显现（expresses itself ），与其说是体现为对实际效用（substantial usefulness）的坚持，不如说是体现为一种持久的感受（an abiding sense）：对那些明显徒劳无用之物（what is obviously futile），感到其面目可憎（odiousness），且在审美层面无法接受（æsthetic impossibility）。

In so far as it comes into conflict with the law of conspicuous waste, the instinct of workmanship expresses itself not so much in insistence on substantial usefulness as in an abiding sense of the odiousness and æsthetic impossibility of what is obviously futile. （Veblen，1899：93）

由于它属于一种本能性的情感（ an instinctive affection），它的引导作用主要且直接针对那些对其要求（requirements）的显而易见（obvious and apparent）的违背行为（violations）。

Being of the nature of an instinctive affection, its guidance touches chiefly and immediately the obvious and apparent violations of its requirements.（Veblen，1899：93）

只是，对于那些唯有经过反思（reflection）才能觉察（appreciated）到的、对其内在要求的实质性违背（substantial violations），该本能作出反应会更为迟缓（less promptly ），并且约束力度也更弱（less constraining force）。

It is only less promptly and with less constraining force that it reaches such substantial violations of its requirements as are appreciated only upon reflection.（Veblen，1899：93）

text 4

此处将其称作 “浪费（waste）”，是因为这一消费（expenditure）总体上并不服务于人类生活（human life）或人类福祉（human well-being），而并非从做出选择的个体消费者的立场来看，它属于精力或消费的浪费或是错用（misdirection）。

It is here called “waste” because this expenditure does not serve human life or human well-being on the whole, not because it is waste or misdirection of effort or expenditure as viewed from the standpoint of the individual consumer who chooses it. （Veblen，1899：97-98）

为判定该点（某一项消费是否属于这里所说的浪费），所有开支都必须接受的检验，就是看它是否直接（directly）有助于从整体上提升人类生活（ enhance human life on the whole） —— 即它是否能够以非个人视角/客观地（impersonally）推进生活进程（the life process）。

The test to which all expenditure must be brought in an attempt to decide that point is the question whether it serves directly to enhance human life on the whole—whether it furthers the life process taken impersonally. （Veblen，1899：99）

因为这正是作业本能（the instinct of workmanship）作出评判的依据；并且，在任何关乎经济事实或经济合宜性（economic truth or adequacy）的问题上，该本能即是终审法庭（the court of final appeal）。

For this is the basis of award of the instinct of workmanship, and that instinct is the court of final appeal in any question of economic truth or adequacy. （Veblen，1899：99）

这是一个关乎由不带偏见（dispassionate）的常识（common sense）所作出的裁断的问题。

It is a question as to the award rendered by a dispassionate common sense. （Veblen，1899：99）

因此，问题不在于：在个体习惯（individual habit）与社会习俗（social custom）的现有条件之下，某一笔特定消费（a given expenditure）是否有助于该消费者个人的满足感或内心安宁；而在于（but whether）：撇开后天养成的偏好（acquired tastes），以及习俗惯例（the canons of usage）与传统体面的准则（conventional decency）不谈，它所带来的结果是否在舒适程度（comfort）或是生活完满度（the fulness of life）上构成净收益（a net gain）。

The question is, therefore, not whether, under the existing circumstances of individual habit and social custom, a given expenditure conduces to the particular consumer’s gratification or peace of mind; but whether, aside from acquired tastes and from the canons of usage and conventional decency, its result is a net gain in comfort or in the fulness of life. （Veblen，1899：99-100）

就如下范围而言，习惯性开支（Customary expenditure）必须被归入浪费（waste）这一类别：该开支赖以存在的习俗（custom）可以追溯到进行带有攀比色彩的金钱比较（an invidious pecuniary comparison）这一习惯（habit）——亦即，如果没有金钱名望原则（principle of pecuniary reputability）或者相对经济成就（relative economic success）作为支撑（backing），它本不可能成为通行惯例（customary）与既定规矩（prescriptive）。

Customary expenditure must be classed under the head of waste in so far as the custom on which it rests is traceable to the habit of making an invidious pecuniary comparison—in so far as it is conceived that it could not have become customary and prescriptive without the backing of this principle of pecuniary reputability or relative economic success.（Veblen，1899：100）

这是凡勃伦《有闲阶级论》第三章中的一些精彩片段。

文献来源：

Veblen, T. 1899. The theory of the leisure class. New York : Macmillan.

text 1

闲暇（leisure）与财富的其他外在表征（evidences）所具有的这种直接主观价值（direct, subjective value），毫无疑问在很大程度上是从属性（secondary）、衍生的（derivative）。

这种价值一方面是闲暇作为博取他人敬重（gaining the respect of others）之手段所具备效用（utility）的一种映射（reflex），另一方面则源于一种心理置换作用（a mental substitution）。

从事劳作（The performance of labour）早已被视作公认的能力低下（ inferior force）的标识（ a conventional evidence）；因此，人们凭借一种直观的心理惯性（ a mental shortcut），直接将劳作本身看作本质上卑劣低下的事（intrinsically base）。

This direct, subjective value of leisure and of other evidences of wealth is no doubt in great part secondary and derivative. It is in part a reflex of the utility of leisure as a means of gaining the respect of others, and in part it is the result of a mental substitution. The performance of labour has been accepted as a conventional evidence of inferior force; therefore it comes itself, by a mental shortcut, to be regarded as intrinsically base.（Veblen，1899：38）

text 2

前文已经提到，本文所使用的 “有闲（leisure）” 一词，并不意味着慵懒怠惰（indolence）或无所事事（quiescence）。 它所指代的，是对时间的非生产性消耗（non-productive consumption of time）。

人们以非生产性方式消耗时间，原因有二：

第一，认为生产劳作（productive work）是低等、不值当（unworthiness）的事；

第二，以此证明自身拥有充足财力（pecuniary ability），能够维持闲散度日的生活（a life of idleness）。

It has already been remarked that the term “leisure,” as here used, does not connote indolence or quiescence. What it connotes is non- productive consumption of time. Time is consumed non-productively (1) from a sense of the unworthiness of productive work, and (2) as an evidence of pecuniary ability to afford a life of idleness.（Veblen，1899：43）

这是凡勃伦《有闲阶级论》第二章中的一些精彩片段。

文献来源：

Veblen, T. 1899. The theory of the leisure class. New York : Macmillan.

text 1

在文化演进的进程中，有闲阶级（a leisure class）的出现与所有权（ownership）的萌芽几乎同时发生。

这是必然的，因为这两种制度（institutions）都源于同一组经济力量（economic forces）。

在它们发展的初期阶段，它们只不过是社会结构（social structure）同一普遍事实的不同方面。

In the sequence of cultural evolution the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership. This is necessarily the case, for these two institutions result from the same set of economic forces. In the inchoate phase of their development they are but different aspects of the same general facts of social structure.（Veblen，1899：22）

text 2

凡是私有财产制度（private property）存在的地方，即便只是略有发展，经济过程（ economic process）也带有争夺财产（the possession of goods）的斗争（struggle）的性质。

经济理论，尤其是那些坚定奉行现代古典经济学理论（modernised classical doctrines）的经济学家，通常将这种财富争夺（struggle for wealth）解读为本质上（substantially）的生存斗争（a struggle for subsistence）。

毫无疑问，在工业发展的早期低效阶段（the earlier and less efficient phases），财富争夺的性质在很大程度上确实如此。

在所有“自然吝啬（niggardliness of nature）”到人们辛勤劳作（strenuous and unremitting）却只能勉强维持生计（a scanty livelihood）的情况下，财富争夺的性质也同样如此。

然而，在所有进步的社会（progressing communities）中，技术发展（ technological development）都会超越早期阶段。

工业效率（Industrial efficiency）如今已达到相当高的水平（pitch），足以使从事工业生产的人们获得远超（appreciably more than）勉强糊口的收入。

经济理论经常将基于这种新的工业基础（new industrial basis）的财富争夺（the further struggle for wealth）描述为对生活舒适度的追求（a competition for an increase of the comforts of life），主要是对消费商品（the consumption of goods ）所带来的物质舒适度（the physical comforts）的追求。

Wherever the institution of private property is found, even in a slightly developed form, the economic process bears the character of a struggle between men for the possession of goods. It has been customary in economic theory, and especially among those economists who adhere with least faltering to the body of modernised classical doctrines, to construe this struggle for wealth as being substantially a struggle for subsistence. Such is, no doubt, its character in large part during the earlier and less efficient phases of industry. Such is also its character in all cases where the “niggardliness of nature ” is so strict as to afford but a scanty livelihood to the community in return for strenuous and unremitting application to the business of getting the means of subsistence. But in all progressing communities an advance is presently made beyond this early stage of technological development. Industrial efficiency is presently carried to such a pitch as to afford something appreciably more than a bare livelihood to those engaged in the industrial process. It has not been unusual for economic theory to speak of the further struggle for wealth on this new industrial basis as a competition for an increase of the comforts of life，——primarily for an increase of the physical comforts which the consumption of goods affords.（Veblen，1899：24-25）

text 3

但只有从远超其字面意义的角度来看，商品消费（consumption of goods）才能被视为积累（accumulation）的持久动力（the incentive）。

所有权的根源在于竞赛/竞争（emulation）；而这种竞赛动机也持续作用（active）于所有权制度所引起的（ it has given rise ）进一步发展的制度（institution）中，以及所有权制度所触及的社会结构（social structure ）的全部特征（features）的发展中。

拥有财富（The possession of wealth）赋予荣誉（honour），这是一种歧视性区分（invidious distinction）。

消费（the consumption of goods），以及其他任何可能的获取动机（conceivable incentive），尤其是任何财富积累的动机（incentive to the accumulation of wealth），都无法与之相提并论。

But it is only when taken in a sense far removed from its naïve meaning that consumption of goods can be said to afford the incentive from which accumulation invariably proceeds. The motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation; and the same motive of emulation continues active in the further development of the institution to which it has given rise and in the development of all those features of the social structure which this institution of ownership touches. The possession of wealth confers honour; it is an invidious distinction. Nothing equally cogent can be said for the consumption of goods, nor for any other conceivable incentive to acquisition, and especially not for any incentive to the accumulation of wealth.（Veblen，1899：25-26）

text 4

所有权（ownership）发端并发展成为一种人类社会制度（human institution），其形成基础（grounds）与最低生存需求（subsistence minimum）无关。

居于主导地位的动机（ dominant incentive）从一开始，就是依附于财富之上的歧视性区分（invidious distinction attaching to wealth）；除短暂的特殊情形之外，在后续发展的任何阶段，都没有其他动机夺取过这一首要地位（primacy）。

Ownership began and grew into a human institution on grounds unrelated to the subsistence minimum. The dominant incentive was from the outset the invidious distinction attaching to wealth, and, save temporarily and by exception, no other motive has usurped the primacy at any later stage of the development.（Veblen，1899：26）

text 5

And it is even more to the point that property（财产） now becomes the most easily recognised evidence（最容易识别的证据）of a reputable degree of success（成功的可敬程度） as distinguished from heroic or signal achievement.

It therefore becomes the conventional（惯例） basis of esteem（尊重）.

Its possession in some amount（保有量） becomes necessary in order to any reputable standing（享有名望的社会地位） in the community.

It becomes indispensable（不可或缺的） to accumulate（积累）, to acquire（获取） property, in order to retain one’s good name（维护名望）.

When accumulated goods have in this way once become the accepted badge of efficiency（公认的效率标志）, the possession of wealth（财富的占有） presently（随即） assumes（呈现） the character of an independent and definitive basis of esteem（独立且确定的声望基础这一属性）.

The possession of goods, whether acquired aggressively by one’s own exertion（靠自身努力主动争取） or passively by transmission through inheritance from others（经由他人继承被动获得）, becomes a conventional basis, of reputability（名望的惯例性基础）.

The possession of wealth（财富的占有）, which was at the outset（起初） valued simply as an evidence of efficiency（个人能力的证据）, becomes, in popular apprehension（普遍观念）, itself a meritorious act（一种值得称颂的行为）.

财富如今自身内在就具备尊贵属性，并将荣誉赋予它的占有者。

Wealth is now itself intrinsically honourable and confers honour on its possessor.

经过更进一步的演化分化，经由祖先或其他先辈被动传承而来的财富，随即变得比所有者依靠自身努力获得的财富更为尊贵；但这一差异属于金钱文化演化的较晚阶段，后文将在相应部分加以论述。

By a further refinement, wealth acquired passively by transmission from ancestors or other antecedents presently becomes even more honorific than wealth acquired by the possessor’s own effort; but this distinction belongs at a later stage in the evolution of the pecuniary culture and will be spoken of in its place. （Veblen，1899：28-29）

text 6

就其本质而言，对财富的渴望（the desire for wealth）在任何个体身上都难以得到满足（scarcely be satiated），而对财富的平均或普遍渴望的满足（satiation）显然是不可能的。

无论财富的分配多么广泛、平等或“公平”，社会财富的普遍增长（general increase of the community’s wealth）都无法满足这种需求（need），因为这种需求的根源在于每个人都渴望在财富积累（the accumulation of goods）方面超越他人（excel every one else）。

如果像有时人们所假设的那样，积累财富的动机（the incentive to accumulation）是缺乏生存或物质舒适，那么随着工业效率的提高（the advance of industrial efficiency），一个社会的总体经济需求（the aggregate economic wants）或许会在某个阶段得到满足；但由于这种竞争（struggle）本质上是基于一种歧视性比较（an invidious comparison）而进行的声望竞赛（ a race for reputability），因此不可能达到最终的满足（definitive attainment ）。

In the nature of the case, the desire for wealth can scarcely be satiated in any individual instance, and evidently a satiation of the average or general desire for wealth is out of the question. However widely, or equally, or “fairly,” it may be distributed, no general increase of the community’s wealth can make any approach to satiating this need, the ground of which is the desire of every one to excel every one else in the accumulation of goods. If, as is sometimes assumed, the incentive to accumulation were the want of subsistence or of physical comfort, then the aggregate economic wants of a community might conceivably be satisfied at some point in the advance of industrial efficiency; but since the struggle is substantially a race for reputability on the basis of an invidious comparison, no approach to a definitive attainment is possible.（Veblen，1899：32）

text 7

在促使人们积累财富（accumulate wealth）的各种动机（motives）中，金钱竞赛（pecuniary emulation）这一动机无论在范围（scope）还是强度（intensity）上，仍然占据首要（primacy）地位。

Among the motives which lead men to accumulate wealth, the primacy, both in scope and intensity, therefore, continues to belong to this motive of pecuniary emulation.（Veblen，1899：34）

text 8

在使用“歧视性（invidious）”一词时，或许无需赘言，其目的并非褒扬或贬低（extol or depreciate），也非赞扬或谴责（ commend or deplore）任何被该词所指称的现象。

该词在此仅作技术性解释（a technical sense），指对人进行比较（comparison），以期根据其相对价值（ relative worth or value）（在美学或道德层面 an æsthetic or moral sense）对其进行评级（rating）和分级（grading），从而确定（awarding）并界定（defining）人们自身与他人看待（contemplated）这类心态时，抱持多大程度的自满（the relative degrees of complacency）才算合乎情理（legitimately）。

歧视性比较（An invidious comparison）是一种基于价值（worth）对人进行评估（valuation）的过程。

In making use of the term “invidious,” it may perhaps be unnecessary to remark, there is no intention to extol or depreciate, or to commend or deplore any of the phenomena which the word is used to characterise. The term is used in a technical sense as describing a comparison of persons with a view to rating and grading them in respect of relative worth or value—in an æsthetic or moral sense——and so awarding and defining the relative degrees of complacency with which they may legitimately be contemplated by themselves and by others. An invidious comparison is a process of valuation of persons in respect of worth.（Veblen，1899：34）

这是凡勃伦《有闲阶级论》第一章中的一些精彩片段。

文献来源：

Veblen, T. 1899. The theory of the leisure class. New York : Macmillan.

text 1

评判标准（standards）与分析视角（points of view）的转变是循序渐进（gradual only）的，极少（seldom）会彻底颠覆（subversion）或完全摒弃（suppression）一套业已被接受的认知立场（standpoint）。

时至今日，人们仍习惯性（habitually）区分生产性职业（industrial occupations）与非生产性职业（non-industrial occupations）；这种现代社会的划分方式（modern distinction），正是野蛮时代区分掠夺劳作（exploit）与苦力劳作（drudgery）演变（transmuted）而来的形态。

在大众普遍认知（popular apprehension）中，战争、政务、公共祭祀（public worship）、公共娱乐活动（public merrymaking）这类事务，和加工制造生存物资（elaborating the material means of life）的劳动有着本质上（intrinsically）的区别。

二者清晰的分界（precise line of demarcation）虽和早期野蛮社会的划分框架（early barbarian scheme）不尽相同，但这种宏观层面的区分标准（the broad distinction）并未被废弃（disuse）。

But the change of standards and points of view is gradual only, and it seldom results in the subversion or entire suppression of a standpoint once accepted. A distinction is still habitually made between industrial and non-industrial occupations; and this modern distinction is a transmuted form of the barbarian distinction between exploit and drudgery. Such employments as warfare, politics, public worship, and public merrymaking, are felt, in the popular apprehension, to differ intrinsically from the labour that has to do with elaborating the material means of life. The precise line of demarcation is not the same as it was in the early barbarian scheme, but the broad distinction has not fallen into disuse.【pp.9-10】

text 2

如今人们心照不宣（tacit）、基于常识（common-sense）形成的划分标准（distinction），实质上（in effect）可以概括为：只有最终目的（ultimate purpose）是利用（utilisation）非人事物的活动（ non-human things），才能被视作生产性（industrial）努力（effort）。

人与人之间带有强制性质的支配利用（coercive utilisation of man by man ），并不会被认为具有生产职能（ an industrial function）；

而一切借助非人外部环境（the non-human environment）改善人类生存条件（enhance human life）的劳动，都统一归为生产活动（industrial activity）。

那些完整继承并改良古典理论传统（classical tradition）的经济学家，普遍将人类 “支配自然的能力（man’s power over nature）” 设定（postulated）为生产产出能力/工业生产力（industrial productivity）的核心特征（characteristic fact）。

这种改造自然的生产能力（ industrial power over nature），涵盖人类驯养动物、掌控各类自然基础力量（elemental forces）的本领。通过这套界定方式，人类与野兽生灵（brute creation）之间被划出一道明确界限。

The tacit, common-sense distinction today is, in effect, that any effort is to be accounted industrial only so far as its ultimate purpose is the utilisation of non-human things. The coercive utilisation of man by man is not felt to be an industrial function; but all effort directed to enhance human life by taking advantage of the non-human environment is classed together as industrial activity. By the economists who have best retained and adapted the classical tradition, man’s“power over nature” is currently postulated as the characteristic fact of industrial productivity. This industrial power over nature is taken to include man’s power over the life of the beasts and over all the elemental forces. A line is in this way drawn between mankind and brute creation.【pp.10】

text 3

在这种对无生命之物（inert）和有生命之物（animate）的朴素区分（naïve discrimination）的指引（guidance）之下，原始社会群体（primitive social group）的各类活动倾向于被分为两大类别，用现代措辞来讲就是掠夺（exploit）与生产劳作（industry）。

生产劳作是付出精力（effort）去创造全新事物（create a new thing），制作者依靠加工之手（the fashioning hand ），从被动的（passive）（“原始粗野的”brute）原材料（material）之中，为这一事物赋予全新的用途（a new purpose）；

而掠夺，就是把此前由另一个主体（another agent）为其他目标（some other end ）所付出的力量（energies），转化为（conversion）服务于其（ps：掠夺者）自身目的（ his own end）的资源，只要这种掠夺能给行为主体（agent）带来有用的（useful）结果（outcome）。

我们至今仍会提及 “原始粗野的物质（brute matter）”，其中多少带有野蛮人当初赋予这个词汇的深层意义（profound significance）。

Under the guidance of this naïve discrimination between the inert and the animate, the activities of the primitive social group tend to fall into two classes, which would in modern phrase be called exploit and industry. Industry is effort that goes to create a new thing, with a new purpose given it by the fashioning hand of its maker out of passive (“brute”) material; while exploit, so far as it results in an outcome useful to the agent, is the conversion to his own ends of energies previously directed to some other end by another agent. We still speak of “brute matter” with something of the barbarian’s realisation of a profound significance in the term.【pp.12-13】

text 4

正如已经指出（indicated）的那样，掠夺（exploit）与苦役（drudgery）之间的划分，是各类职业（employments）之间带有尊卑歧视属性的区分（invidious distinction）。

那些可以被归为掠夺类（exploit）的职业是有价值的（worthy）、光荣的（honourable）、高贵的（noble）；

另一些不包含掠夺成分的职业，尤其是那些暗含顺从（subservience）或臣服（submission）意味的职业，则是无价值的（unworthy）、有损尊严的（debasing）、卑贱的（ignoble）。

尊严（dignity）、价值（worth）或是荣誉（honour）这一概念，无论用于形容人（persons）还是行为（conduct），在阶层（classes）以及阶层划分（class distinctions）的演化过程（development）中具备头等重要的意义（first-rate consequence），因此有必要阐述它的起源（derivation）与内涵（meaning）。支撑这一概念的心理基础（psychological ground）可以大致概述（indicated in outline）如下。

As has already been indicated, the distinction between exploit and drudgery is an invidious distinction between employments. Those employments which are to be classed as exploit are worthy, hon- ourable, noble; other employments, which do not contain this element of exploit, and especially those which imply subservience or submis- sion, are unworthy, debasing, ignoble. The concept of dignity, worth, or honour, as applied either to persons or conduct, is of first-rate consequence in the development of classes and of class distinctions, and it is therefore necessary to say something of its derivation and meaning. Its psychological ground may be indicated in outline as follows. 【pp.15】

text 5

出于筛选层面的必然（selective necessity），男子是行为主体（agent）。

在他自身的认知（apprehension）当中，他是展开冲动性活动（impulsive activity）的核心 —— 也就是 “目的论式的（teleological）” 活动。

他作为行为主体，在每一次行动之中都追求某个具体（concrete）、客观（objective）、非个人化（impersonal）目标（end）的达成（accomplishment）。

正是由于具备这样的主体属性，他天生喜爱富有成效的劳作（effective work），厌恶徒劳无功的付出（futile effort）。

他能够感知有用性（serviceability）或效率（efficiency）所具备的价值（merit），也能察觉无用（futility）、浪费（waste）或是无能（incapacity）所带来的缺陷（demerit）。

这种先天倾向（aptitude）或固有习性（propensity）可以被称作技艺本能（instinct of workmanship）。

只要生活环境（circumstances）或是生活传统（traditions）使人习惯性（habitual）地在效率（efficiency）层面将人与人相互对比（comparison），技艺本能（the instinct of workmanship）就会演变为带有竞争意味或是尊卑歧视性的人际攀比（an emulative or invidious comparison of persons）。

这一结果的显现程度，在很大程度上取决于族群的性格气质（temperament of the population）。

在任何一个习惯于开展这种歧视性人际对比（ invidious comparison of persons）的社群（community）里，外在可见的成功（visible success ）本身就会成为追求目标，因为它能作为获取他人尊重（esteem）的依据。

人们通过展现自身的办事效率来收获尊重（Esteem）、规避非议（dispraise）。

最终，技艺本能（the instinct of workmanship）会转化为带有竞争性质的实力展示（ an emulative demonstration of force）。

As a matter of selective necessity, man is an agent. He is, in his own apprehension, a centre of unfolding impulsive activity—“teleological” activity. He is an agent seeking in every act the accomplishment of some concrete, objective, impersonal end. By force of his being such an agent he is possessed of a taste for effective work, and a distaste for futile effort. He has a sense of the merit of serviceability or efficiency and of the demerit of futility, waste, or incapacity. This aptitude or propensity may be called the instinct of workmanship. Wherever the circumstances or traditions of life lead to an habitual comparison of one person with another in point of efficiency, the instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative or invidious comparison of persons. The extent to which this result follows depends in some considerable degree on the temperament of the population. In any community where such an invidious comparison of persons is habitually made, visible success becomes an end sought for its own utility as a basis of esteem. Esteem is gained and dispraise is avoided by putting one’s efficiency in evidence. The result is that the instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative demonstration of force.【pp.15-16】

text 6

因此，平和（peaceable）文化阶段与掠夺性（predatory）文化阶段之间实质性的区别（substantial difference），是精神层面（spiritual）的区别，而非物质工具层面（mechanical）的区别。

精神心态（spiritual attitude）的转变，是群体生活物质现实（material facts）发生改变所衍生的结果（outgrowth）；当有利于掠夺心态（favourable to a predatory attitude ）形成的物质环境（material circumstances）逐步出现（supervene）时，这种精神转变便会缓慢发生。

掠夺文化（the predatory culture）的下限（inferior limit）是生产限度（an industrial limit）。

只有当生产方式（industrial methods）的效率（efficiency）发展到一定水平，在维持谋生者基本生存（subsistence）之外，还能留出值得争夺的剩余物资（margin worth fighting for），掠夺才能成为任何群体或阶层习惯性（habitual）、常规性（conventional）的手段（resource）。

所以，从平和阶段向掠夺阶段的过渡（transition），依托于技术知识（technical knowledge）的发展与工具的使用（the use of tools）。

在远古时期，掠夺型文明无法形成，除非武器（weapons）发展到足以让人类具备强大威慑力（formidable）的程度。

当然，工具与武器的早期发展，只是同一客观事实从两种不同视角（points of view）观察得出的两种表述。

The substantial difference between the peaceable and the predatory phase of culture, therefore, is a spiritual difference, not a mechanical one. The change in spiritual attitude is the outgrowth of a change in the material facts of the life of the group, and it comes on gradually as the material circumstances favourable to a predatory attitude supervene. The inferior limit of the predatory culture is an industrial limit. Predation cannot become the habitual, conventional resource of any group or any class until industrial methods have been developed to such a degree of efficiency as to leave a margin worth fighting for, above the subsistence of those engaged in getting a living. The transition from peace to predation therefore depends on the growth of technical knowledge and the use of tools. A predatory culture is similarly impracticable in early times, until weapons have been developed to such a point as to make man a formidable animal. The early development of tools and of weapons is of course the same fact seen from two different points of view.【pp.20】

text 7

只要习惯性的争斗（habitual recourse to combat）没有使争斗成为人们日常思想的焦点（foreground in men’s everyday thoughts），成为人类生活的主导特征（dominant feature），那么一个群体的生活就可以被描述为和平的。

显然，一个群体可能在不同程度上达到这种掠夺性的态度，以至于其生活方式（scheme of life）和行为准则（canons of conduct ）在不同程度上受到掠夺本能（predatory animus）的控制。

因此，文化的掠夺阶段（The predatory phase of culture）被认为是逐渐形成的，是通过掠夺能力（predatory aptitudes）、习惯（habits）和传统（traditions）的累积增长（cumulative growth ）而实现的。

这种增长源于群体生活环境（circumstances）的变化，这种变化发展（develop）并保留（conserve）了那些使人走向掠夺而非和平生活的人性特征（ traits of human nature ）以及传统和行为规范（traditions and norms of conduct）。

The life of a given group would be characterised as peaceable so long as habitual recourse to combat has not brought the fight into the foreground in men’s everyday thoughts, as a dominant feature of the life of man. A group may evidently attain such a predatory attitude with a greater or less degree of completeness, so that its scheme of life and canons of conduct may be controlled to a greater or less extent by the predatory animus. The predatory phase of culture is therefore conceived to come on gradually, through a cumulative growth of predatory aptitudes, habits, and traditions, this growth being due to a change in the circumstances of the group’s life, of such a kind as to develop and conserve those traits of human nature and those traditions and norms of conduct that make for a predatory rather than a peaceable life.【pp.20-21】