The Global Sociology Blog

This

Why, Tiger? Why, bankers? Why? Because they can | Zoe Williams | Comment is free | The Guardian via kwout

reminded me of this, that is, a blog post where I used Denis Colombi’s starting point on traders as exempt from social norms that the rest of us are expected to follow. In other words, up until recently (that is when proverbial !@#$ hit the proverbial fan), we still lived on the “greed is good” ideology, based on the popularized notion that if we let the traders run loose and anomically, we would all benefit either specifically through the higher returns on our investments (forget the class il-logic here) or more generally through greater wealth throughout society.

The main similarity is indeed that traders are not the only “exempts”. Celebrities of various types also enjoy exemption from the norms (as long as they entertain us in one way or another, if they become too creepy, then it’s game over and stigmatization falls down on the debased celebrity who then – if said celebrity is a she – becomes a regular feature as number one segment on misogynist Olberman’s Countdown).

But one aspect that is often forgotten is not the constant temptation on celebrities morality, as Williams contends, but rather the sense of entitlement that comes with exemption from deviant stigmatization: traders are entitled to their bonuses despite the consequences of their financial behavior, and male celebrities are entitled to unrestrained sexuality (if heterosexual, of course) covered by the alibi of the “constant temptation.”

Note that whether we are talking about celebrities or bankers and traders, it is mostly male behavior we are implicitly discussing.

Here is a big difference as well: we tolerate celebrity deviance because the assumption is that “these people” are different and a rare category. There aren’t that many Tiger Woods. And the deviance itself may be a form of entertainment (and a lucrative industry), again, up to a point, as also illustrated by the case of Michael Vick or Tom Cruise. And this (although I find the analogy a bit unfortunate),

Why, Tiger? Why, bankers? Why? Because they can | Zoe Williams | Comment is free | The Guardian via kwout

True enough, the other factors involved might be that, before it all collapsed, bankers and traders were also exempt as a result of race and social class translated into political clout and cultural validation (”ownership society” trope as well as “running things like a business” as automatic signifier of efficiency) itself translated in the popularity of MBA programs. Paging Jürgen Habermas on colonization of the lifeworld by the system, and now crisis of legitimation.

So, now that we have transgressions on the part of the exempts, as a society, we demand some degree of contrition and restitution depending on the transgression. Mostly, it is going to be largely symbolic: Tiger Woods will apologize profusely, get counseling and find religion.

As for the bankers, racial and class privileges means that they never have to say they’re sorry. Because the bottom line is that the economic collapse has not altered the structured system of privileges. A few (again, largely symbolic) punitive measures might be enacted (probably more severe in the UK and France than the US), but no structural regulations will emerge. Again, a punitive outlook is never a sound basis for public policy.

Why, Tiger? Why, bankers? Why? Because they can | Zoe Williams | Comment is free | The Guardian via kwout

Either way, significant systemic change through serious regulation and redistribution will have to wait for another day.

The crisis of legitimation, though, is quite real and its effects (visible in the US through the Palin / Teabaggers social movement) could be potentially dangerous in the face of looming environmental catastrophes and more economic devastation.