Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street (2009) by Karen Ho, an anthropologist, sounds intriguing before you open it. However, the actual read is somewhat dry and boring, except for certain parts. I read it for my folklore and work class last semester, and because I had an essay test that required me to write about this book and its ideas coherently, I wrote this post in preparation for that.
What is most intriguing about this book is the culture of smartness apparent in Wall Street recruitment events. Ho examines how Wall Street investment banking firms recruit heavily from Princeton and Harvard and use a rhetoric of smartness to lure workers. It doesn’t matter what a student’s major is or what he or she knows; as long as the recruit is from Princeton, he or she is considered the cream of the crop. The culture of smartness serves to make workers feel special and privileged, but within an investment bank there are levels of hierarchy, including gender gaps. This rhetoric goes a long way in convincing students to accept jobs, especially after the wining and dining internships.
My husband had this experience with the big five accounting firms over a decade ago. He graduated with a MAcc (master’s in accounting) from one of the top three programs in the United States. All of the big accounting firms came to campus regularly to recruit him and his classmates. We attended several fancy events, where my husband was offered internships on a silver platter. He took an internship at Arthur Andersen (glad he didn’t end up working there!) in San Francisco, where he spent the summer dining at fine restaurants and attending plays and other expensive cultural events. I didn’t get to attend these, but I got to spend time with my dad and sisters that summer, so we both had fun. At the end of the summer, which had been a relatively easy work load and fun because of the firm-sponsored events, my husband was offered a job with what seemed like an impressive starting salary. However, with the cost of living in the San Francisco area, and the chargeable hours that were required to keep one’s job, we decided it would be better to take a job in Utah with a lower salary at a different big five firm. We are glad we did this for many reasons, including that Arthur Andersen no longer exists due to the Enron debacle. Yet my husband still worked long and thankless hours. This sort of worker exploitation is common and what Ho examines in Liquidated.
My research over the last year has focused on professional identities, specifically for women in my field. I have used Brenton Faber’s (2002) theory of professionalism, that says professionals have three characteristics. First, “professionals have an integral relationship to a specific and known audience” (p. 312). Second, “a professional is someone whose work directly influences the life of a community” (p. 313). Third, Faber tells us that “professionals espouse a self-conscious social, theoretical, and ethical awareness. . . . professionals exhibit a critical awareness of their own activities” (p. 314). These qualities of professionalism are clear cut and defined and have served me well in applying them to extra-institutional professional communicators as deserving of “professional” status. Yet the part of professionalism that I have not yet explicitly considered is perception.
Liquidated reveals this preoccupation with professionalism and the underlying problem with it being perceived, rather than earned. As I read her discussion of it in terms of women’s professionalism on Wall Street, I realized that I have similar experiences with this perception of professionalism. I have faced misjudgment of my abilities (or merit, a prominent theme in Liquidated) based on my looks that must be overcome in the workplace.
People often assume that I’m much younger than I am and therefore less experienced. Recently, I’ve been working as a publications intern for a local archive on a women’s history project. When I met the managing director, he immediately referred to me as an undergraduate college student. I had to correct his assumption. I also had two women, also interns, express shock that I have a nine-year-old daughter. Nobody can quite believe that I’m over 30 and that I actually have professional work experience as an editor. It is frustrating, but I should be used to it by now.
Because of this, I identified with the women in Ho’s ethnography who faced this problem of perception on Wall Street. One of the issues in the book is that if a person is willing to work too hard, he or she is perceived as willing to do grunt work for nothing. One of Ho’s informants expressed frustration at this problem and noted that her husband “is not as hard of a worker as I am, he is probably not as smart as I am, but he will do much better on Wall Street than I will because he has confidence in himself” (p. 116). I would also add that he doesn’t have to overcome the service and domestic stereotypes associated with women, especially women of color.
This issue was represented with the women avoiding taking trays of food to colleagues or helping an IT person with computer cords. They also avoided talking or associating with the support and administrative staff. I faced this as well. I worked as a secretary before being promoted to editor. While a secretary, I performed the role of an assistant editor without the pay or the recognition. Luckily, it paid off and I was promoted, but I still got people asking me for copies, and it could’ve backfired and gotten me more work with less appreciation (and pay) and no possibility of promotion. Ho noted that if “your peers or bosses witness you performing a ‘support’ role, they will believe that you do not take your own time seriously and might assume that you are willing to be taken advantage of and do ‘scut work’” (p. 119). This is somewhat counter-intuitive because of the system of meritocracy, but for women, “hard work, instead of being associated with upward mobility, is reduced to, as well as conflated with, grunt work” (p. 120). This is certainly a problem with perception, one that now helps me to make sense of my own work experiences.
I found this discussion of perception fascinating when the issue of shoes came up. The women who wore socks and sneakers to work and then changed into pumps marked themselves as lower in the social hierarchy because they obviously lived farther away from Wall Street in less prestigious neighborhoods and could not afford car services to drive them to work. They had to rely on public transportation and walking, while the upper class women wore pumps all of the time because they had the luxury of a car service and living closer to work. “[T]he significance of this change of shoe practice became clear: the socks and sneakers over hose is a marker, albeit imprecise, of a lower-class status” (p. 117).
Additionally, all women faced the possibility of “class slippage” and had to guard against it through their dress and their actions in order to create and control perception (p. 118). Even the way one ate lunch signified status. Overall, I found this discussion of professionalism enlightening to my own experiences and, more importantly, to my research. Although I use Faber’s straightforward characteristics of professionals to recognize women as extra-institutional communicators, I need to take into account perception and the unspoken rules of professionalism in my future studies. What may be considered professional may not always have to do with merit, work practices, and work products. Perception and culture need to be just as important to my scholarly work.
More generally, the Wall Street workers are exploited for long hours, sometimes only getting 13 hours of sleep a week! They are expected to work all of the time, day or night, with one worker saying it is a challenge to even get one’s wedding day off. Then, when the economy cycles through boom and bust, workers are laid off without much fanfare and are escorted from the building by security immediately. One part of the book recounted how even tiny mistakes, like missing a comma on a PowerPoint deck, can result in being yelled at, demoted, or fired. It is a competitive, high-stakes, and fast-paced work environment. All of this craziness is embodied in the workers. They seem to represent the ups and downs of the stock market with their own bodies, by working long and late hours, finding themselves laid off, going immediately back on the market for another investment bank, and experiencing the contradictions of the workplace.
Overall, the book is a critique of capitalism. Ho has a few chapters examining neoclassical economic theories and the way current markets focus solely on shareholder value. She critiques this, through her own experiences on Wall Street and through the interviews of other workers. Her critique, although dense, has some credibility given her research methods, including ethnography, observations, interviews, and fieldwork. She entered Wall Street with the intent of studying it, but still found herself upset over being laid off.
This is a book that the professor teaching the class really loved. She recognized that it is a tough one and that students either love it or hate it. For our class, I think most of us had an unfavorable reaction to it, but I did find value in parts of it, especially the ideas about professionalism and gender. I wouldn’t recommend this book as light reading, but if you are interested in the corporate culture of Wall Street, you won’t find a more comprehensive study than Liquidated.
Faber, Brenton, “Professional Identities: What Is Professional about Professional Communication?” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 16, no. 3 (2002): 306-337.
Ho, Karen. Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009.
Thanks for an (as always) excellent post. The book seems a little heavy going, so I’m probably not going to read it. But I do find the whole Wall Street subculture fascinating and a little scary and a little sad. So many people driven almost exclusively by the pursuit of . . . money, money, money. Glad we’re not like that!
Me too! I like having money as much as the next person, but I am not willing to only pursue it nor to make it my sole focus in life. It really is fascinating stuff, but yeah, don’t read this one. Way too heavy! I wish that I hadn’t had to read it to be honest.
Is your post ringing some bells for me! At my first professional job (as a proofreader, later an editor), I got some really good advice from my supervisor. She told me never to do any type of work that could be viewed as secretarial and never to take on tasks at work that are “motherly,” like planning parties or cleaning out the refrigerator. I have followed the rule ever since. That was in 1981! It’s too bad that it is still going on.
It is too bad that this still needs to be dealt with. Has her advice worked for you?
Absolutely. It’s just disheartening how I still occasionally have to use it.
This definitely hits a chord for me too. I’m in an interesting position as I am an editor in the financial sector. I am somewhat on the outside (and for that I am grateful!), but I do feel like this mirrors some of my experiences too. Because I am young and have not majored in business or finance–I think people sometimes feel they can walk all over you. While its not always easy, I try to never underestimate my role and let my work speak for itself, but at the same time not let anyone take advantage and always maintain boundaries.
It sounds like you have a good game plan for dealing with some of this nonsense. I like the idea of boundaries and finding strength by valuing your role.
I’d like to read this book but I can’t see taking the time away from the much more pleasurable reading of novels and poems — so I’m very grateful that you took the time to tell us about the book!
Absolutely! Do not give up time with a novel for this one!
Interesting post. There is book about Enron’s failure called “The Smartest Guys in the Room” that applies to Wall Street. They recruited all of this talent and told them to go make money, not realizing the foundational knowledge that is needed. Two key points that caused the failure. 1) The talented folks had never been in a down housing market, so when you modeled house pricing going up at all times, even bad stuff looked good. There was a financial advisor from Dallas who told the Bear Sterns CFO a year in advance that they were going to fail and he was shown the door. 2) the belief that if you pool all bad risk together that the risk becomes better – you just have more bad risk. These folks with CDOs took down banks, companies, countries (Iceland, e.g.) and the economy. Sorry for the rant. BTG
Oh my! Feel free to rant. I didn’t know a lot of this. I just don’t understand why risk plus risk didn’t equate to more risk in their minds. I guess if they can get away with it, they just don’t care who gets hurt in the process.
Emily, when people are removed from the personal side, the numbers become just numbers and they lose sight that people are harmed. Goldman Sachs sold investment products to unwary investors and then bet against them with their own funds. When the CEO testified in front of Congress, he could not fathom how unethical that was. Thanks for the post and letting me wax on. BTG
This is a fascinating post, Emily. And as usual, there are so many parallels in our lives! I too started out as a secretary (at a university) and have struggled my whole life with my petite size and baby face. I’ll never forget the time I was invited to a faculty party at the dean’s house and while waiting to use the restroom another dean handed me her coat. She thought I was the coat checker! In my second job my female boss said to me, “Cecilia, I don’t care what you wear underneath, but always, ALWAYS, wear a jacket.” I was always being mistaken for a student. Then in my 3rd position (I am getting higher and higher with each position), my male boss got angry at me for helping the support staff. Reading your post now I understand the significance of that.
I’ve been told that I don’t “look smart.” This was when I was working in Asia, and I think it was because I was petite, young looking, and feminine. In Japan women who look like me are “office ladies” who pour tea. Even now I find that the majority of my clients are male – I have this suspicion that the Asian women can’t see past their own image of themselves, or the image that their culture has of women. I thought that women clients would be my biggest champion but I have far more success getting male clients.
I can go on and on but I’ll stop here!
Your anecdote about the shoes is fascinating…and the whole thing about perception.
I read a Wall St. memoir last year – The Buy Side https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15998338-the-buy-side – which is an accessible read for those who are interested in learning more about Wall Street culture and life. It was an interesting and quick read (a solid 3-star read). Otherwise I understand that Bonfire of the Vanities and Liar’s Poker are classics.
I think Bonfire of the Vanities is where I want to go next! I’ve always wanted to read one of Wolfe’s books. As to your experiences, I’m glad to hear I’m not alone. Your thoughts prompt me to say that problem isn’t that we both look young and are petite, but that people use image and body to make judgments, especially about women. I guess this is just “natural,” but it annoys me that women are constantly judged by how they look, no matter what that is. We just can’t win in this situation.
That’s an excellent point, Emily. It makes me realize that I need to stop the refrain “People think….because I’m petite and look young,” as if something is wrong with me and I somehow fall outside the category of “successful” or “intelligent” appearance. Looks should have nothing to do with it. Thank you for this!
I just wish our larger cultures and society would catch onto this!
Reblogged this on Sonya's blog and commented:
Fantastic review on the Women’s presence on Wallstreet. Definitely on my reading list.
Your review of this book was so thorough that I think I’ll just refer to it instead of reading the book! I found the review very interesting, but as a student of anthropology myself, I 100% understand what you mean by dry ethnography.
Ha ha! I don’t know how thorough I was, but yeah, I hear you. Stick with my summary to avoid complete boredom…