Anyone watching ‘Inventing Anna’, the docu-series on Anna Delvey aka Anna Sorokin’s rise, in New York high society, and fall will appreciate the caveat at the beginning of each episode -“[T]his whole story is completely true, except for all the parts that are totally made up.” Though Bollywood action sequences and story-twists boggle the mind, Anna’s story puts everything to shade.
Labelling Anna a con woman and grifter does dis-service to her intelligence. The fact is Anna was smart enough to break through many ‘isms’. Sexism for a start, she bulldozed her way into the male bastion that is Wall Street. She crumbled the barriers of ageism and classism gaining acceptance of people more experienced, wealthy, and polished than her. She drilled through cronyism where favours are bartered to ensure wealth circulates within a tight knit circle. Something that Anna milked was the unbridled materialism of the bankers, socialites and Anna’s peers who tripped over each other to be part of Anna’s dream.
Though Anna was jailed, there is no denying the culpability of others who willingly participated in her entrepreneurial endeavour. Did she wish to destroy the New York set by luring them to their downfall, much like the Sirens of Greek mythology who lured sailors? Or was she selling a dream to survive, just like Sultana Scheherazade who spun tales to entertain her husband and prevent him from carrying out his murderous oath?
Even though she did not study beyond school, Anna understood human psychology. She knew that people trustingly gravitated towards the whiff of old money. Anna recognised that having fine taste was perceived as membership to a rarefied clique and therefore testimony to creditworthiness and trustworthiness. To succeed Anna needed to get into the social Ponzi scheme that the New York elite were deeply invested in.
Promoting a false persona and history
For New Yorker’s, Anna’s accent was the first draw, it was not common and held the promise of Europe. Her knowledge of art and the loud hints of a rich father and a trust fund cemented her credentials. Everybody wanted to believe and believed that she was the real deal.
Creating and Selling a Promise.
While Anna only dreamt big; her supporters and financiers built castles with Anna’s dream as the foundation. Anna’s venture was discerning enough to cater to different segments. Everyone bought into the business because it spoke their language. For the New York aristocracy Anna’s promise meant being part of a new elite group that she was creating and getting to claim dibs on recognising and fostering Anna’s business savvies. An investment of social capital and goodwill promised big financial and non-financial returns. The architects and chefs saw an opportunity to build their brand while, bankers, promoters and financiers saw a cash cow that would never stop giving.
The value and role of promoters
Anna would not have succeeded if it were not for her promoters. They were the stamp of approval and gate openers that allowed Anna to almost succeed. Anna needed just one person to recognise her potential and the business proposition. An epidemiologist would see similarities between the process of Anna getting promoters and the spread of a virus. However, the promoter also had selfish reasons to introduce Anna. By introducing Anna to others of influence her chances of success improved thereby increasing the potential of a windfall for the promoter. These introductions also spread the risk and offloaded the job of background checks on a new person. To go back to the Epidemiologist analogy, promoters were building herd immunity.
Anna would not have had any credibility or been able to establish herself in New York were it not for those who saw value for themselves in promoting her.
But just because she got in, didn’t mean she was a complete insider. It was hard work maintaining here image. She had to wear the right clothes, be seen at the right places with the right people and speak the right language. She was generosity personified when she occasionally had money and used subterfuge to get her friends to pay. Anna knew that silence, feigning forgetfulness, and assigning blame to a third party was the best way to shirk responsibility and absolve herself from blame. Whenever she came close to being caught, she used tears to prove her earnestness and the viability of her dream.
Anna was an outsider trying to enter the world of the New York elite. Similarly, Donald Trump was an interloper to Washington DC. He promised to ‘drain the swamp’. At home much was made about breaking Lutyen Delhi’s, and the Khan Market gang’s, stranglehold over national politics.
Just as Anna made up her history and promised the moon, Donald Trump claimed to be a great businessman, even though his casino ran into losses. He promised to Make America Great Again. As he drew nearer to the 45th Presidency, Republicans who earlier tried to thwart, and belittle, him began to toe his line and backed his candidature.
One is hard-pressed not to see similarities to certain Indian political leaders. The creation of fake personal history, the much touted desire to build something new, the early promoters who chose to ignore facts, the shirking of responsibility and blaming of others, the litany of unfulfilled promises, the penchant for clothes and the desire to be photographed with the right people.
Anna’s story is the victory of ‘if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.’ Over ‘if it sounds too good to be true it probably is’. Anna’s rise in New York society is no different to how some politicians come to power. But does her downfall predict the future of such politicians?
(Samir Nazareth is an author and writes on socio-economic and environmental issues)