As Gods Among Men

Throughout history, the rich have fascinated us. They have often been the subject of envy and a source of inspiration and admiration for those whose fortunes are far less substantial or mediocre. They were revered and respected since their wealth was associated with ascribed status and rank by virtue of their ancestry and thus suffused with cultural legitimacy. With socio-economic mobility largely non-existent, a tacit acceptance was commonplace among those less well-off and the poor.

Other people, however, have taken a far less sanguine view of the wealthy, questioning the rationale of a system that permits a select few to command the material heights while the majority suffer in quiet desperation. From this critical perspective, the rich have been seen as pariahs, perpetrators of a hierarchy that constrains mobility. Even if their wealth was the result of effort and perseverance, the sheer size of that wealth and the widening gap between them and the majority in society, has led to increased criticism. For the less fortunate majority, despair has replaced hope, and anger undermined optimism that systemic change will ever be possible.

As economic growth over the centuries unleashed opportunities for the lower and middling classes, urbanization and increased market opportunities facilitated entrepreneurial activity. This materially rewarded those who successfully exploited niches, either providing material goods or needed services. Others were able to leverage openings by providing services to the rich and then became rich themselves. Different categories of the rich emerged; self-made people who accumulated great wealth and enhanced power. Some of these people were looked up to as paragons of success by common folk or acknowledged as legitimate position holders.

How much has our attitude towards the rich changed over the centuries because of these changes, and have diverse groups of the super-rich been subject to more opprobrium than others? To answer these questions, Guido Alfani examines the role of the rich in Western society over the last thousand years. He argues that perceptions towards wealth have not changed that much over time and that the rich’s position has often been fragile since their wealth might erode community solidarity. The sources of wealth might have changed but societal attitudes remain constant. What has changed is the response by the rich to society at large. Whereas in the past wealth was considered sinful and the rich were not expected to flaunt it; nowadays the rich relish displays of conspicuous consumption. They make no attempt to hide their wealth or often justify it based on hard work.

Operationally, Alfani works with a definition of wealth as that of ten times the median level and he examines the ebb and flow of fortunes of those in this category. Economic growth and agency are important components of wealth generation, but he identifies three primary groups over the ages: those who inherited wealth because of their aristocratic status, those whose riches came from entrepreneurial activities, and finally those who provided a key role in financial activities, serving states and rulers as bankers and loan merchants. These paths to wealth varied across the ages, with upward and downward mobility occurring depending upon political and economic circumstances as well as individual foibles.

Medieval society was divided into distinct hierarchical orders (“estates”): nobles who fought, clergy who prayed and those who performed common labor (the third estate). The nobles were wealthy but their ability to financialize their wealth was somewhat tenuous. It was difficult for them to think about using money to generate money and actively desiring to increase one’s wealth was seen as reprehensible. Strict rules and norms regarding the use of wealth were wrapped up in religious edicts and whether material pursuits might even constitute sinful behavior. In the eyes of the church, to be rich in the Middle Ages was sinful, but that sin could be ameliorated by giving money to the church as a form of indulgence. Buying the promise of salvation also assuaged any guilt the wealthy might feel from their position. Not surprisingly, many nobles shied away from ostentatious displays of wealth or engaged in performative behavior that demonstrated noblesse oblige. Inequality was pervasive but the lower classes lacked agency and the sacred order effectively sanctioned extant positions.

The growth of towns, merchants and trade in later centuries opened the door to entrepreneurial behavior and the second category of the rich. Industrialization created opportunities for even greater accumulation of wealth, but since that wealth did not also result in higher status, the new rich often sought to replicate the lifestyles of the nobility to validate their position in the hierarchy. They also felt justified in engaging in conspicuous consumption as a reward for their industriousness. Instead of shying away from displays of wealth they embraced material largesse. In a progressively secular society, wealth was less likely to be seen as avarice and more as the product of hard work. Visible displays of their wealth enabled the new industrialists to cement their position in the hierarchy, garnering admiration from some quarters and enabling them to leverage that into political power. With growing inequality, and despite heightened social mobility, societal views of the rich oscillated between envy and hostility. Karl Marx adumbrated the plight of the working classes in industrial society but effecting structural change proved difficult in practice. The promise of material gain, although far less substantial for most of the population, nonetheless sanctioned individual effort, and the possibility of a move away from ascribed status.

The final group in the historical wealth triumvirate is those in finance. Even in the Middle Ages, rulers needed funds to sustain their activities, whether political intrigue, warfare, or basic governance. Filling such shoes were individuals and families who rose to prominence through lending money and providing financial services. Sometimes they were Jewish, and thus outside the strictures of usury laws; at other times they were merchants who embraced a middleman role providing loans to nobles or even towns in return for a share of tax revenues. These were the early bankers who often manipulated exchange rate variations to disguise interest payments and thus usury laws. They became very rich, cementing their role in subsequent centuries.

With increased financialization in the late twentieth century, bankers, hedge fund owners and private equity investors have become the new super rich. But like the self-made industrialists of the nineteenth century, they are rarely viewed positively. They continue to be seen by many as parasites, not offering a tangible product other than a transaction service. This disdain towards those in finance culminated in the Occupy Wall Street movement after the financial crisis in 2007–2008. When the average person was reeling from the shock of the financial meltdown, the rich appeared to escape unharmed.

In the final section of the book, Alfani raises concerns as to whether the new rich will intercede in society by doing great deeds as a form of public munificence in times of crisis. In the past, patronage and magnificence were commonplace among the rich, seen as a de facto duty to support institutions and help preserve cultural traditions. Philanthropy became de rigueur and helped preserve the status and legitimacy of great wealth. But in the twenty-first century, that has diminished somewhat. The author also questions whether great wealth might destabilize democracy as billionaires successfully pursue political goals to further enrich themselves rather than promote the common good. Concentrations of wealth might become even more incompatible with functioning institutions that preserve democratic legitimacy. When might excessive inequality erode the very foundations of society?

The rich will apparently always be with us and in recent decades they have fared better than most in times of economic crisis. As inequality remains pervasive, they are viewed less favorably than in the past and their conspicuous displays of wealth have done little to obviate this sentiment. The book provides a readable and comprehensive overview of these groups through the ages; their attempts to remain relevant and powerful in the past to their apparent excessive greed in current times simply because there are few checks on such actions. As the gap between them and the rest of society widens, one presumes that such behavior and sentiments will continue.