What is the Tall Poppy Syndrome?

Is it good, bad or relative?

Dear Classical Wisdom Reader,

The tendency to criticize those who succeed, to bring them down a notch or keep them humble, is a cultural phenomenon that honestly, takes place throughout the world and throughout time.

In Australia and New Zealand, where we recently reunited with family, it’s commonly called the “Tall Poppy Syndrome”… and while plenty down under may know the phrase, I venture few are familiar with the very ancient story behind it:

Indeed, it comes from a period where history and myth mix freely… the time of the legendary seventh and final king of Rome: Lucius Tarquinius Superbus… also known as Tarquin the Proud (fun fact: Superbus is Latin for arrogant or lofty). 

He was a man of cunning and ruthlessness, known for his Tyrannical legacy and the abolition of the monarchy. His grab at the throne was filled with merciless murders as was his subsequent reign… but today we won’t delve into the exact ins and outs of this maybe mythical man. Instead, we concern ourselves with one small vignette, that of his take over of Gabii, one of the nearby Latin cities that had rejected the treaty with Rome. 

Tarquin was unable to take the city by force and as such, connived a different stratagem. He employed his son, Sextus, to flee to Gabii and implore their help. Pretending to be ill-treated by his father, the inhabitants were taken in - so much so that they entrusted Sextus with the command of their troops. Once fully ensconced in the community, Sextus was unsure how to proceed, so he sent a messenger to his father asking for instructions. 

It is here where we get to the heart of the saying…. Tarquin the Proud walked with the messenger in the field, saying not a word. Instead, whenever he came to a tall poppy, he snipped its head off. Sextus, fully understanding his father’s cryptic advice, took down all the leading men of Gabii. The city quickly submitted. 

Tarquinius Superbus by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, depicting the king sweeping the tallest heads from a patch of poppies

Clearly, it was a clever tactic… it worked and the removal of those local elites enabled the tyrannical man to take over. 

Of course, that’s not what most people think of when they reference a Tall Poppy. They are envisioning someone “too big for their britches”… a way to maintain egalitarianism, equity and the equally mythical equality. But does it work that way? Can taking down the successful actually help those below? When people discuss the payouts, for instance, of men like Elon Musk or Bezos, do they want to tear these super-successful leaders down? And if they do, what other force might (will?) fill the vacuum? 

Moreover, is such a social action restricted only to the very highest realms of society? Or can it permeate at different regions, sub-cultures and socio-economic levels? For those with zero-sum thinking, the crab mentality of “if I can’t have it, neither can you” can be extremely destructive. 

So at what point can a tall poppy become a crab pot? Indeed, after a certain absolute level of necessity, wealth and success are relative. The richest man in the Dharavi slum may very well be happier than the poorest guy on Rodeo Drive. 

But before my ramble becomes a rant, I’d like to ask what you think, dear reader…

Is the ‘Tall Poppy’ a smart tactic to keep the most ambitious at bay? Or a mean method to hold back progress? What should we do (if anything) with the most successful people around us? Emulate or annihilate? 

As always, feel free to reply to this email, comment below or write to me directly at anya@classicalwisdom.com. 

Now, for today’s mailbag responses: Should we hold in or let out our emotions? Plus a few responses from my recent vent on “believing the science”, below!

All the best,
Anya Leonard
Founder and Director

Classical Wisdom

P.S. Understanding the critical stories from the ancient world - both historical and mythological - can make sense of our current situations… which is why it’s so important to always investigate the truth of these tales and to look at them from different perspectives.

To this end, Classical Wisdom was proud to publish Mary Naples’ “Unsung Heroes” ebook for our Members. Enjoy a deeper understanding of the ancient women, from Augustus’ daughter Julia (as featured in last Wednesday's article) and Theodora, to Hera and Helen of Sparta.

If you aren’t a member yet, take this moment to join to enjoy the classics and support this project:

 

Monday Mailbag

Re: Can You ‘Believe in The Science’? 

Thanks for your valuable venting about “Believe in the Science”.

That problematic phrase attempts to manipulate your consent by asking you to bypass thoughtful, scientific analysis.

Thank goodness you are “finicky” about the pursuit of truth.

Robert H.

P.S. Have you misspoke here: “Trying to encapsulate a concept that intrinsically demands contradictions, that feeds and grows by criticism and only progresses by reason-induced challenges, would never solidify into some amalgamated ambiguous mantra.”

Science intrinsically demands resolving contradictions and formulating a logically consistent theory.

-

This is the best article you've ever written because it combines your knowledge with your passion and your belief well done and absolutely on point thank you

Charles F.

-

I thought people do science because they believe in it. I thought they believe in all the foundational axioms, the math and the constants. I thought they believed in the theories and pretenses. So to me you seem to be rifting a play on words. The thing about science is that it is very limited in what it can physically confirm and what it does confirm, it can only approximate because that is the nature of the statistics it uses as "proof".  Science can't prove that my wife loves me, my dog is loyal to me or that George Washington really never chopped down that cherry tree. It can't even prove that the tree in the forest actually DID make a sound when it fell. 

There are many fallacies that science assumed when it is the be all and end all. So stop overstating the extent and bounds of science and realize it has verifiable limitations.  Science can't prove Plato ever lived.

Highest Regards and Respectfully,

An Advocate of Real Science

Re: Emotions: Better Out or In? 

Anya,

I’m of the Stoic school. Feel the emotions. Enjoy or loathe them as appropriate. Express them rationally. But do NOT let them control your actions. History and my personal life are littered with the wreckage wrought by acting on unrestrained emotions. My 2 cents (or $15.32 after inflation adjustment)

Jim F.

-

We find ourselves back in the psychological domain with the awkward task of trying to add value from various sources in the Classical realm vs. discussing how emotions work in the real world of the 21st century. 

Plato's 'take' on the subject is archaic, both literally and figuratively. 

You don't have to go past the Iliad to find all the material you need for a 3 day seminar.

• Achilles' contempt for Agamemnon when the latter demands the attention of Briseis.

• Achilles' grief and rage over the death of Patroclus. 

• The family devotion in Priam's clan with particular attention to the misery of Andromache and Priam's pitiful supplication to recover Hector's body.

It's not a question of acknowledging emotions vs. not. Emotion drives the entire action. 

Again, you circle around the topic how psychological factors can spark the interest of your readers but you have yet to hit the target.

Best regards,

Richard H.

-

Thanks for bringing up "catharsis." I have explored its potential meanings today, with theatre or film viewing (and religious buildings), across several books for 20 years. But you put the issue very clearly and succinctly. Catharsis is often considered as just expressing emotions--or being immersed as a viewer/gamer in their stage/screen evocations--and thereby "purging" them. 

But many studies show that violent emotions of fear, through sympathy, toward anger, hatred, and vengeance, especially in the melodramatic mode of good versus evil projections, backfires (if catharsis is taken as purging) because such stage/screen representations increase viewers' aggressive feelings and actions. Would this be the problem in Plato's view? 

And yet, Aristotle's idea of catharsis as purifying/cleansing, through fear/sympathy for an admired hero, with the tragedy revealing his errors in judgment, via plot twists and recognition moments, theorizes a more complex awareness of emotions in the viewer--as mindful, altered perspectives, through tragicomic edges of irony, even perhaps with melodramatic stage/screen violence?

Mark P, MFA, PhD

Professor of Theatre and Film

Well, it is never advisable to expose one’s emotions outward — in a real life situation — strategically and especially in the art of war or political debate.   

What can one accomplish given to outrage, hostility or arrogance? Not much. One can with self-control display effective communication. 

The significance of catharsis purifies one’s hyped reaction/emotion toward any negative behavior, such as anxiety, rage, and/or fear, in order to calm down complexities during the critical thought and reasoning exchange.

Final thought: exposing emotional anxiety, fear, and/or rage is never an option, lest in a theatrical emotional character/scene exchange.   

Preston J.

-

Dear Friends,

Holding back emotions is not recommendable. Let tears and fears and happiness come out. That's my opinion.

Yours truly

Johannes 

-

Emotions are part and parcel to the human experience. They can be used effectively or ineffectively. Five decades ago my emotions and passion overruled logic and reason all too often. The key is to have the ability to control emotions and use them when required or of value. The ability to dial up or down emotions in any circumstance is key to making them an asset instead of a liability. For instance, when faced with a customer service glitch, treat the line person with patience and respect. When management gets involved, have the ability to release emotion at the appropriate level, amount and time to gain access to the best probable outcome. The problem is controlling the release intensity and timing.

Holding emotion in or wearing it on a sleeve are equally unproductive and often bad for health and wellbeing. Passion can be a very effective tool in communication or it can prevent effective communication. Emotion is the big stick for use when speaking softly is not sufficient. Learning to control and use this big stick is the difficult part to accomplish but worth the perseverance required.

Catharsis helps me get over negative thoughts and emotions. That is a treatment for the symptom. The cure is to determine how and why you reached that moment and learn to find the root cause and mitigate or fix it. Then catharsis is no longer required. For instance, when really angry with someone, learn to forgive them even though your flesh screams vengeance. Do this and you gain a release and become dead to the emotion of the offense wrongly directed at you. When you force yourself to forgive, the anger must dissipate and you can then move on to the next situation. If you fail to forgive, the other party always wins in the end because you carry the offense like a boulder until you do forgive. Easy to write, hard to do just like dialing up and down emotion. 

Charles F

-

I agree with Aristotle on expressing your emotions. 

I agree with Plato on reason and controlling emotions.

Am I contradictory? Very well, I am contradictory.

I am large. I contain multitudes! Walt Whitman 

Randolph H.