The Kramer-Peterman Duality

Fragments on Eccentricity

---

The concept of fomo has always alluded me. Part of the reason is a persistent need for eccentricity, for growing against the grain. That is not to say that I am persistently rebellious, but that there is a natural aversion to doing things “the way everyone else does it”.

The word eccentricity has for me always evoked a relation to its meaning within astrodynamics¹ — the amount by which a given orbit deviates from a “perfect” circle to an ellipse. For a spacecraft raising or lowering one’s orbit requires entering into an elliptical orbit before one can circularise, meaning that an eccentric orbit often means that an object is either shooting away from a body or crashing down toward it, only to gently miss. By comparison a circular orbit is merely the stable, unchanging floating above another world. The eccentric is instead constantly changing speed and direction, moving towards and away by large amounts while maintaining some sort of liminal existence.

Seinfeld (1989-1998) is one of the most influential sitcoms of all time, rivalled only by its contemporary Friends. It covers the dramatized life of the titular Jerry Seinfeld, a comedian who is played by himself, in New York City. Jerry’s life, like in most sitcoms, is closely intertwined with a quirky cast of misfits that he calls his friends: Elain Benes — a cultured literature major who sees herself as the only “normal” member of the group, George Constanza — an insecure but highly determined and neurotic man whose bold attempts at improvement often end in failure, and Cosmo Kramer — the whimsical and perpetually unemployed neighbour whose bold actions (contrary to Costanza’s) often succeed, but that are then undermined by Kramer’s own poor judgement.

In the final episode of the sixth season Elaine, down on her luck, meets Jacopo “J.” Peterman, the author of the Peterman’s fashion catalogue, where accessories or articles of clothing are marketed with stories of adventure, mystique, and international intrigue. Elaine starts to work on the catalogue, and Peterman becomes a side character in the world of Seinfeld. He is well-travelled, wealthy, and charming, seemingly living proof of the life described in the narratives of the catalogue.

In the episode The Van Buren Boys Elaine is tasked with ghostwriting Peterman’s biography, a task that she expects to be fairly easy because of Peterman’s history of mischief. She anticipates that it will merely be a question of documenting and detailing the his many stories, but is caught off-guard when he instead wants her to write about his ordinary everyday life instead of exotic travels. Elaine quickly realises that Peterman’s normal life is (as for most people) dreadfully dull. Instead Peterman buys the rights to the stories of Kramer’s life — who has a genuinely bizarre and eccentric lifestyle — for a one-time fee of 500 usd.

This duality exists within all of us, although in differing degrees. The two aspects of Kramer and Peterman are two sides of the same coin, the striving for action and authenticity (Peterman) as well as the genuine everyday experimentation and adventurousness itself (Kramer). They are both however true eccentrics.

Peterman is fundamentally a fake — a poser — who tries to appear differently from how he “truly” is. Regardless of if he does it through fictitious takes in the catalogue, buying jfk’s golf clubs or antique cake, or venturing on impromptu journeys to Burma² it is always in the attempt to appear as something other than his “true” self. In this regard he truly is a performative man, in the sense that his life is the performance of the role that he has chosen for himself.

You only know me as you see me, not as I actually am.

⸺ Immanuel Kant

Kramer instead represents the reverse; an ideal form of the eccentric attempting to anchor themselves in the real. Instead of attempting to stand out Kramer tries to act as society wishes that he would act. His “job” at Brant-Leland Investments, something that appears to us as absurd, is absurd precisely in its dichotomy with the “ordinary” working life of the audience.

Thus Kramer and Peterman are equally troubled beings wrestling with the social expectations of the eccentric as being both the troublesome madman and the hopeless romantic of life. What they have in common is their unwavering confidence in themselves,³ in that whatever project they assume it will only be seen through by their own will and hope.

I’m out there, Jerry. And I’m loving every minute of it!

⸺ Cosmo Kramer

What is one to choose then? Am I a Kramer of a Peterman? A narcissist would never confess to being a narcissist⁴ and in a similar vein a true Kramer would never want to be seen as a Kramer, and a Peterman would never want to be seen as a Peterman. Both are, despite their similar surface-level behaviour, attempting to imitate the life of the other. This is of course most clearly seen in Peterman buying Kramer’s stories, but an example of the reverse is Kramer’s attempt to market his perfume The Beach to an executive at Calvin Klein⁵ — he wishes to advance to story teller and not merely the mystic who lives for his own sake.

Choosing the reverse from what wishes to be is no better, as it plays into the performative play forced upon the Kramer/Peterman. Instead we must accept two facts: (i) that Kramer and Peterman are not two separate state of being but instead one holistic idea — id est the replacement of “Kramer/Peterman” with Kramer+Peterman⁶ — as well as (ii) that this is inherently an unstable phenomenon. By this instability is meant not that Kramer+Peterman will inevitably collapse, but instead merely that it is in movement relative to both itself and the world.

The consequences of these two statements are tremendous for the life of the eccentric. It means that the goal of the eccentric is constantly moving and that a Kramer+Peterman must constantly move with it. There is no possibility to “rest on one’s laurels” and simply live with the reputation of once having been eccentric. It is a constant spirit that one must involve oneself with, even at the expense of temporary comfort. But that the Kramer+Peterman dichotomy is moving relative to itself is also meaningful, as it means that simply “picking” either Kramer or Peterman is a fruitless task (for reason we have already established). One is by necessity both elements of Kramer+Peterman, and each element takes turns (although not necessarily equal turns) in being the dominant factor in the pair. The other is still present and merely dormant — ready to take over when the opportunity arrives.

What then decides the degree to which either Kramer or Peterman is dominant? It is most assuredly the degree of self-awareness that is possessed in the moment.⁷ The Kramer is dominant when the lack of self-awareness of appears, when the eccentric is simply acting out of instinct for what they deem required. Peterman is the opposite, being an insecurity over one’s lack of eccentricity and whimsy, and thus corresponding to the conscious effort of standing out. The two must not always be in a strict hierarchical order, but can fluidly exist in different ratios between one another; they may even be of equal share.

We can therefore conclude that the Kramer-Peterman dichotomy is not really a dichotomy, but a duality where neither side can truly exist without the other. The hipster or eccentric, filled with whimsy is therefore always insecure in some regard, but brave enough to see their vision through; the master in Hegel’s master & slave dialectic. ❦