I just finished reading Chrystia Freeland's remarkable study of "the new global elite" in Atlantic. And I use the word study intentionally - this is among the best new and academically-relevant writing on 'elites' in years, even the more recently well-trodden ground of cosmopolitanism (Hannerz) and the transnational capitalist class (Sassen, Sklair). Freeland confirms the tenets of these concepts through colorful, quote-filled mini-biographies like that of self-described "global nomad" Mohamed El-Erian - raised between Egypt, France, the US, the UK, and Switzerland, Oxbridge educated, now CEO of German-owned but US-based bond manager Pimco, and currently living in Laguna Beach while spending his weeks shuttling between major global cities. Of course, rigorous social science research, with its empirical falsifiability, corroborating statistics, and powerful theoretical connections, is indispensable. But not necessarily any more so than the insights provided by Freeland's sweeping, interview-driven narrative. Her broader conclusions, especially regarding the increasing importance of "intra-emerging-market" collaboration and trade, and the extent of plutocratic antipathy for the American middle class, are certainly important.
Freeland presents this not only clearly, but compellingly - and not only in the sense that one is compelled to agree with her 'findings,' but that one is actually compelled to continue reading! I mean I'm not even all that interested in the subject matter (rich people) or the premise (these rich people are especially and differently rich, a class unto themselves), but I just read it because it was the cover story and now here I've jumped up to blog about it immediately upon finishing it. God forbid a bit of cultural analysis also be a page turner! And the stuff of the business pages no less!
As for the research itself, if the single greatest challenge to the study of elites is famously "access," it is no obstacle for Freeland. She has it and risks it in spades. As global editor-at-large for Reuters, and previously an editor at the Financial Times, Freeland has clearly made valuable and seemingly close connections to the super rich. Sure, the scope (and arguably the interpretation) is limited by this, but I don't think that's the point. Famous and unknown alike, Freeland has intimate quotes from them, and some of most revealing tidbits even come from a few unnamed "wives" of the new elite (does this not make them the new elite too? Freeland does not discuss familial gender equity; perhaps it will be in the forthcoming book). Her reporting from such a personal level might, it seems, risk her standing in this society (for instance she professionally attends and participates in the very elite conferences she writes about), let alone future access to these individuals. But then, perhaps that is another trait of the new elite: they quite like being talked about by global news editors in magazines like Atlantic.
Of course, this particular magazine and a few others have long been homes to brilliant reporting that walks the line between academic scholarship and popular exposé. Atlantic published Wilson and Kelling's controversial and highly-cited initial treatise on "broken windows" theory back in 1982.
Articles of this quality should be both inspiring and perhaps envy-inducing for the more journalistically-inclined social scientists like myself. The connection may be especially applicable to the study of culture. Not only does it lend itself to a somewhat "journalistic" (if I may reclaim that unhelpfully sullied word) approach to research, but its potential popular audience invites a more accessible presentation as well.
I don't want to belabor the point. Certainly there are important and necessary distinctions between "the press" and the academy, in both directions. But Freeland's piece serves as another reminder that while journalism should aim to be as informed as good science, more science should also aim to be as informing as good journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment