Clickety Claque

“We have what Frenchmen call a ‘cliqué,’
Who entertain a sort of pique
Against all sacrilegious wights
Who meddle with their sacred rights.”

The Mysteries of Charleston (1846)

Humans naturally follow the crowd and assume that popularity arises from some merit in that which is popular, and unpopularity from some demerit in that which is not.  While it is true that the food in a crowded restaurant is often better than the food in a restaurant where listless waiters lean against the bar and flick flies with stained towels, those who follow the crowd are usually following what the crowd follows.  And the crowd is usually following a clique or a claque.

Texas ranchers sometimes insert a donkey into a herd of cattle because a donkey is more intelligent than a cow, and thus has the sense to trot over to the rancher’s truck when he shows up to deliver feed.  Cattle lack the wit to know that a pickup truck means that it is chow time, but a few will follow the lead of the donkey, and the rest will follow the lead of those few.

Cliques and claques work like that donkey.  Both words come from the French and literally mean sharp sounds, the one like the click of a latch and the other like a clap of thunder.

A claque takes its name from the “thunderous applause” it is hired to raise in order to simulate (and stimulate) wild enthusiasm for a performance and a performer.  The word originated in Parisian theaters in the middle of the nineteenth century.  In 1869, a traveler in Paris described it this way.

“Seated usually in the parquet . . . and directly under the chandelier, a row of persons, varying from half a dozen to thirty, may be seen every evening, wet or dry, who never get tired of seeing the same piece, and who never forget to applaud in the proper places, provided always that they have been properly paid therefore” (1)

The same writer continues.

“In the midst of the party sits the chef, who gives the cue when to applaud, to whom the rest look for all their instructions, and the movement of whose hands they follow.  The chef is paid a certain sum by the management of the theater, but his principle receipts are from authors who are about producing new pieces, from young actors and actresses, or those who desire to create an unusual sensation.”

The parquet was the ground floor of a theater, and the earliest claques took this position in the expectation that their wild approbation would spread by contagion through the regular audience that was seated around them.  In time this simple ruse was detected, so claques dispersed throughout the theater.

As the opera singer Mary Mellish explained, in early twentieth-century New York “the claque members . . . know their scores and are placed at points of vantage throughout the house,” and “at the proper instant their applause and bravos were taken up by the audience.”  The job of a claque was to “break in . . . at the most propitious instant and start the applause.”  For a set fee, they would also ensure curtain calls and encores.  “A friend of mine,” Mellish tells us, “singing her first big role, was guaranteed a certain number of curtain calls for a flat sum and extra calls pro rata” (2).

* * * * *

Whereas a claque serves to simulate popular approval, a clique serves to simulate critical acclaim. An artist who hires a claque is assured of thunderous applause from the cheap seats; an artist supported by the right clique is assured of “puffery” and “boosting” by influential critics and connoisseurs.  As the American art critic Sheridan Ford explained at the turn of the nineteenth century:

“Impossible paintings vie with each other in chase of the medal; the clique in power bestows the coveted prize with conscientious partiality, and the mob applauds” (3).

Puffery is the art of making something or someone appear bigger and better than it actually is, or they actually are.  When a man puffs himself, we dismiss it as ridiculous boasting.  But when a circle of men puff each other in a “mutual admiration society,” the suckers often show why they bear that name.

The phrase “mutual admiration society” (or “society of mutual admiration”) was popularized by the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes in The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table (1858), but was likely first used to describe the Boston literary clique that controlled the North American Review in the 1830s and 1840s. Sometimes called the Five of Clubs, this clique and the Review played a central role in the installation of New England Unitarianism as the official literary culture of the United States (4).  The name of Mutual Admiration Society was later expanded to cover “the whole literati of Boston,” and such organs of opinion as the Atlantic Magazine, the imputation being that New Englanders occupied the commanding heights of American thought and literature because they operated as a clique (5).

I know of no decisive explanation why an exclusive circle of ambitious friends came to be known as a clique, but it seems reasonable to accept the hypothesis that it is an onomatopoeic reference to the sound of a door being latched or a bolt being drawn. In popular usage, clique now means an exclusive circle from which all others are locked out, and to those who are locked out, such circles have the appearance of a clandestine conspiracy.

As an admired member of the Boston literati, Holmes denied that they were a conspiracy, and ridiculed the notion that

“a circle of clever fellows, who meet together to dine and have a good time, have signed a constitutional compact to glorify themselves and to put down . . . the fraction of the human race not belonging to their number.”

He dismissed this suspicion as mere jealously on the part of disappointed mediocrities.

Holmes apparently failed to reflect on the meaning of the words “mutual admiration,” since the members of a clique glorify each other because they actually do see each other as glorious.  A clique does not need anything so sordid as a “constitutional compact” to put outsiders down, but only requires mutual admiration for the unique tastes and talents that are embodied most perfectly in the members of the clique.

A successful clique succeeds in identifying its own tastes and talents as the essence of literature, and then bask in the glory of being, by their own definition, the literati.  As Edward Bulwer Lytton explained

“Some few years ago, there was the Author’s clique of Albemarle Street, a circle of gentlemen who professed to weigh out to each man his modicum of fame; they praised each other—were the literary class . . .” (6).


(1) E. Gould Buffum, Sights and Sensations in France, Germany and Switzerland  (1869).

(2) Mary Flannery Mellish, Sometimes I Reminisce (1941).

(3) Sheridan Ford, The Art of Folly (1901)

(4) Edward Everett Hale, James Russell Lowell and his Friends (1899)

(5) See the letter from Robert Anderson Wilson, an aggrieved historian, in George Ticknor, Papers Discussing the Comparative Merits of Prescott’s and Wilson’s Histories (1861)

(6) Edward Bulwer Lytton, England and the English (1833).

5 thoughts on “Clickety Claque

  1. Pingback: Clickety Claque | Reaction Times

  2. As i understand it, clique was also used in reference to an oligarchical government or business venture. Guangxi Clique (im certain i botched that name) was a political unit in pre-revolutionary China, and i believe had its roots as a british puppet state vis a vis tea or opium trade. Possibly from thence, by analogy, did it come to reference exclusive social groups? Though it seems this definition and the situation you describe share a common ancestor in “group meeting behind a locked door”.

    • I cannot discover which usage occurred first–social clique, political clique, or literary clique. The word entered English around 1720, when cliques of all three sorts were becoming more common. If I had to guess, I would say it was first used in a political sense, but all three usages were common by 1800. The meaning of clique has been diluted by its use to describe knots of female friends in high school, but even here, the basic nature of a clique is clear. A clique functions to raise the social status of the girls in the clique, but also puts clique members under the power of the clique. You might call it a status multiplier. You cannot make a clique out of homely and unpopular girls, but your can use it to magnify the good looks and popularity. Political and literary cliques work the same way.

      • You cannot make a clique out of homely and unpopular girls, but your can use it to magnify the good looks and popularity. Political and literary cliques work the same way.

        I doubt. Are you sure there can’t be, say, cliques of painters who can’t paint or sculptors who can’t sculpt? There can’t be cliques of political writers who can’t write (Jennifer Rubin cackles offstage)? Prognosticators who are constantly wrong? Critics with atrocious taste? Felicity in the ostensible domain may be helpful for clique formation and dominance, but necessary?

        For pretty girls, sure. But that’s because physical attractiveness is objective, easily recognized, and very important, per se, to men. The quarterback of the football team likely will happily date the pretty girl whom all the “pretty” girls call ugly. And the other football players will be jealous of him. And the “pretty” girl clique will fall apart soon after. You would have to endow the “pretty” girl clique with truly awesome police powers to get it to have the appearance of working.

        On the other hand, there was the episode after Obama’s election in which it became more or less mandatory in some circles to claim to believe that Michelle was physically attractive. On the other other hand, one didn’t have to date her to prove one’s belief.

        So, I would say that cliques will actually possess their ostensible felicities in circumstances where 1) the evaluator tends not to be vulnerable to the clique and 2) the evaluator benefits from correct evaluation. The quarterback and the pretty girl is a good example. You get cliques which often don’t possess their ostensible felicities in circumstances where 1) the evaluator is vulnerable to the clique, and 2) the evaluator does not benefit from correct evaluation. Keynes’s beauty contest metaphor for the stock market is a good example. Finding the best companies is not a particularly reliable way to make money there. Finding the companies the people around you will think the people around them will think are the best companies is the way to go.

        Which is a long-winded way of agreeing with you that the definition is clouded by its use to describe High School cliques. Those, it seems to me in retrospect, are not cliques at all. Those groupings were in recognition of a not-socially-constructed reality. You didn’t become a geek by being inducted into the geek clique. You were inducted into the geek clique if you were a geek. Hollywood has a different view, but Hollywood lies incessantly about everything.

  3. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 06/23/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.