http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/NANTUCKET-FINAL.html?scp=7&sq=Nouveau%20riche&st=Search
The concept of the chasm that has and continues to develop between people who have "new money" and people who come from old money is very prevalent in The Rise of Silas Lapham. It made me think about the disconnect between the two groups that occurs in the novel, and the separation that exists now. I did a bit of research on the nouveau riche and found a very interesting article from 2005 which I think many of us can find familiar.
Nantucket is a popular destination for many New Englanders. For some it is home, or a second, third, or even fourth home. Such is the case with the people interviewed for the New York Time's article "Old Nantucket Warily Meets the New". The article delves into the behaviors and appearances, particularly in logic and use of money, that differentiate the "new" and "old" money of Nantucket. In a place where people buy a 15 million dollar summer house, and the two million dollar one next-door for the help, questions of how their individual wealth was accumulated arise. The answers to these questions, and many others with regard to possessions, are where a significant difference lies between money and class. Kittredge, a man of the new moneyed community, made his fortune when he sold his Yankee Candle Company for $500 million. His lifestyle is lavish and flashy, which is the case for many people of new money who use their possessions as trophy signs of wealth. Kittredge describes interactions between the two types of money at a cocktail party: "You meet someone and they start telling you about their boat. He has a 45-foot boat and he is very happy with it. Then he'll say, 'Do you have a boat?' And you say, 'Yes.' 'Well, what kind of boat do you have?' And you say, 'A Fed Ship.' And he says, 'How big is it?' That's how people rank them. So I have to say, 'It's 200 feet.' It's the end of the conversation. Is there envy? Yes, could be. Was he a wealthy guy in his day? Absolutely, but relative to today - no. The two worlds can mix as long as they don't talk too much." Kittredge takes clear notice of the contrast between the material objects that each group owns, those of new money typically being bigger and more expensive than those of old money. People from new money have founded their own sort of community "creating a self-enclosed world where the criterion for admission is not the Social Register, but money". Is it truly envy, or the values that each group has which separates them? Are the values of one group better than the other's? Or are they both ridiculous?
Nina Chandler Murray goes into the details of why coming from old money, inherited from an old elite investment credit rating firm, clashes with new. Her emphasis lies on class versus money, and how the two do not go hand-in-hand.
"Wealthy people dressed down. Women eschewed heavy jewelry. The uniform for a man was a plain shirt, faded "Nantucket red" Bermuda shorts and Topsiders. Now, Dr. Murray suggested, the rule is: If you've got it, flaunt it.
"What has happened in America is that achievement is so important that everyone wants everyone else to know what they have done," she continued. "And in case you don't know, they want to tell you with a lethal combination of houses, cars and diamonds.""
In some ways she puts what might otherwise be discerned as arrogant quite eloquently. Her assessment of the American obsession with wearing your achievement rather literally on your sleeve, sheds a light of desperation on the attempts to be noticed on account of material gain. However, is this obsession with showing off wealth via possessions any more obnoxious than the hierarchy created by family history and having the "right" name? When it comes to the rift between old money and new money it is hard to see a right and a wrong, more of a bad and worse.
Kittredge comes of as almost desperate to let people know how rich he is through his ostentatious boats, houses, and planes. Reading his dialogue is almost as painful as reading Silas Lapham's own words in which he raves about his paint business. Unlike Silas, Kittredge is not seeking the approval of those with old money. He exemplifies a new community of the wealthy which is just as full of itself as the old but simply measures itself by a different standard. Is it understandable that these people would want to form their own prestigious new money country club, or as a group that has been snubbed should they know better than to be so condescending? There now exists arrogance based on class and arrogance based on wealth. Will a new type of condescension emerge? Or will the cycle continue as today's old money dies out, today's new money ages into old money, and the nouveau rich experiences rebirth after rebirth only to be brushed off by an old money community which started off in the same place? When will the class and taste associated with old money disappear altogether and be newly characterized by the values of new moneyed peoples?
All the possibilities and all the potential answers leave me with very few conclusions except one: no matter what occurs the standard which is used to measure social status will always be obnoxious, whether it's based on family history or how much money you spent on a car that you don't drive but leave in the drive-way for everyone to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment