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）