The manager and therapist styled by the “All American” Salesman

After reading and re-reading Bellah, et al.’s Habits of the Heart, it’s difficult to not see their take on individualism in American culture. One of the main points is that individualism is one of the primary languages in American culture. Two subtypes of individualism are the manager and the therapist. Both are essentially utilitarian or maximizers of preferences with the manager concerned more with the external and the therapist with the internal.

Bellah, et al. do leave the possibility open for new subtypes of individualism to emerge or build off of secondary languages in America such as biblical or republican.

After years of working in the financial world and reading Greg Smith’s piece in the NY Times about the culture of Goldman Sachs,  I think that a new individualist subtype has become prevalent: the salesman. Whereas Bellah, et al. focus more on these as languages, I think the salesman is often more of a style. It may not even have its own language, but it is an approach to life. It is one that instrumentalizes all relationships in order to maximize preferences that are monetary.

Although, Smith’s piece describes those salesman that take use the language of manager, there are also those who use the language of the therapist. I encountered the latter in working with many people from the real estate and mortgage industries. There are various educational programs for people in these industries that involve “lead generation” or the ability to bring new people in, take advantage of social networks, etc. in order to increase sales. Interestingly, however, such tactics are often wrapped in the language of self-realization, self-help, and meaningful relationships.

But such a style is not limited to the financial world. It pervades much of our culture, we are constantly encouraged to “sell ourselves” or “market ourselves” in the new economy. Such advice seems like “common sense.” Yet, it’s also often mixed with notions about “being oneself.” One only need to watch an episode of “What Not to Wear” to see how so many people “become themselves” by wearing a more marketable uniform of “who they really are.”

Maybe this is why, “Death of a Salesman” is still so popular?

Finally, the gender-specific “man” in salesman, I think is appropriate as well. Much of this type of style, especially, as expressed by Smith about Goldman Sachs fits all to well into a stereotype of patriarchal culture run amok. Although this could be nuanced, you get the point.

As it stands, this is all just thinking “out loud” or “on line,” but I believe there is something to this American style of individualism. After all, marketing and sales are part of the water we constantly swim in–how could it not shape who we are?

Incumbency and its Discontents

In the early years, we elected incumbents because they were good, often even great. Today, we tend to elect incumbents because they are there.

Did you know that if President Obama is re-elected in November and serves his entire 8-year term, it will be only the second time in history that we have had three two-term Presidents in a row (Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama in this case)? And the first goes all the way back to the triumvirate of founding fathers, Jefferson (1801-09), Madison (1809-17), and Monroe (1817-25). In fact, only 19 of the 44 US presidents have been re-elected (though FDR did it three times). Even accounting for FDR’s long run, as a national practice, getting re-elected to the presidency has actually been harder than getting elected in the first place.

So why do we think of incumbency as such an advantage in presidential politics?

Of Durkheim and Facebook: Social Forces and Social Media

I just commented on a old friend’s Facebook photo of his new baby boy. I haven’t actually spoken to this friend in ten years, but through the wonders of the internet, I have remained in touch enough to know about this major life event, and to participate in it as a friend, however distant and electronically. Some may say that this type of “Facebook friendship” is “surface level” or “insincere” or even “fake.” Perhaps it is true that what remains of this once close friendship is somewhat thin, but despite its thinness, I would argue it is indeed sincere and it is very much real. In terms of sincerity, it could be argued that my Facebook comment was in fact more sincere than many of the verbal congratulations he has no doubt received in the past few days. You see, in the virtual world, I had the option of not commenting on his new status as father, but the friendship we once had and the shared role as new father compelled me to give him a virtual “high five.” The acquaintance he sees at work or in the supermarket or at church or in the local watering hole does not have the same option. That acquaintance is compelled by social norms to note my friend’s new addition.

But what of the claim that social media relationships are not “real”? I mean, we do tend to describe anything online as “virtual” which would indicate something approaching reality that is not reality. But I don’t think this is right. I would suggest that the “virtual” label is something of an anachronistic misnomer. There was a time when few of us had internet connections and those that did connect through Prodigy or AOL seemed to be doing something that was apart from real tangible human interactions. But internet usage has certainly long passed a tipping point in which the eccentric has become the norm. The very fact that I am blogging this instead of publishing it in a magazine or handing it out as a leaflet in the town square inherently points to the “realness” of the internet over, or at least alongside, more traditional forms of communication. Of course, none of this is new news. So why write about it?