Quite a few years ago, in the midst of an airline pilot’s strike, there was a letter written to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle by someone who complained that airline pilots were already making too much money. As evidence for his assertion he pointed out that there was one living in his own neighborhood in Danville. I had forgotten about that letter until Captain Sullenberger (of Danville) landed that plane in the Hudson… I wonder now, what sort of high prestige career the writer of that missive enjoyed… was he a banker I wonder?

What makes a banker a professional while a pilot is only a skilled worker? I’m reasonably certain that the banker does not undergo more rigorous training. He is not responsible for more human lives. He is not expected to live up to a higher ethical standard. I suppose you might say that his higher social status is derived from having access to more money but is that really all there is to it? Consider the lowest rung in the banking hierarchy, the bank teller. The teller makes considerably less money than an auto mechanic or a garbage collector and yet the teller is expected to dress appropriately for a business environment. Unlike the blue-collar workers who typically receive an allowance for their special uniforms, the teller has to pay for his own suits. The symbolism associated with the style of dress is unconnected with actually having or controlling money… except, perhaps, as a matter of sympathetic magic (Frazer’s Law of Contagion with money itself being seen as the sacred object?). It is the business itself that is associated with the higher social status.

I will certainly concede that the bankers’ perception of themselves as professionals, with their own style of speech and dress, is a necessary element in the distinction but it is clearly not sufficient. They would not have the higher social status if the rest of society did not buy into their self-identification.