Resentment, Rationality, and Paris Hilton
posted by Frank Pasquale
Whenever I survey some behavioral law & econ literature, I seem to run into some variant of the “ultimatum game.” Two parties usually “play” the game. The first is given some amount of money, and then has to decide how much to allocate to the second, and how much to keep to himself. The second then has to decide whether to take what is given (and allow the first to keep what he has), or to refuse it, in order to deny the first his share as well. I have heard that the “second party” will often reject amounts below 30% of the overall pie. The principles of ultimatum games may influence a wide range of research:
Ph.D. candidates in economics at Harvard recently ran an experiment to figure out how inequality affects workers’ efforts. They gave three groups of participants puzzles to solve and rewarded them in different ways. The first group, in which everyone received the same reward, regardless of performance, didn’t solve many puzzles. The group in which the best maze solver got all of the rewards — and no one else got anything — didn’t do too much better. The group that had a sliding scale of rewards, based on performance, did the best.
Economists and philosophers draw diverse “morals” from the ultimatum story. Robert Frank argues that the prevalence of “resentful” responses leads fairer “individuals [to] succeed, even in highly competitive environments, because their commitment to principle makes them more attractive as trading partners.” Critics suggest that the the refusenik manifests irrationality.
That’s a pretty intractable debate, but I think this essay on Paris Hilton by Kay Hymovitz provides an interesting point of view on what’s at stake in the interpretive struggle.
Hymowitz first notes the Hilton heirs’ ill-gotten gains:
[Conrad Hilton] left the vast bulk of his fortune to the Catholic Sisters. It was only through the energetic legal maneuvering of his son Barron that the Hilton progeny got their mitts on Conrad’s money.
Though few know the origins of Paris’s wealth, Hymovitz believes that the ridicule she attracts shows the vigor of our democracy:
Paris is America’s national cartoon heroine, a caricature who allows us to mock the undeserving and decadent rich we have scorned since the time of Tom Paine. We follow the Perils of Paris the Heiress in new episodes that seem to come almost weekly, snickering at her vapidity, her coarseness, her libertinism, and her outrageous assumption of entitlement. . . . Paris Hilton may be a composite of contemporary American sins, but hating Paris Hilton is another thing entirely. It’s a sign of lingering cultural sanity.
So is this resentment good?
It all depends on what you compare it to. It would certainly seem to be better to mock Hilton’s pretensions than to aspire to her status. A general societal pressure to maintain positive affect should not lead to censure of our dismay at the rise of the asinine.
But I worry that, in the end, the expression of negative affect, rather than discharging it, merely breeds more. That’s the position of Thich Nhat Hanh, whose teachings have helped inspire some valuable movements in the legal world.
So by all means let’s tax Paris and her pals. But let’s do so out of a sense of what good that money can do, rather than merely in order to cut down the tall poppy.
November 21, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Responses (7)
James Grimmelmann - November 21, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Was Tarquinius Superbus in seinem Garten mit den Mohnkopfen sprach, verstand der Sohn, aber nicht der Bote
Jeff Lipshaw - November 22, 2006 at 10:45 am
Great post. Love the application of theory to popular culture!
And your viewpoint is nicely nuanced - libertarian enough to allow Paris her vulgarities, but laced sufficiently with universals to be judgmental about her. (Personally, I don’t get even the vulgar appeal of Paris Hilton, but I don’t buy checkout line magazines either.)
Heidi Kitrosser - November 22, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Really nice post, Frank. Though I blame you entirely for the bizarre dream that I had last night in which I befriended Paris Hilton in London, found her to be nice, and was concerned as to what that said about me as a person.
I do wonder, though, what it says about our culture that Hilton, while an object of much ridicule, also is in popular demand in many respects. I believe she gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to show up at events, has a TV show that people watch, etc.
Rachel Godsil - November 22, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Frank,
Is there a middle ground? Can we decry the entitlement and fortune of those who benefit from our overly lax estate taxes without our attitudes and actions devolving into a form of “cutting down the tall poppy?” (great image by the way) In other words, can’t we distinguish in our tax policy between money earned and money inherited so that we are taxing the latter more partially because we want to value the work ethic of those who earn?
Frank - November 22, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Thanks for the comments!
Jeff, I think I will trademark a new slogan: universal enough to be judgmental, yet made for a libertarian.
Heidi,
here is one take on why she is in such demand, from the Hymovitz article:
“[T]he worse she behaves, the more famous she becomes and the more money she makes. . . .For a reported $700,000, she is putting her name on a chain of nightclubs; the first Club Paris, opened in Orlando this spring, was an instant sensation. The owner of the club, which also sells Paris logo’d . . . hats. . . was breathless: ‘Anything she touches is big. The marketing is unbelievable.’ Though Paris isn’t known for sparkling conversation, she does frequently coo, ‘That’s hot,’ so in October 2004 she trademarked the phrase. You can just imagine the marketing possibilities . . . [l]ast year, Paris earned $6.5 million.”
James: my BabelFish failed me on that translation!
James Grimmelmann - November 23, 2006 at 10:16 am
It’s the epigraph from the start of Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, quoting Johann Georg Hamann: “What Tarquin the Proud said in the garden with the poppies, the son understood, but not the messenger.”
It’s a reference to a story about Tarquin the Proud, the last king of Rome. His son, Sextus, although still secretly loyal to the father, had been taken in by Tarquin’s enemies in the city of Gabii. Sextus sent a messenger to learn from his father what he ought to do. The messenger came upon Tarquin in a garden and asked what message he should take back. Tarquin paced, striking off the heads of the tallest poppies. Sextus understood by this that he should eliminate the city’s most prominent citizens, which he did.
Rob (Paris Hilton Experiment) - January 18, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Interestingly put. The mass appeal of Hilton shows no sign of waning. I’ve jumped on the bandwagon and am trying to use Paris Hilton to push some more intellectual debate towards the celebrity gossip mongers. Join the Great Paris Hilton Experiment and help me out!
Leave a Reply