Veblen's Instinct of Workmanship pg. 240-253

 This section continues Veblen's thinking regarding the evolution of the handicraft era.  The first point he wants to make is that the machine era requires a matter of fact and mechanical approach to work and workmanship as opposed to the era of human dexterity and high touch of the handicraft era. He also notes again how the crafts persons embody the nature of the economy in that era and convince many others that human craftsmanship is the best gauge upon which to assess society. He writs that,  “to serve the needs of this machine technology, therefore, the information which accumulates must in some measure be divested of its naive personal colouring by use and wont; and the degree in which this effect is had is a measure of the degree of availability of the resulting facts for the uses of the machine technology.” (Veblen, pg. 240, 1914).

From this point, we observe the shift towards the machine age and perhaps of equal importance the price age.  As Veblen notes on page 243-244,  “the logic and concepts of accountancy are wholly impersonal and dispassionate; and whether men’s use of its logic and concepts takes the elaborate form of a set of books or the looser fashion of an habitual rating of gains, losses, income, and outgo in terms of price, its effect is unavoidably in some degree to induce a statistical habit of mind.” We see a major shot away from the anthropomorphic and personal to the impersonal of the machine age. In fact, Veblen believes the movement of accounting is a major force in driving technological change in the modern era of his time.

From here, Veblen then discusses the historical experience of various major European powers and their attempts to generate technological growth and development. His basic argument is that only Britain was first able to sustain a major advance. Countries like Italy, Netherlands, France, Germany and others failed. They failed as the system self-imploded before they could truly gain ground often due to state interference and religious extremism according to Veblen. Veblen further writes that Britain succeeded not due to smarter people, racial differences but rather due to isolated geography and reasonable population size to build internal markets.

We continue to see Veblen employing his methods to show us habits of thought or institutions change over time and due to what forces.  In this case, the shift in habits of thought occurs as technology shifts. But, Veblen acknowledges that there is likely a great deal of circularity as to what causes what. I also feel that he has some pretty negative comments about craftspeople and that era whereas before perhaps I thought he saw that social system as an ideal previously.