The Instrumentality of Ceremonial Habits of Thought

This article problematizes the Veblenian Dichotomy, highlighting the instrumental aspects of ceremonial habits of thought. The Veblenian Dichotomy is a key tool of analysis among Institutional economists, but devolves into a dualism, when used to define progress. This is evident in the identification of progress with increasing instrumental value, implying ceremonial institutions are antithetical to progress. This led to debate among Institutionalists in the 1980s and 1990s, between those following in the tradition of Clarence Ayres, identifying progress with a universal social value principle, and those asserting ceremonial institutions as more than “imbecile”: the Wendell Gordon-Anne Mayhew camp. This debate never reached a conclusion, yet a large literature emerged animated by the ideas stemming from the former group, with little work expanding on the arguments of the latter. This article reopens these debates, building off the arguments of the Gordon-Mayhew side. It is asserted that using the dichotomy in defining progress turns it into a dualism antithetical to evolutionary analysis. Furthermore, it inhibits our ability to complexly analyze ceremonial habits of thought, not allowing us to recognize their inherently instrumental aspects. This problematizes the dichotomy itself. Considering these arguments, the role of the academic as myth debunker is asserted as a way forward.