Few remember Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) as a connoisseur of beauty or champion of beauty’s importance to an institutionally modern and technologically sophisticated society. Similarly few credit Veblen with any constructive theory of politics. Yet Veblen’s conception of the beautiful, his account of its role in human cultural evolution, and his critique of its perversion in the industrialized societies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are invaluable to contemporary social-aesthetic aims of political and economic reconstruction. In contrast to the Veblen (...) of memory, the real Veblen devoted significant intellectual energy to building a theory of what political thinkers today call public work: creative, negotiated, open-ended production of shared goods by individuals alert both to self-interest and collective needs. Partaking of the rich tradition of philosophical pragmatism, Veblen's social aesthetics also points to that tradition's continuing value for contemporary aesthetic, social, and political theory. Indeed, further augmented by recent advances in cultural evolutionary theory, Veblen’s pragmatist, public-work aesthetics suggests a vision of democratic citizenship defined by cooperative imagination, production, critique, and re-creation of a moral and material commonwealth. The so-called “bard of savagery,” therefore, is better understood as a “bard of democracy,” narrating the travails and affirming the ideals of a culture aspiring to self-government. His is a vision that might lend the fragmented field of social aesthetics a common, compelling narrative of its own. (shrink)

Major sociological work related to the culture industry thesis was undertaken by Adorno during his period as a ‘refugee scholar’ in the USA. It has been charged with a ‘sociological deficit’ by leading figures within critical theory, typically without reference to that US context. A dialogue with Márkus’s work on Adorno and the Marxian production paradigm can redress failings in those critiques. However, such a task is complicated by the limitations of Márkus’s own major essay on this topic. This paper (...) thus conducts an immanent critique of Márkus: ‘Márkus against Márkus’. Márkus’s proposals for the application of the Marxian production paradigm to aesthetic culture and his prospective vision for critical theory are so found to be very compatible with Adorno’s related work. (shrink)