My daughter’s 4th grade class is reading a short story by O. Henry called The Two Thanksgiving Day Gentlemen. (A two minute read.) In about an hour I will go to her class and lead a discussion of the story. Here are my notes.
In the story we meet Stuffy Pete. He is sitting on a bench waiting for a second gentleman to arrive. We learn that this is an annual meeting on Thanksgiving day that Stuffy Pete is always looking forward to. Stuffy Pete is a ragged, hungry street-dweller and the gentleman who arrives each year treats him to a Thanksgiving feast.
But on this Thanksgiving, Stuffy Pete is stuffed. Because on his way to the meeting, he was stopped by the servant of two old ladies who had their own Thanksgiving tradition. They treated him to an even bigger feast than he is used to. And so he sits here, weighed down on the bench, terrified of the impending arrival.
The old gentleman arrives and recites this speech.
“Good morning, I am glad to see that the vicissitudes of another year have spared you to move in health about the beautiful world. For that blessing alone this day of thanksgiving is well celebrated. If you will come with me, my man, I will provide you with a dinner that should be more than satisfactory in every respect.”
The same speech he has recited every year the two gentlemen met on that same bench. “The words themselves almost formed an institution.”
And Stuffy Pete, in tearful agony at the prospects replies “Thankee sir. I’ll go with ye, and much obliged. I’m very hungry sir.”
Stuffy’s Thanksgiving appetite was not his own; it now belonged to this kindly old gentleman who had taken possession of it.
The story’s deep cynicism, hinted at in the preceding quote, is only fully realized in the final paragraphs which contain the typical O. Henry ironic twist. Stuffy, overstuffed by a second Thanksgiving feast collapses and is brought to hospital by an ambulance whose driver “cursed softly at his weight.” Shortly thereafter he is joined there by the old gentleman and a doctor is overheard chatting about his case
“That nice old gentleman over there, now” he said “you wouldn’t think that was a case of almost starvation. Proud old family, I guess. He told me he hadn’t eaten a thing for three days.”
Social norms and institutions re-direct self-interested motives. Social welfare maximization is then proxied for by individual-level incentives. But they can take on a life of their own, uncoupled from their origin. This is the folk public choice theory of O. Henry’s staggeringly cynical fable.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 17, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Tweets that mention O. Henry on Institutions « Cheap Talk -- Topsy.com
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Economics, Cheap Talk. Cheap Talk said: O. Henry on Institutions http://wp.me/pqX2p-1WG […]
February 17, 2011 at 9:12 pm
random
How would you discuss the story with your daughter’s class?
February 18, 2011 at 8:50 am
jeff
my job was to ask questions, not to answer them. i asked questions like “why was the old man sad when he gave his speech?” “why did Stuffy agree to the meal when he had already eaten?” “was the old man being generous?” “was the old man doing Stuffy a favor?”
February 18, 2011 at 9:02 am
mousy
Did they answer your questions? 🙂
February 18, 2011 at 11:51 am
jeff
they picked up on the irony. but i don’t think they got farther than “the old man was so nice that he unkowingly sacrificed himself for no good return.”
the story works ok on that level, so in a certain sense it is just right for fourth graders. you have that reading which is one level below the surface, and you have potentially the deeper reading which is one further level below.
February 19, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Jonathan Weinstein
This is like a dark version of The Gift of the Magi. (Attempted sacrifice goes astray.) The story is sad, but I’m not sure about cynical. The old man’s self-worth is so tied up with giving that he will give even when starving. There is something noble in that, even if he is too self-centered to notice whether the giving is doing any good. Pete is also self-sacrificing in downing all the food, and his sacrifice is not wholly in vain; he does succeed in making the old man feel noble, and couldn’t know he was starving. Some of the passing lines about the poor only needing help on Thanksgiving are cynical, but that’s not the primary mood I got. The characters do genuinely want to be generous, though it goes astray because they lack empathy, don’t communicate, and see each other one-dimensionally. Not cheerful, but better than a truly cynical view with no generosity at all!
February 19, 2011 at 11:58 pm
jeff
Thanks Jonathan.
I agree that there is respect for the characters. The cynicism I see is in the implicit comment about traditions and institutions (both words eventually get capitalized in the story.) There is a suggestion that the social reward that comes with generosity (he wants a son to say “In memory of my faterh”) leads to perverse outcomes.
In fact, because the characters are sympathetic, its their external motivations that get the blame.
February 20, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Jonathan Weinstein
True, there is certainly sarcasm and cynicism about Institutions. I guess that extremely uncynical story “Gift of the Magi” is sufficiently ingrained in my unconscious that I responded more to the nobility than to the cynicism.