The Manhattan Elite - Research Paper Example

Manhattan Elite: Social Aristocracy as an Archetype The Manhattan elite have become a popular archetype for highlighting the distinct social structure and mores of a group of people with unlimited financial wealth who live within the borders of Manhattan. This is a group usually categorized for its close adherence to popular fashion, breaking of underage laws, and general merriment expressed through defaming others not within the ranks of the upper-class aristocracy. With that said, a close look will be taken into the social structure and mores of the Manhattan elite to define what makes them so fascinating to outsiders and examine why their culture adheres so strictly to the ideology of the American Dream. To begin with, television shows like Sex and the City, Beautiful People, and Gossip Girl exemplify the inner-sanctum of the Manhattan elite through their adherence to fashion and by examining the relationships and culture of the elite and how they relate to outsiders. To be fair, Sex and the City highlights the social elite through the eyes of women in the thirties and forties who see the city as their playground—an attitude that the characters from Gossip Girl and Beautiful People have not yet attained because they are intended for the younger, teen generation. The attitudes the women in Sex and the City share are not necessarily ones of derision towards citizens of the lower class, but there is an explicit attitude for the most expensive fashion that makes these women what they are; and within the context of the show, there is a distinct difference between the classes of Manhattan and those from the ‘other side of the bridge, Brooklyn. For, in Brooklyn, people are assumed to be of a lower class, with less standards in regards to fashion and social behavior, and most importantly, because they are within the boundaries of Brooklyn, they can never be part of the Manhattan elite. Gossip Girl and Beautiful People highlight the teenage version of the Manhattan elite, intended for a much younger audience, to transfix them with the Manhattan ideology from an early age. Told through the eyes of teenagers, both shows observe the dramatic nature of the importance of financial wealth. Beautiful People, at least, follows an outsider (Sophie Kerr, played by Sarah Foret) who goes to an expensive Manhattan school (on scholarship) and the difficulties she faces based upon the sole fact of her parent’s lack of wealth. Being a scholarship student, Sophie is looked down upon and must overcome dramatic odds simply to be part of the Manhattan lifestyle—one that she has no real designs to become part of, but must do so in order to survive high school. The message is clear: outsiders are not part of the Manhattan elite, and even though they may come within the lifestyle itself, they will never be accepted because they do not hold the financial wealth required by the mores of the elite. In essence, popular culture has done much to highlight the social mores of the Manhattan elite—although the impression given by Hollywood is not necessarily one of a desirable nature. As Hollywood has helped define, the Manhattan elite are an exclusive club whose culture consists of exemplifying the outward appearance of the American Dream. Where the Manhattan elite spend so much of their time and effort in promoting certain attitudes and appearances just to maintain their positions within the ranks of the elite. However, if they spent half as much time aiding those in need, or at the very least, not mocking them for what they don’t have, the world would be stronger and more cohesive as a whole. And, “though it always defended private property as a means to the higher ends of society, Western civilization had a strong bias against a single-minded pursuit of wealth and a related manipulation of others” (Ryn 9), which is why observing the elites and their behavior is such a frustrating task. One can view them as individuals who seek to attain the best in life, or one can view them as a cohesive group who seek to attain the best, while excluding others who are unable to achieve such a lifestyle. More, one can look at the Manhattan elite as having a “structural and organized development” (Wilson 253) that can be observed by outsiders. As a group, they are powerful and strong, set apart from those who are not among their elite ranks of socialist power and financial wealth by the inherent nature of being from the rich areas of Manhattan. They coexist within communities built specifically for the elite, and more, they have set up private schools and institutions to foster the growth and academic achievement of their youth. The problem with this sort of society, however, is that there is a distinct lack of consequences for negative actions. Sure, sometimes the characters in Gossip Girl experience difficult times (that last approximately six minutes and are finalized by the next commercial break) when their plans backfire, but when a viewer looks upon on their actions with a realist perspective, their consequences seem to be more karmic than literally punishable. Regular people do not experience karmic retribution in this manner—they receive real, life-damaging consequences for their actions. This, in and of itself, highlights another difference between the Manhattan elite and the regular person. Regular people do not have mommy or daddy to bail them out of trouble at the slightest inclination. And while regular people are not always better in terms of morality, the consequences for acting badly are harsh enough that most people either avoid such behavior or come to learn from their mistakes. What the Manhattan elite are fostering in their youth is a lack of reality and an ideology that financial wealth is the only requirement for resolving complications. Further, the world of the Manhattan elite is not the same as the average middle or lower-class society. They have been raised with being accustomed to the finest that life has to offer. One has but to look at shows like My Super Sweet Sixteen to understand the vast difference between the culture of the wealthy and the culture of the struggling (or even middle-class). In truth, the Manhattan elite have an inherent nature in which they act within “their intimate circles with nobody else present” (Hood 884). Even when people of different social castes are present, the elite have a manner in which they are able to exclude everyone who hasn’t been invited into the inner-sanctum, or achieved a substantial level of financial wealth. They have set up certain boundaries that do not allow the admittance of outsiders, and more, they have an exclusive ability to evaluate the status of an outsider without much difficulty. Their manner was to exclude and to make the excluded have a foundational need to be included within their ranks because, as an elite, they have an inherent power that forms a barrier between those from their social structure and those who follow said structure by media means. Ultimately, this role of exclusion has manifested a social archetype that leaves open a variety of questions. The first, what is it about the Manhattan elite that makes them so fascinating to outsiders? And second, how are they able to exclude people from their society based purely on their financial status? The answer comes down to a quantitative form of the American Dream. They believe that appearances are everything, and while they might not be the happiest people within, their ultimate goal is to express an attitude of success and happiness outwardly. The problem with this structure is that they are so intent on conveying a certain attitude or appearance that it would be easy to forget the purpose of life and to stop living. They have become drones stuck in a void of financial means, unable to look outside their social structure and view the beauty in the world that costs nothing. And where people in the lower and middle classes might have a higher perception for the value of life itself, people of the elite class have attuned themselves to the social structure put forth by the elite mores that has determined that true success is not found within—it is found by demonstrating to others, outwardly, that success had been achieved. It has become part of the American culture, now, with “the parochial perspectives of a few over-privileged Manhattanites [which are] taking on a far greater importance in the national discourse than they deserve” (Kotkin 31). It is clear with the rise of reality television and the importance the media has placed upon certain celebrities that the power structure of the United States has shifted into the hands of the socially and financially wealthy—the Manhattan elite. More, “local elites outside the Northeast, including traditionally conservative groups like local heads of Chambers of Commerce or managers of large corporations, are beginning to shift towards New York elite opinion on critical social and economic issues” (32). Local opinion is becoming dictated by the opinion of the elites because they are seen as having superior thought and power within both the media and extending circles. And more, numerous media outlets “now slavishly propagate the highbrow Manhattan consensus” (32). The media has become the largest proponent of the obsession with the Manhattan elite. With their intense focus on starlets and elites in ‘crisis,’ millions of people have flocked to their televisions and purchased glossy mags at supermarkets to get the latest details on the lives of the elites. Truth holds little meaning as every tidbit is absorbed, and no detail left unturned because every snippet is invaluable to people caught up in the obsession. It is in this that the obsession has taken hold, and the power of the media has intensified the exclusive power of the ranks of the Manhattan elite. Thus, while the Manhattan elite have long needed to shift the purpose of their social mores, “changes in the American structure of power have generally come about by institutional shifts in the relative positions of the political, [and] the economic” (Mills 269). From this stance, an outsider can look upon the elites and have an inherent understanding of the elite’s true power within the governing forces. And more, “from this point of view, and broadly speaking, the American power elite [has managed to control society for hundreds of years]” (269). They were in charge, whether people realized their power and status or not, and they took care to orchestrate people into powerful positions that would ensure the success of the elite ranks for the future. The power elite controlling the richest areas of New York isn’t anything new; however, “over the past 30 years, America's population and economy have shifted decisively away from the Northeast, as powerful new economic and cultural centers have emerged in the West and South” (Kotkin 28) as celebrities have chosen to move away from the realm of Manhattan and make their homes in quiet, off-the map locations like Idaho and Montana. But, while this shift has slowly occurred, and “as businesses and people have fled from the nation's birthplace, the media have chosen to return to their Manhattan womb” (28). The importance of the power in New York has not been lost, in fact, with the slow shift, even more attention from the media has been placed on cultural icons like the Manhattan elite. Crossing “the bridge to well-heeled Manhattan” (Daily Mail) has become a standardized symbol in American culture. Since the bridge was first defined as the marking line between the rich and famous and the not so desirable, not only was this method a socially acceptable form of defining oneself as part of the elite world, it was also an easy way to demonstrate one’s higher value over that of other human beings. It might not literally be part of the creed of the elite, but a large part of their social structure appeared to stem from the foundation that it is essential to be set apart from those without financial wealth. Doing so, in and of itself, marks one’s ability as an elite, as they are able to achieve what only few others are able to do—thus, the club is backed by social and financial security as well as a need to fit into the mores of the group by demonstrating one’s ability to achieve facets of the American Dream that regular people will never be able to attain. Further, the aristocracy has always been stereotypes as those attuned to fashion and the ultimate need for appearances, however, the true aristocrat is a philanthropist who values their wealth and status within society, but who also isn’t derisive towards those in need and who understands the inherent value in simply being human. But, “cooperation is possible…that is not rooted in respect for the higher purposes of human existence” (Ryn 7). Thus, for all classes to be truly parallel in terms of how they value the human race, they must believe that the purpose in doing so will benefit mankind as a whole. . The other side is to question what purpose the Manhattan elite are granting to civilization itself. Are they good role models? More, “do they inspire others to realize their better selves, or are they schemers manipulating others for their own benefit?” (Ryn 5). In truth, their behavior suggests neither of these questions. From outward appearances, which is the most important thing one can be possessed of, the elite is a society that promotes a backward way of thinking and that is defined, just about exclusively, for their ability to manipulate others by promoting images of success. On the other hand, an exceptional example of a member of the Manhattan elite is Ivanka Trump (daughter of billionaire Donald Trump) who made instant headlines when she declared to the world that she wanted to be a model. Where most girls would never succeed, Ivanka was given instant recognition because of the power of the media—and more importantly, the power of her daddy’s wallet. The heiress of Trump Tower “is no stranger to the heady worlds of high fashion and high society. Ever since she could walk, she's been dragged round the world's top couture shows by her mother, and has worn tiny cut-down versions of mummy's designer dresses” (Samson 40). For years, the media was obsessed with her every move—until she turned out to be incredibly smart, business savvy, and in line to actually run Trump Tower. If any of the elites sets the example for the American public that is different from the standard high-brow social mores, it would be this woman. And perhaps, this is why she is no longer of importance to the media. She is not a damaged starlet, she doesn’t drink at all hours and provide pages of entertainment for the glossy mags, and she doesn’t accept the standard social mores of the Manhattan elite. Now, there was a time when the Manhattan elite began to tire of the city life and wanted to move to a suburb-like community that would be just as exclusive as Manhattan itself. Now, New York is comprised of five boroughs, each very different in terms of social culture and financial means, and by the early 1900’s, Queens was becoming the slower-paced “suburban community for middle-class and upper-middle-class families desiring to move out of Manhattan without leaving the city” (Miyares 462). The significance of this move highlighted the need for elites to seek a structured lifestyle outside the confines of Manhattan, while also maintaining their bond to the social structure of the elite group. More, “its developers utilized the politics and geography of the city’s emerging mass-transit infrastructure to draw well-to-do Manhattanites to cooperative apartments with elaborate English gardens and other elite amenities” (Miyares 462). It was the elite way of moving to the security of the suburbs without literally moving outside the city itself. Queens represented a new opportunity for the elites, and at the time, this was both a strategic and well-qualified move for the elite society. Within Queens, Jackson Heights became the “much less studied adaptation of the garden-city model… Jackson Heights was envisioned initially as an elite community of cooperative garden apartments populated by the upper class of Manhattan who desired formal English gardens but not the responsibility of tending them” (Miyares 465). This was a perfect situation for most elites, who took pride in the beauty of their surroundings but either did not have the time, or did not possess (nor did they want to) the required skills to maintain such a beautiful existence. If staff could not be hired to maintain the property, Jackson Heights was the next best place for an elite who appreciated the beauty of nature. It was functional while being beautiful, and while the price tag was high, that only increased the demand for the elite who wanted to appear to be possessed of the very best life had to offer. It was this shift to Jackson Heights and Queens that offered the elites the chance to move from city life to a quieter, yet no less exclusive, existence within the suburbs. At the same time, Queens and Jackson Heights maintained their exclusivity, and people of lesser financial standings were not allowed (nor could they afford it if they wanted the opportunity) to form roots of their own. Since their inception, the Manhattan elite have “needed to address their exclusion of minority and poor youth” (Beasley 6). However, this goes beyond the confines of their strict social structure that, while never explicitly defined, suggests that both the minority races and people not possessing of financial security are valued as less human, or less important, that other people of the elite. To express sympathy towards those in need would be to go against, and admit, the appearances of wealth and happiness. Finally, in understanding the Manhattan elite, one must look upon their need for materialistic wealth as a struggle that goes as deep as the struggle for the lower classes to attain a similar path in life. What the Manhattan elite have is a prosperous existence, one in which their every want or need can be taken care of by a simply flick of their hand. They have the power, through financial security, to summon anyone or anything to take care of their most basic needs. And while they are human beings on the most basic level, the ability to provide everything such as they can is something that few will ever experience in their lifetimes. This, alone, leaves the Manhattan elite as something to be desired. And while many of their strategies and social structures defy rational human behavior, their world is an entirely exclusive club where only those possessing of wealth and outward happiness can get in. In truth, the Manhattan elite are rarely portrayed for their sympathetic natures or ability to find the good in people not of their strict financial standing. These social mores, then, are to exclude those without financial wealth, and more, to make them feel excluded because they are not possessed of this often unattainable quality. Generally, the Manhattan elite, though comprised of all age-groups, tends to be stereotypically derisive in taunting the lower classes for their lack of status and financial assets. And it is this attitude, portrayed in popular culture as the norm, that offers the starting point for understanding the foundations of the Manhattan elite as a social archetype Overall, the Manhattan elite are an exclusive group containing a unique social structure in which people possessing of financial wealth are able to stand above the masses with their falsified attitudes of appearance and emotional security. Raised with the literal silver spoon in their mouths, most are incapable of understanding the values and belief systems of the lower-classes, and while many elites are willing to partake in the activities of the lower-classes, they will never allow someone without secure financial standings to join their elitist ranking. The difficulty in understanding this sort of social archetype comes from being on the outside looking in—the true members of any club think far different of themselves than any outsider would simply because they fit within the acceptance of the social structure, and more, that they believe in the social mores and structure because it is accepting of them. There is a great deal to be said about the power of acceptance. After taking a close look will be taken into the social structure and mores of the Manhattan elite, one can define what makes them so fascinating to outsiders and why their culture is such a close-knit club. Works Cited. Beasley, Betsy A. "Fighting for a Radical City: Student Protesters and the Politics of Space in 1960s and 1970s Downtown Manhattan." Urban History Review 37.2 (2009): 6-13. Print. Hood, Clifton. "An Unusable Past: Urban Elites, New York City's Evacuation Day, and the Transformations of Memory Culture." Journal of Social History 37.4 (2004): 883-892. Print. Kotkin, Joel, and David Friedman. "Clueless: Why the Elite Media Don't Understand America." The American Enterprise Mar.-Apr. 1998: 28-36. Print. "Manhattan: Fall 2010." Manila Bulletin 20 Sept. 2010: NA. Print. Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Miyares, Ines M. "From Exclusionary Covenant to Ethnic Hyperdiversity in Jackson Heights, Queens." The Geographical Review 94.4 (2004): 462-478. Print. "Money, Manhattan and Flirty Martinis." The Daily Mail (London, England) 29 July 2011: 56. Print. Ryn, Claes G. "From Civilization to Manipulation: The Discrediting and Replacement of the Western Elite." Humanitas 22.1-2 (2009): 5-11. Print. Samson, Peter. "From the Multi-Million Dollar Mayhem of Manhattan to the Love Lilts of Lewis; Two Cousins Are Coming Up Trumps." Sunday Mail (Glasgow, Scotland) 12 Oct. 1997: 40. Print. Wilson, Frank Harold. "For Whom Does the Bell Toll?: Meritocracy, the Cognitive Elite, and the Continuing Significance of Race in Postindustrial America." The Journal of Negro Education 64.3 (1995): 253+. Print. Read More