Amal Mahjoubi: Magnificent

Since ancient times, history has been full of various and constantly renewed examples of giving to society, of benefiting society; the Greeks and Romans in their time had already established “euergetism” to the height of a system. In an example of a certain revival of it, P. Veyne cites the “cargo” system practiced today in Mexico and the Andes, wondering “what makes people give? Is it a value, a virtue, or a very human weakness, vanity or greatness.” (Bread and Circuses, Seuil, p. 31). Of course, moral feelings, philanthropy, as well as pride and ostentation have always existed, as has the weight and pressure of ruthless public opinion, “but why do they sometimes target euergetia?”

In his famous answer to this question, Aristotle insisted that effectivenessism is a manifestation of moral virtue and quality of character. “In all his studies of the magnificent, Aristotle constantly focuses on the system of liturgy and evergesia, which existed in its nascent state during the decades when the philosopher taught”. Thus, the Greek is interpreted as a value that is both Greek and human, a disposition that is at once anthropological and universal, and a character trait that is consistent with the Greek national genius. But the philosopher does not stop at the meaning of the word “magnificence”, but quickly speaks of values; if the Greeks attached considerable value to magnificence, it is because it was part of their national character, manifested towards all types of individuals and groups. The answer is ambiguous, so much so that one wonders whether magnificence is a kind of generosity, which is almost entirely related to donations to the community, and whether “Gorgeous” Always a social type, a famous rich man.

A grand gesture is a “grand” gesture, whether it is made for private expenses, such as for a wedding or funeral. “Just something that’s of interest to the city as a whole?” If they are of a collective nature, these costs “Especially those things related to God, such as sacrifices.” this “Gorgeous” Thus, spending for the benefit of all, its donations, civic or religious generosity, does not belong to the system of mediation and gift exchange that characterizes the more modest virtue of generosity. Spending extensively or giving extensively is almost the same thing. It is of the same order, because in both cases you have to be rich, and the prestige gained from it is the same. In an unequal society, the rich social class has prestige and can only retain it by spending or giving. According to Veblen’s famous theory, the ostentatious gifts of expensive objects, as well as their acquisition or destruction, will help to prove that the patron, like the consumer, has sufficient resources and wealth to support such spending. “It is a way of honoring a man of leisure to emphasize the consumption of expensive goods” (Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, p. 54).Indeed, it is acknowledged that ostentation is often a calculation of the famous, either because luxury helps to distinguish this social category, to separate it from the group, or because the prestige it provides can impress the oppressed class. Thus, economists point out that luxury goods are often an exception to the law that requires that demand is more or less a decreasing function of price. In fact, high prices seem to attract buyers, and this “Veblen effect” is considered an exception to economic rationality. Is it true that the rich buy certain goods just to show off their fame, i.e. to be able to pay a large sum for a luxury watch, to own a Ferrari or other endangered items, beyond the reach of the poor? Therefore, should we consider that luxury goods always come down to this “Veblen effect”? Then we should try to analyze and deepen this question, and perhaps we should also look for other reasons, such as the diversity and changes in what the audience demands or appreciates… “Conspicuous consumption can only be sustained as an institution because it satisfies the needs not only of the ostentatious but of the spectators. The spectators expect, inflict…waste. The façade of luxury announces the king, the rich, the aristocratic, but the spectators to whom it is addressed are also interested in the very thing.(R. Ruyer, “Spiritual Nutrition and Economics”, in “Notebook of the Institute of Applied Economic Sciences, n.55, 1957”). But what Veblen meant by showing off can also be called narcissism, because it involves the show-off, who is the first to experience the sheen of prestige and wealth!

First of all, however, it must be remembered that, according to Veblen, ostentation confuses two ideas: on the one hand, wealth provides material satisfaction and gives its owner a sense of superiority; on the other hand, this superiority, this primacy, is linked to a certain pomp, luxury, which is part of this adornment and is perceptible to others. The Platonic satisfaction that Veblen identifies and retains only is vanity, while wealth, the life of the rich, is a kind of excellence, and the transition from this excellence to ostentation is easy. As St. Thomas writes: “Greatness of soul comes from two things, from prestige and its subject, from doing great work and its purpose…Thus, those who are both virtuous and wealthy have more prestige than those who are virtuous alone.”We must therefore “include external goods in good action, since no good action can be performed when a man is deprived of the necessary resources.” (Nicomachean Ethics, I, 9 (1099 A30). Hume adds that, for his part, “There is nothing we respect more than a man’s power and wealth, and nothing we despise more than his poverty and mediocrity” (A Treatise of Human Nature, Aubier-Montaigne, Vol. 2, p. 461).

The rich man is admired and admired; but when he is mocked by vanity and boasting for a common mistake, this mistake becomes a degradation. This defect only becomes apparent when we forget that prestige is only the result of excellence. In this case, the rich man behaves admirably only to be praised, or even to be praised. But when the gentleman displays disproportionate splendor, which obviously exceeds his superiority, ostentation is nothing more than an excess. However, we should add that in any case not all luxury is ostentation for the rich, because any superiority that is not seen and displayed will be suspected and even suspected of being usurped; then, through luxurious pageants not only wealth is increased, but also other advantages are enhanced and beautified. Wealth and even opulence are pushed to excess, and this is only an indicator, only a warning sign of political, social or religious superiority. In any case, luxury is not the only means of ostentation, because rituals and their different manifestations provide the same function.

Amal Mahjoubi