By Tony Samson
LET’S NOT call it influence peddling. The practice of using connections, or “pulling strings” to get ahead is a cultural thing. Of course, know-who cannot replace know-how, but what if they come together in a package? Or if only one of them is available, which one is more important?
The value of connections is leveraged when it comes to occupations like banking, law, and political lobbying. The more neutral term for employing connections to increase sales (of services or ideas) is “relationship marketing.”
In his 1987 novel (Bonfire of the Vanities) dealing with bond trading and the law, Tom Wolfe coined the term “favor bank.” This social system of granting and receiving benefits is much like depositing and withdrawing from a bank, using favors as the currency. You cannot withdraw when you have not deposited — asking for too many favors and not being able to grant any in return is considered a socially unacceptable behavior, relegating the perpetual favor seeker as a pest.
Where do connections come from? How are the strings established?
Nothing beats the kinship system. The idea of nepotism (or dynasty politics) is dismissed as envy by outsiders bringing it up — get your own powerful relatives or in-laws. The kinship ties go beyond the nuclear family. They may even include long-time family retainers and distant relatives who lodged with a family for free during their student days.
Social networks embrace ties formed by shared histories. These include connections made from school (Why are fraternities so popular, with students dying to join?), professional associations, overlapping careers, and even neighborhoods — we lived a block away from each other in the province. Geography is enhanced by a common dialect, especially when spoken fluently to ask for favors.
Political affiliations, which are constantly shifting, tend to be less binding. Establishing such connections are often met with cynicism borne out of opportunism. Politicians anyway are on their guard with name droppers and influence peddlers wielding imaginary clout. Strangers trying to seek favors and presenting themselves as somehow connected are only too common in the patronage culture. Anyway, petitioners need to know what names to avoid mentioning at all and who the current allies and opponents are before bragging of supposed intimacy with them — Oh, so you know my mortal enemy?
Shared histories are a powerful bond. Strangers thrown together by chance in a disaster (we were rescued together after the earthquake) will relive the life-changing experiences that established their emotional links.
The previously acknowledged connections arising from “ritual kinship” in religious milestone events like baptisms, weddings, and other rites of passage have weakened. Opportunism is seen to play too big a role in the selection of wedding sponsors and godparents from among the already powerful.
In our culture, the direct approach from strangers, even in a business setting, is seldom effective. Unsolicited requests, even fantastic proposals (also called “no brainers”) end up in the circular file. An intermediary with strings attached needs to get into the picture, if only to make introductions and establish bona fides.
Pulling strings to get ahead or even just open doors is a cultural habit. It is based on reciprocal expectations. Someone who granted you a favor, or extended help in times of dire need, is owed a debt of gratitude. In Filipino, this is called utang na loob. The fact that it is not easy to translate (literally, debt from inside) means that it has a uniquely cultural resonance.
The expression “pulling strings” as a way of jumping the queue or securing a benefit by unfairly leveraging some hidden influence, comes from the metaphor of a marionette whose movements are determined by the manipulation of a flexible object by unseen hands.
Once a favor is secured or the endorsement for a position is gained, the tables may turn. The erstwhile puller of strings to secure advantage now owes the other who helped him get ahead.
Especially in high-profile lobbying, as in a tight race for an elevated position, the intervention of an arbiter who selects the winner to whom a favor may have been owed in the past then shifts the power balance. The ower is now owed.
So, when the puppet’s mouth seems to be moving, it is the ventriloquist who provides the voice. It is not hard to distinguish the puppet from the puppeteer, and which one is now pulling the strings.
Tony Samson is Chairman and CEO, TOUCH xda.
