In praise of the tall poppy syndrome
I had been discussing the tall poppy syndrome with a few Vox friends in a private post (it’s about giving fair play to those of us who are somewhat antiestablishment). Interesting, then, to see a counterpoint from an American newspaper, which celebrates it:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/26/opinion/edbowring.php
The argument makes some sense, in that we don’t want to abandon our notions of fairness and equality. However, I can’t see why we don’t celebrate accomplishments and give the little guy a go. Doing both is what made America great, and I think we can strike the happy medium. The trick is to sustain it.
The comparison with Scandinavia is valid: they have a concept called jantelagen which, when it was first explained to me, bore very, very similar hallmarks:
Comments
Well, that is the trick: to sustain it. Celebrating accomplishments and individual success is what make's America's historical image great; we were very good at branding, Jack. :)
I could argue that those two alone did not make America great or rich, and I could also argue further that those two characteristics haven't gone hand in hand for many years here.
We truly never had the tall poppy syndrome, even if you count the power-grabbing of unions in the 60s and 70s. (But now you have a middle-class backlash against the unions!) The poor and middle classes have never begrudged rich people their money or made any gestures to cut the poppies down to size. To the contrary: watch how Americans buy lottery tickets to be one of the rich (who really needs $254 million dollars? couldn't less amounts to a larger number of people be satisfactory?), and watch how the lines grow and the money changes as the powerball amount rises. We love people with more money than we have. They are symbols.
Anyway, now I have a new term to use. Thanks!