This
post by Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber raises the question of "social networks," Barbara Ehrenreich's new book
Bait and Switch and the cronyism that got Michael Brown a job and the directorship of FEMA. His powerful "network" is even now saving his ass (since he has not been dismissed, but merely sent back to a "desk job in Washington DC." I hope he keeps better watch over his desk than he did over the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina).
Brown had few qualifications to land him ANY kind of position, much less one that entailed responsibility for a Federal Agency. He was barely a lawyer, failed at jobs he did hold, but had strong "social networks," so strong in fact that his personal relationships have protected him from ever having to cold call employers or present credible credentials to anyone.
I feel that it is now my time give you my two cents on long term on the job cronyism that occurred between men at my last place of employment. I am sure it happens between women too, but if you look at the statistics of tenured female profs vs tenured male profs, you'll see why this is a male-dominated field.
"Loyalty" is the authoritarian male's criterion for rewarding his cronies. Because of the crony's "loyalty," , a different sense of accountability is applied to him than to" neutral" colleagues. Occasionally, the authoritarian male will make a great display of "fairness" and when the crony is not around, criticize him, but there are never any consequences, as when the disloyal others are called to the carpet. It's all very hard to account for, to solidify, to quantify, or even to identify, but the less the crony feels qualified, the more dependent and "loyal" he becomes. This I think would be the case with Michale Brown, who would, I believe, have a very hard time finding a "real" job, outside the Bush/Cheney Truman show in which he has existed until now. Now we know said, "Brownie, you're doing a great job." It didn't have anything to do with Hurricane Katrina: he was referring to the ass-kissing!
"Loyalty" is therefore code for absolute submssion, or obedience. Rewards are doled out in accordance to the amount of obedience extracted. And so some one who is not displaying this kind of attitude is construed as arrogant or insubordinate.
This kind of relationship does a great deal to demoralize faculty, it poisons the atmosphere: where "yes men" prosper a thousand hopes wither......
And in the case of Bush crony and former FEMA Director, we have all seen a deeper shade of "Brown."