The Price of Prestige

52 chapter two

as in Gatsby’s example, because of intrinsic restrictions, the trade­ offs im­

posed by such patterns of consumption are not viable over time.

Natural restrictions rely on scarcity to ensure that only a handful of

actors would be able to obtain those symbols: “Luxury goods, desired for

prestige value, are scarce by definition; if they were not, they would not

serve a prestige function” (Xenos 1987 , 232 ). Scarcity, therefore, guaran­

tees the exclusivity and distinctiveness of those status symbols.^20 The role

of the legendary white elephant in Southeast Asian politics offers a use­

ful example. White elephants result from an uncommon genetic mutation,

and their symbolic importance is directly related to their rarity. In Burma

and Siam, all white elephants belonged to the king, who was often referred

to as the “Master of Many White Elephants” (Vincent 1882 , 164 ). Acquir­

ing a white elephant was considered a divine sign of political legitimacy to

be followed by peace and prosperity. Accordingly, regional hierarchy was

set by the number of white elephants each court possessed. The impor­

tance of the “balance of elephants” was such that in 1838 a British envoy,

hoping to instigate conflict with Burma, gave a white elephant as a present

to Siam (Pollak 1978 ). Indeed, conflict over the rightful possession of white

elephants was considered a legitimate casus belli. The white elephant was

in no way superior to normally colored elephants: it was not stronger,

faster, healthier, or smarter. It was simply rarer. Thus, its symbolic value

was tightly connected to natural restrictions.^21 Similarly, in the burgeoning

prestige market of art patronage in Renaissance Italy, patrons competed

over a limited number of public spaces in which their commissioned art

could be flaunted. A chapel can only display one altarpiece that can ad­

vertise a patron’s wealth, superior lineage, and fine artistic taste. Locations

with greater broadcast effectiveness were deemed more prestigious and

accordingly were more expensive (Nelson and Zeckhauser 2008 , 60 ). Thus,

for commissioned art, natural restrictions and intrinsic restrictions became

closely intertwined.

This is also the case in international relations. Because resources are

limited and finite, there is a natural restriction on the number of vessels a

navy can maintain or the number of simultaneous military interventions

an army can carry out. In this sense, natural restrictions closely resemble

intrinsic restrictions and are mainly a derivative of cost. Other natural re­

strictions can be generated by scarce nonrenewable resources such as oil

or uranium.

The second type of scarcity that is relevant to international relations

stems from what Schweller ( 1999 ) defines as positional conflict (see also

Frank 1985 b, 108 ; Frank 1985 a). As Schweller notes, positions are indi­