|
AndrewHerink-SecondPaper 3 - 14 May 2008 - Main.AndrewHerink
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Exploiting the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation: Veblen Meets Plunkitt | >
> | Plunkitt and the Art of Dual Display | | | -- By AndrewHerink - 10 Feb 2008 | |
<
< | What can Veblen’s theory of economic institutions reveal about the relative success of political systems? Tammany Hall, a system of machine politics, was a force in New York City from the mid-1800s until the New Deal. George Washington Plunkitt, whose musings are documented in William Riordon’s Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (1905), was a long-time State Senator and Tammany’s most outspoken politician. Plunkitt’s ruminations suggest that Tammany’s brand of machine politics was successful because it reinforced and exploited the culture of pecuniary emulation. | >
> | George Washington Plunkitt, whose musings are documented in William Riordon’s Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (1905), was a long-time State Senator and Tammany Hall’s most outspoken politician. What can Plunkitt’s ruminations reveal? Above all, Riordin’s documentary shows a leader influenced by the culture of pecuniary emulation but, concomitantly, able to adapt this culture to his own needs. | | | | |
<
< | Reinforcing the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation | >
> | Plunkitt and the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation | | | | |
<
< | In order to promote the pecuniary emulation culture they exploited, Tammany politicians openly engaged in this culture. Whereas Republican politicians made “indignant denials” about their plunders, Plunkitt candidly embraced the amounts of wealth his “honest graft” brought him. William Riordon, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, September 2001, http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/plnth10.txt. Plunkitt proclaims: “Everybody knows what figure I cut in the greatest organization on earth, and if you hear people say that I’ve laid away a million or so since I was a butcher’s boy in Washington Market, don’t come to me for an indignant denial I’m pretty comfortable, thank you.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Not only, then, does Plunkitt claim to have obscene amounts of money; he also asserts that he is so conspicuous in his consumption that “everybody knows” exactly how much he makes.
Plunkitt also makes it clear that conspicuous consumption equates with success. Prior to explaining his habits of indulgence, he states, “I don’t think you can easily find a better example than I am of success in politics.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. This open embracement of conspicuous consumption’s imperativeness helped to reinforce in Tammany voters’ minds the superiority of the pecuniary emulation culture. | >
> | On one level, Plunkitt is a politician immersed in the culture of pecuniary emulation. Whereas Republican politicians make “indignant denials” about their plunders, Plunkitt candidly embraces the amounts of wealth his “honest graft” brings him. William Riordon, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, September 2001, http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/plnth10.txt. Plunkitt proclaims: “Everybody knows what figure I cut in the greatest organization on earth, and if you hear people say that I’ve laid away a million or so since I was a butcher’s boy in Washington Market, don’t come to me for an indignant denial I’m pretty comfortable, thank you.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Not only, then, does Plunkitt claim to have obscene amounts of money; he also asserts that he is so conspicuous in his consumption that “everybody knows” exactly how much he makes. Moreover, Plunkitt believes that his conspicuous consumption equates with success. Prior to explaining his habits of indulgence, he states, “I don’t think you can easily find a better example than I am of success in politics.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2.
Plunkitt’s view of politics also reflects his immersion in the culture of pecuniary emulation. He claims that he and other Tammany politicians “have always stood […] for reward – in the men that won the victory. They call that the spoils system.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 3. For Plunkitt, politics is another way to achieve conspicuous aggrandizement, not a way to create a better society. In contrast, he portrays his Republican rivals as foreigners to this culture, people who are more concerned with rights and abstract justice for the community than material gain for themselves. According to Plunkitt, Tammany’s opponents “cram” the “letterboxes” of constituents with fliers representing their high-minded ideals. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6. Plunkitt makes it clear that he has no tolerance for “politics from books” and other “sorts of college rot.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. These things do not yield spoils and thus are not worthwhile. | | | | |
<
< | Exploiting the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation to Gain Votes
In addition to reinforcing this culture, Tammany politicians exploited it in several ways. First they constructed a narrative of the political process that mirrored the process of pecuniary emulation. This parallel narrative gave Tammany’s rather impoverished immigrant base a chance to excel in at least some form of the pecuniary emulation sweepstakes. Plunkitt states: “When the people elected Tammany, they knew just what they were doin’. We didn’t put up any false pretenses. […] We stood as we have always stood, for reward – in the men that won the victory. They call that the spoils system.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 3. This process of transforming victory into spoils paralleled the process of pecuniary emulation. Tammany’s political base consistently witnessed wealthier individuals turn economic supremacy (superior amounts of money) into individual conspicuous consumption and, in turn, gain noticeable “victory” over their economic inferiors. Tammany claimed that it could help its members perform a similar trick: it could turn political supremacy (superior amounts of votes) into conspicuous consumption for its voting bloc. Of course, the conspicuous consumption that Tammany’s voters engaged in (jobs and pay raises) was less indulgent than that of their wealthier counterparts. Nonetheless, even this limited consumption signified “victory” over much of their downtrodden lower-class peers.
- Andrew, this an unnecessary pool of error. Obviously, immigrant workingmen aren't being made members of the leisure class by getting a job in the gas house. Plunkitt is saying that by successful exploit he has become a chieftain (do you know enough about Tammany Hall to know of its "Indian" regalia and rituals?)--his followers get jobs, and make money, while his style of existence is glorified. You can tell the story you want to tell, showing how Veblen's thinking illuminates the politics of his time, without doing fundamental violence to his ideas, as you are doing here.
In addition, Tammany politicians made it appear as though their opponents described a narrative of the political process (one based on rights and justice) that was foreign to the culture of pecuniary emulation. Early on, Plunkitt makes it clear that a Tammany man has no tolerance for “politics from books” and other “sorts of college rot.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. In contrast, Tammany’s Republican opponents “cram” the “letterboxes” of constituents with fliers representing their high-minded ideals. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6. According to Plunkitt, these principled ideals fail to communicate to voters, who desire conspicuous results and spoils. Thus Plunkitt notes his politics is focused on obtaining noticeable outcomes, not intangible rights, for constituents: he “help[s] them in the different ways they need help.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6.
- But that hasn't anything to do with the preceding point and is not "in addition."
Exploiting the Pecuniary Emulation Culture to Create Leaders
Tammany also exploited the culture of pecuniary emulation by constructing an internal promotion procedure that mirrored the process of conspicuous consumption. That is, whereas success in the pecuniary emulation culture depended on how many riches one could gain and how well he could show them off, success in Tammany Hall depended on the amount of votes a politician could acquire and how well he could display them. Since this type of promotion process was intuitive to Tammany’s politicians, who had been raised in a culture of pecuniary emulation, they thrived under it, which in turn helped Tammany as a whole gain votes and strength.
- But this too is completely wrong. Plunkitt, with his particular constituency, adopts his particular conspicuous style. But, as he points out himself, that's no part of the style of the most eminent Tammany politician of his time, his own boss, Richard Croker. That one has votes behind one is the crucial aspect of political leadership to these men, and flamboyant material style is valuable only insofar as it conduces to marshaling votes. To talk of "displaying votes" as a pecuniary competition among bosses is not insightful, just confusing.
Along these lines, Plunkitt notes that he received no status in Tammany until he gained supporting voters. Then, when he had three voters backing him, “everybody [in Tammany Hall] shook hands with me, and the leader one day honored me by lightin’ a match for my cigar.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Later, he gained upwards of sixty votes and gave his group of backers an official name, the “George Washington Plunkitt Association,” to make his pledged votes more conspicuous. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. At that point, he was “courted and petted” by Tammany’s leaders, and he received a seat in the Assembly as soon as he asked for one. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Clearly, then, Tammany was successful, in part, because its members understood and thrived under its promotion process.
- A tautology dressed as an insight.
| | | | |
>
> | Plunkitt’s Dual Display | | | | |
>
> | Yet Plunkitt does not adopt the culture of pecuniary emulation in its purest form. Indeed, he spends a whole chapter admonishing future politicians on the “Dangers of the Dress Suit in Politics.” Riordon, supra, at Ch 12. He tells these politicians to “[l]ive like your neighbors even if you have the means to live better” and to “[m]ake the poorest man in your district feel that he is your equal, or even a bit superior to you.” Id. Indeed, Plunkitt himself claims to wear the simplest of clothing.
In one sense, Plunkitt’s aversion to the dress suit can be seen as a rejection of the “pure” pecuniary emulation culture, in which one’s sole objective is to transform his wealth into conspicuous display. Yet in another, more important sense, his aversion is an adaptation of the pecuniary emulation culture to his own political needs. If Plunkitt were merely a wealthy private individual he would have no incentive to avoid a dress suit, for his wealth and his display of it would be the sole base of his power. Yet, Plunkitt, to retain his level of influence, has to do more than show that he is a rich man; he has to display himself as a capable leader for his constituents.
To show himself as a viable leader, Plunkitt attempts to perform a “dual display.” On one hand, Plunkitt has to make clear that he is “better” than his constituents. If they see him as an equal, they will not accept him as any more capable than they are of leading their lives. In turn, Plunkitt, as seen above, makes clear to his voters that he has massive amounts of wealth. Although his voters are not successful in the conspicuous consumption sweepstakes, they are constantly exposed to the culture of pecuniary emulation by their richer peers. Plunkitt, therefore, gambles that his voters will buy into the pecuniary emulation culture and, in turn, translate his conspicuous display of wealth into an assumption that he is superior.
Yet, paradoxically, Plunkitt also must communicate that he, although superior, is in essence identical to his voters. If his voters view him as an outsider, they may fear that he will not look out for their interests, and in turn they may be less likely to support him. Plunkitt, therefore, attempts to make a second, more populistic type of conspicuous display: he openly refuses to wear a dress suit and ridicules those who do. In effect, in order to communicate an affinity with his largely indigent voters, Plunkitt makes conspicuous his refusal to use his clothing for conspicuous consumption. Again, Plunkitt takes a risk: he gambles that his voters will understand his dual display of superiority and similarity.
It is unclear whether or not Plunkitt’s voters were actually convinced by Plunkitt’s duel display. His political longevity may have had more to do with his ability to provide jobs and pay raises for his voters. Yet, nonetheless, his attempt to display himself in a certain light in order to aggrandize his power shows his acceptance of the communicative mode of conspicuous consumption. | | | Conclusions | |
<
< | The above analysis suggests that political organizations will thrive if they can exploit the culture of pecuniary emulation. Obviously, the machine politics model is not the only way to perform such exploitation. Indeed, one could argue that our current political system does an even better job of utilizing the pecuniary emulation culture to its advantage. | >
> | Plunkitt was influenced by the pecuniary emulation culture, as his attempt at “duel display” reveals. Yet I do not mean to suggest that Plunkitt was merely a function of this culture. He was a complicated figure with many influences, only one of which was the predominant leisure class culture of his (and our) time. | | | -- AndrewHerink - 04 Apr 2008 | |
<
< |
- A single example couldn't suggest anything about the dynamics of political organizations, and you should know better than to propose a one-point line, let alone a one-point curve. The basic problem was in using one concept in a highly schematic way to address a complex social phenomenon instead of using several concepts in flexible, overlapping ways to address a simple social phenomenon in perspective.
| | | | |
<
< | | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AndrewHerink-SecondPaper 2 - 13 Apr 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| | | Exploiting the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation to Gain Votes
In addition to reinforcing this culture, Tammany politicians exploited it in several ways. First they constructed a narrative of the political process that mirrored the process of pecuniary emulation. This parallel narrative gave Tammany’s rather impoverished immigrant base a chance to excel in at least some form of the pecuniary emulation sweepstakes. Plunkitt states: “When the people elected Tammany, they knew just what they were doin’. We didn’t put up any false pretenses. […] We stood as we have always stood, for reward – in the men that won the victory. They call that the spoils system.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 3. This process of transforming victory into spoils paralleled the process of pecuniary emulation. Tammany’s political base consistently witnessed wealthier individuals turn economic supremacy (superior amounts of money) into individual conspicuous consumption and, in turn, gain noticeable “victory” over their economic inferiors. Tammany claimed that it could help its members perform a similar trick: it could turn political supremacy (superior amounts of votes) into conspicuous consumption for its voting bloc. Of course, the conspicuous consumption that Tammany’s voters engaged in (jobs and pay raises) was less indulgent than that of their wealthier counterparts. Nonetheless, even this limited consumption signified “victory” over much of their downtrodden lower-class peers. | |
>
> |
- Andrew, this an unnecessary pool of error. Obviously, immigrant workingmen aren't being made members of the leisure class by getting a job in the gas house. Plunkitt is saying that by successful exploit he has become a chieftain (do you know enough about Tammany Hall to know of its "Indian" regalia and rituals?)--his followers get jobs, and make money, while his style of existence is glorified. You can tell the story you want to tell, showing how Veblen's thinking illuminates the politics of his time, without doing fundamental violence to his ideas, as you are doing here.
| | | In addition, Tammany politicians made it appear as though their opponents described a narrative of the political process (one based on rights and justice) that was foreign to the culture of pecuniary emulation. Early on, Plunkitt makes it clear that a Tammany man has no tolerance for “politics from books” and other “sorts of college rot.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. In contrast, Tammany’s Republican opponents “cram” the “letterboxes” of constituents with fliers representing their high-minded ideals. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6. According to Plunkitt, these principled ideals fail to communicate to voters, who desire conspicuous results and spoils. Thus Plunkitt notes his politics is focused on obtaining noticeable outcomes, not intangible rights, for constituents: he “help[s] them in the different ways they need help.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6. | |
>
> |
- But that hasn't anything to do with the preceding point and is not "in addition."
| | | Exploiting the Pecuniary Emulation Culture to Create Leaders
Tammany also exploited the culture of pecuniary emulation by constructing an internal promotion procedure that mirrored the process of conspicuous consumption. That is, whereas success in the pecuniary emulation culture depended on how many riches one could gain and how well he could show them off, success in Tammany Hall depended on the amount of votes a politician could acquire and how well he could display them. Since this type of promotion process was intuitive to Tammany’s politicians, who had been raised in a culture of pecuniary emulation, they thrived under it, which in turn helped Tammany as a whole gain votes and strength. | |
>
> |
- But this too is completely wrong. Plunkitt, with his particular constituency, adopts his particular conspicuous style. But, as he points out himself, that's no part of the style of the most eminent Tammany politician of his time, his own boss, Richard Croker. That one has votes behind one is the crucial aspect of political leadership to these men, and flamboyant material style is valuable only insofar as it conduces to marshaling votes. To talk of "displaying votes" as a pecuniary competition among bosses is not insightful, just confusing.
| | | Along these lines, Plunkitt notes that he received no status in Tammany until he gained supporting voters. Then, when he had three voters backing him, “everybody [in Tammany Hall] shook hands with me, and the leader one day honored me by lightin’ a match for my cigar.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Later, he gained upwards of sixty votes and gave his group of backers an official name, the “George Washington Plunkitt Association,” to make his pledged votes more conspicuous. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. At that point, he was “courted and petted” by Tammany’s leaders, and he received a seat in the Assembly as soon as he asked for one. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Clearly, then, Tammany was successful, in part, because its members understood and thrived under its promotion process. | |
>
> |
- A tautology dressed as an insight.
| | | Conclusions
The above analysis suggests that political organizations will thrive if they can exploit the culture of pecuniary emulation. Obviously, the machine politics model is not the only way to perform such exploitation. Indeed, one could argue that our current political system does an even better job of utilizing the pecuniary emulation culture to its advantage.
-- AndrewHerink - 04 Apr 2008 | |
>
> |
- A single example couldn't suggest anything about the dynamics of political organizations, and you should know better than to propose a one-point line, let alone a one-point curve. The basic problem was in using one concept in a highly schematic way to address a complex social phenomenon instead of using several concepts in flexible, overlapping ways to address a simple social phenomenon in perspective.
| | | |
|
|
AndrewHerink-SecondPaper 1 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.AndrewHerink
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Exploiting the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation: Veblen Meets Plunkitt
-- By AndrewHerink - 10 Feb 2008
What can Veblen’s theory of economic institutions reveal about the relative success of political systems? Tammany Hall, a system of machine politics, was a force in New York City from the mid-1800s until the New Deal. George Washington Plunkitt, whose musings are documented in William Riordon’s Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (1905), was a long-time State Senator and Tammany’s most outspoken politician. Plunkitt’s ruminations suggest that Tammany’s brand of machine politics was successful because it reinforced and exploited the culture of pecuniary emulation.
Reinforcing the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation
In order to promote the pecuniary emulation culture they exploited, Tammany politicians openly engaged in this culture. Whereas Republican politicians made “indignant denials” about their plunders, Plunkitt candidly embraced the amounts of wealth his “honest graft” brought him. William Riordon, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, September 2001, http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/plnth10.txt. Plunkitt proclaims: “Everybody knows what figure I cut in the greatest organization on earth, and if you hear people say that I’ve laid away a million or so since I was a butcher’s boy in Washington Market, don’t come to me for an indignant denial I’m pretty comfortable, thank you.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Not only, then, does Plunkitt claim to have obscene amounts of money; he also asserts that he is so conspicuous in his consumption that “everybody knows” exactly how much he makes.
Plunkitt also makes it clear that conspicuous consumption equates with success. Prior to explaining his habits of indulgence, he states, “I don’t think you can easily find a better example than I am of success in politics.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. This open embracement of conspicuous consumption’s imperativeness helped to reinforce in Tammany voters’ minds the superiority of the pecuniary emulation culture.
Exploiting the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation to Gain Votes
In addition to reinforcing this culture, Tammany politicians exploited it in several ways. First they constructed a narrative of the political process that mirrored the process of pecuniary emulation. This parallel narrative gave Tammany’s rather impoverished immigrant base a chance to excel in at least some form of the pecuniary emulation sweepstakes. Plunkitt states: “When the people elected Tammany, they knew just what they were doin’. We didn’t put up any false pretenses. […] We stood as we have always stood, for reward – in the men that won the victory. They call that the spoils system.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 3. This process of transforming victory into spoils paralleled the process of pecuniary emulation. Tammany’s political base consistently witnessed wealthier individuals turn economic supremacy (superior amounts of money) into individual conspicuous consumption and, in turn, gain noticeable “victory” over their economic inferiors. Tammany claimed that it could help its members perform a similar trick: it could turn political supremacy (superior amounts of votes) into conspicuous consumption for its voting bloc. Of course, the conspicuous consumption that Tammany’s voters engaged in (jobs and pay raises) was less indulgent than that of their wealthier counterparts. Nonetheless, even this limited consumption signified “victory” over much of their downtrodden lower-class peers.
In addition, Tammany politicians made it appear as though their opponents described a narrative of the political process (one based on rights and justice) that was foreign to the culture of pecuniary emulation. Early on, Plunkitt makes it clear that a Tammany man has no tolerance for “politics from books” and other “sorts of college rot.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. In contrast, Tammany’s Republican opponents “cram” the “letterboxes” of constituents with fliers representing their high-minded ideals. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6. According to Plunkitt, these principled ideals fail to communicate to voters, who desire conspicuous results and spoils. Thus Plunkitt notes his politics is focused on obtaining noticeable outcomes, not intangible rights, for constituents: he “help[s] them in the different ways they need help.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6.
Exploiting the Pecuniary Emulation Culture to Create Leaders
Tammany also exploited the culture of pecuniary emulation by constructing an internal promotion procedure that mirrored the process of conspicuous consumption. That is, whereas success in the pecuniary emulation culture depended on how many riches one could gain and how well he could show them off, success in Tammany Hall depended on the amount of votes a politician could acquire and how well he could display them. Since this type of promotion process was intuitive to Tammany’s politicians, who had been raised in a culture of pecuniary emulation, they thrived under it, which in turn helped Tammany as a whole gain votes and strength.
Along these lines, Plunkitt notes that he received no status in Tammany until he gained supporting voters. Then, when he had three voters backing him, “everybody [in Tammany Hall] shook hands with me, and the leader one day honored me by lightin’ a match for my cigar.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Later, he gained upwards of sixty votes and gave his group of backers an official name, the “George Washington Plunkitt Association,” to make his pledged votes more conspicuous. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. At that point, he was “courted and petted” by Tammany’s leaders, and he received a seat in the Assembly as soon as he asked for one. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Clearly, then, Tammany was successful, in part, because its members understood and thrived under its promotion process.
Conclusions
The above analysis suggests that political organizations will thrive if they can exploit the culture of pecuniary emulation. Obviously, the machine politics model is not the only way to perform such exploitation. Indeed, one could argue that our current political system does an even better job of utilizing the pecuniary emulation culture to its advantage.
-- AndrewHerink - 04 Apr 2008
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|