Abstract
After years of writing, Charles Camic’s book on Thorstein Veblen is finally complete. Although Veblen is not a popular figure in either economics or sociology today, interest in Veblen is not surprising because of their intellectual resonance: just as Camic considered himself a historically oriented sociologist of knowledge (p. 15), Veblen was highly dissatisfied with the ahistorical orientation of his contemporary mainstream economic theory and developed his institutional economics. Another reason that drew Camic’s attention to Veblen was that Veblen’s institutional economics was quite innovative compared to the economics of his time, but where did this innovation come from?
It has been argued that Veblen developed his theory differently from mainstream economics mainly because he was an ‘outsider’ to economics. In other words, being outside the academy, Veblen was unfamiliar with the basic paradigm of mainstream economics, so he was free to put forward views different from the mainstream without being influenced by it. However, when Camic went deep into Veblen’s life, he found that Veblen, far from an outsider to economics, was not only academically trained in economics and familiar with mainstream economists, but was also involved in the most cutting-edge economic debates of his time. Camic argues that the question of where Veblen’s intellectual innovations originated can only be explained from a more historical perspective, while biography focusing on the life course is the best style to present this explanation.
Veblen is divided into nine chapters. The first chapter outlines the originality of Veblen’s thought and pointing out the problems of established explanations. The second chapter borrows from Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory and the pragmatist theory of human conduct to build a theoretical framework for explaining intellectual innovation. Chapters 3 to 5 describe Veblen’s family roots and detail his study experience at Carleton College, Johns Hopkins University, and Yale University (where he received his PhD in Philosophy), indicating what knowledge Veblen was exposed to and from whom he received academic training. The sixth chapter focuses on Veblen’s 6-year temporary break from academia, sketching Veblen’s difficulties in finding employment in the context of the developing US economy and the organizational transformation of higher education. After noting Veblen decided in 1891 to go to Cornell University to study political economy and history, Chapter seven specifies Veblen’s experience following Laurence Laughlin to the University of Chicago. During this period, Veblen completed the transition from student to teacher and gradually became known in the economics circle. The eighth chapter centers on Veblen’s academic creations at the University of Chicago, especially the two major works that made him famous, namely The Theory of the Leisure Class and The Theory of Business Enterprise. Chapter 8 also illustrates that these two books intervene in the frontier debates of economics in an innovative way. Chapter 9 concludes in two parts: the first reaffirms that Veblen’s identity as an insider in economics and noting that the image of academic outsider only emerged after Veblen left Stanford University in 1919; the second states, to understand the foundation of Veblen’s innovative ideas, that one must take time into account, considering the field, field entry, knowledge practices, and the process of repetition-with-variation in their entirety.
The nearly 500-page work shows Camic’s long-standing interests in at least two ways. First, Camic is interested in Veblen’s life and thought; second, Camic hopes to transform traditional history of sociology and sociology of knowledge through historicism. It is clear that Camic’s interest in these two aspects is far from being formed in recent years. If Veblen in Camic’s Reputation and Predecessor Selection: Parsons and the Institutionalists was still only a background to the evolution of Talcott Parsons’ thought (Camic, 1992), in a series of short works that followed, Camic has continued to delve into Veblen’s thought and his time, seeking to explain how Veblen, a heretic or innovator in economics, came to be (Camic, 2012, 2019). The present work, rich in historical detail and skillfully argued, is the most concentrated expression of Camic’s research interests and academic achievements: in addition to refuting the myth of Veblen as an outsider to economics, Camic also proposes a new theory on knowledge production (especially intellectual innovation).
The sociology of knowledge has not completely ignored the problem of intellectual innovation. For example, in Randall Collins’ research on the sociology of philosophies, philosophical innovation – mainly manifested in the opposition and synthesis of positions – originates from three factors, namely, academics who pursue emotional energy, master–pupil relations, and attention spaces that are sometimes too empty and sometimes too crowded. In some cases, forms of philosophical innovation are also influenced by external political and economic factors (Collins, 1998). Although Collins’ theory is more concise and takes into account the educational experiences of scholars, in Camic’s view, Collins does not examine what habitus actors have prior to entering the field and is insensitive to time, and therefore does not fully reveal the importance of sequences of life events.
Drawing more or less on Collins’ theory, Camic views Veblen’s thought evolution from a more processual perspective – this book was once titled Becoming Thorstein Veblen, Economist in Time. His main arguments are the following four points: (1) the field of economics that Veblen entered was dominated by marginalism, from which the main theoretical problem – the distribution of wealth – originated; (2) Veblen’s entry into the field of economics is not inevitable. The process, on the contrary, is full of contingency, detours, and delays; (3) however, this prolonged process is not meaningless. Veblen’s educational experience prior to his exposure to marginalism was a process of repetition-with-variation, which means that events such as being in academic centers, reading widely, and studying with famous scholars continued to occur, but each time was different. These experiences forged a series of intellectual toolkits or repertoires for Veblen, particularly ‘the practice of viewing phenomena as constantly in flux, the practice of thinking in organic terms, and the practice of elevating science-based knowledge over other ways of knowing’ (2020: 359); (4) through this process of repetition-with-variation, Veblen becomes a ‘intellectual reservoir’ and is able to use his resources or tools skillfully, whether he is faced with routine situations that have precedents to follow or unexpected situations that require creativity. Innovation emerges when Veblen finally encounters marginalism in the field of economics and applies his intellectual tools to issues of mainstream economics.
Camic’s Veblen may be problematic in terms of historical detail, but in addition to its fine and readable content, we gain a new theory of the production and development of knowledge, and at the heart of this theory lies the concept of ‘repetition-with-variation’. Perhaps, this concept, also salvaged from the work of Robert K. Merton (Camic, 2011), will be as important as ‘obliteration by incorporation’ in the future.