4 ms·

I agree that the deciding committee isn't completely incompetent. As you know, there are plenty of other intelligentsia that could also award prizes but they ar

I agree that the deciding committee isn't completely incompetent. As you know, there are plenty of other intelligentsia that could also award prizes but they aren't deemed as prestigious. E.g. why the Swedish academy instead of the Royal Society? I think it is a bit strange how we fetisihize the Nobel above all others.

theoh 8y ago
That's just how prestige works. It's a social phenomenon, not an objective reality. It can snowball. This book has an interesting but slightly reductive take on how prestige works in the arts: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/artworld-prestige-9780199913985?cc=ie&lang=en&# https://global.oup.com/academic/product/artworld-prestige-97...
- Moodles 8y ago
  Indeed. One prize gets 1% prestige, so people want to win it. More people want to win it, so the prize gains more prestige, etc.
  - ska 8y ago
    So you've answered your own questions as to why this isn't strange at all - it's just how social capital works. Why else would the premier restaurant review have been started by a tire company? It's all path dependence, and once you get enough momentum behind one choice it becomes self reinforcing.
    - Moodles 8y ago
      > So you've answered your own questions Yes, I am trying to.
Lionsion 8y ago
> E.g. why the Swedish academy instead of the Royal Society? Because a rich Swede endowed it over a century ago, and its had that time to build up prestige. It's sort of like why Harvard is so prestigious: it was the first American University, its existed continuously, and has always ran itself like it was elite. > I think it is a bit strange how we fetisihize the Nobel above all others. My guess it's one of the oldest extant awards of its kind, if not the oldest. This scandal (and the hiatus) might allow a competitor to emerge as the most prestigious award in the field of literature, but I doubt such award will have the same popular awareness, because the Nobel's breadth helps a lot with it's fame.

theoh 8y ago

That's just how prestige works. It's a social phenomenon, not an objective reality. It can snowball. This book has an interesting but slightly reductive take on how prestige works in the arts: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/artworld-prestige-9780199913985?cc=ie&lang=en&# https://global.oup.com/academic/product/artworld-prestige-97...

Moodles 8y ago
Indeed. One prize gets 1% prestige, so people want to win it. More people want to win it, so the prize gains more prestige, etc.
- ska 8y ago
  So you've answered your own questions as to why this isn't strange at all - it's just how social capital works. Why else would the premier restaurant review have been started by a tire company? It's all path dependence, and once you get enough momentum behind one choice it becomes self reinforcing.
  - Moodles 8y ago
    > So you've answered your own questions Yes, I am trying to.

Lionsion 8y ago

> E.g. why the Swedish academy instead of the Royal Society? Because a rich Swede endowed it over a century ago, and its had that time to build up prestige. It's sort of like why Harvard is so prestigious: it was the first American University, its existed continuously, and has always ran itself like it was elite. > I think it is a bit strange how we fetisihize the Nobel above all others. My guess it's one of the oldest extant awards of its kind, if not the oldest. This scandal (and the hiatus) might allow a competitor to emerge as the most prestigious award in the field of literature, but I doubt such award will have the same popular awareness, because the Nobel's breadth helps a lot with it's fame.