3,409 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
    1. Veblen was inspired by these anthropologies of what was called the ‘potlatch’: nineteenth-century Pacific Northwest tribal societies in which there would be elaborate feasts, and nobles of tribes would compete with each other to see who could hold a bigger feast, who could waste more food, who could burn more blankets or other kinds of rare goods. And by going through that potlatch ritual a noble could assert his rank. It had lasting consequences: in humiliating a rival, claiming one’s title and gaining respect in the community.

      Was the potlatch about waste, or about influence?

    2. what they say is how they want to be perceived (and perhaps how they want to perceive themselves), but what they do – in the moment – can be very different. So if I’d just done observations, I could have just said that these were clueless rich jerks. And if I’d just done interviews, I would have concluded they were actually very thoughtful, very reflective people who want to be good people.

      How different would my interviewed and observed selves be?

    1. a liberating, nonjudgmental permissiveness

      Can we write on this topic without comparison to the crowdsourced Am I The Asshole equivalent? Aren't a lot of letter writers looking for their own absolution or condemnation, or that of the letter's subject?

    2. We’ll settle for electability, for hand sanitizer, for something less than violence in the streets.

      I am both curious to know what an advice column advocating violence in the streets would look like and also unsurprised at the short shrift given to the domestic here. How do we recognize the spiritual in people's boring lives? The questions of ethics that wrack us with guilt and their public porings-over -- I somehow resent that the author makes them seem so small.

    3. He often reminded readers that they were more than individuals; they were, in fact, pieces of a society.

      But if a millennial does this with language of -isms, how dare!

    4. Lavery, who was raised evangelical, is morally firm and comically decisive, chiding and scolding like a fresh-faced Judge Judy. A husband who refuses to use enough soap on the dishes is committing “an insult to your dignity and your personhood,” and a crazed DVD reviewer is “behaving like the majordomo of a small European country on the precipice of World War I.”

      Daniel Lavery is one of the great ironists of our time and I will not stand this. That someone might try to be funny in their "scolding" -- unacceptable to the New Yorker!

    5. Sugar suggested, in the mold of Montaigne—or perhaps psychotherapy—that the solution to your problems lay within you, provided you confront them with honest introspection and brutal clarity, if not the force of revelation. The goal wasn’t proper napkin etiquette or resolving a dispute with your mother-in-law. It was saving your soul.

      This whole piece feels dishonest in that it cannot compare these to sermons except to vaguely disparage Daniel Lavery or fail to identify the strongest aspect in King's advice writing. Our new religions are perilously unexamined.