High Society Is Absurd—Until It Isn’t

I loved the movie Crazy Rich Asians for its escapism. So when someone gave me the entire trilogy, I was overjoyed. As I read, I found myself thinking of a work that predates it by over a century— Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest.

 Despite being separated by cultural context and time, both reveal the absurdity of high society and the role of wealth and power, particularly in their portrayal of social pressure and the way it enforces exclusivity and status-driven relationships.

The Importance of Being Earnest is a comedic satire in the form of a play. Eccentric characters like Lady Bracknell, Algernon, and Cecily; artful situations, and a smattering of well-placed witticisms and clever wordplay give the play a lighthearted tone. Using satire, it manages to provide a ruthless commentary on high society and Victorian morals. It relies heavily on humour, absurdity, and inversion to get its points across to the audience in an entertaining way.

On the other hand, the only proper way to describe Crazy Rich Asians is drama—somewhat reminiscent of a reality TV show. The story is designed to be sensational and eye-catching, and it does a good job of this through an ensemble of outlandish personalities (and bank balances), snobbish attitudes, and an endless array of far-flung, luxurious settings.

However, beyond the drama and spectacle, it functions as a satire of Asian high society, not unlike Wilde’s play in its intent. The novel is a satire and a commentary on a setting where family names and generational wealth play a god-like role. It also has a fascinating portrayal of Asian familial dynamics and politics.

Both texts use exaggeration and absurdity, but for different purposes.

In The Importance of Being Earnest, situations like Jack’s dual identity, Algernon’s Bunburying, Jack’s dubious, handbag-related origins, and Cecily’s infatuation with the idea of Ernest are all prime examples of absurdity being used in the text. 

Each example satirises a different topic: dual identities reflect the effects of societal pressure. Cecily’s infatuation shows how people get attached to an idea, and Jack’s origins expose society’s obsession with lineage and appearances.

By far, the most significant use of absurdity as a tool of satire is the character of Lady Bracknell. Through her and her exaggerated and absurd beliefs, the upper class is satirised using humour.

In Crazy Rich Asians, absurdity is not ridiculed in the same way; instead, it is normalised. Its purpose is to capture readers’ attention, and it is simply a product of the massive magnitude of wealth possessed by the characters. These displays of wealth—the extravagance of Colin Khoo and Araminta’s wedding, Astrid Leong’s multi-million-dollar shopping sprees—seem almost unimaginable. It is also possible that this is simply how that stratum of society functions.

 For this text, absurdity is not what truly satirises it. The primary tool of satire and critique is the main character, Rachel Chu. Rachel comes from an ordinary background. She grew up in a single-parent middle-class Chinese household in California. Her perspective as an outsider and a newcomer to the opulence of Singapore’s manor-born gives us invaluable insight. 

The extravagance of that sort of life as well as the presence of societal and familial pressure contrast sharply with her own experiences, which highlights the absurdity of high society. Through her interactions with the other characters and the hostile situations she is put through, we see the shallowness of society, the presence of societal pressure, and how people end up prioritising wealth and status over empathy.

In Kwan’s world, inherited wealth is inseparable from status. The two key proponents of this are Shang Su Yi (Nick’s grandmother) and Eleanor Young (Nick’s mother). These two view their wealth as something that needs to be strategically defended and preserved. For them, wealth is intrinsically linked to reputation, and reputation is intrinsically linked to their family name. Thus, they are extremely protective of who has access to their family and who does not. 

As an American-born Chinese person, Rachel is looked down on since her family is from mainland China—the same place where the Young family’s servants are from, making her unworthy in the eyes of Nick’s family. Eleanor expresses these ideas in the following excerpts: “She will never be accepted and I’m not talking about your dad and me—I’m talking about your dear Ah Ma and the rest of your family. Take it from me—even though I have been married to your father for thirty-four years, I am still considered an outsider. I am a Sung—I came from a respectable family, a rich family—but in their eyes I was never good enough.”

This is the justification Eleanor Young gives for the deliberate social exclusion faced by Rachel—something that she orchestrated to drive her away. We are also shown the effects that this sort of psychological warfare has: “Rachel broke down and it all came flooding out—everything that happened at Araminta’s bachelorette weekend, all of Mandy’s constant innuendos, the stunt that Francesca had pulled at the wedding ball. Nick listened to Rachel’s ordeal, feeling sick to his stomach the more he heard. Here he thought she had been having the time of her life?” 

This attitude also extends to the way marriage and relationships are viewed. It is seen as a dynastic responsibility. We can see this when Oliver T’sien (Nick’s cousin) is explaining the family tree to Rachel: ‘“Married off? Does that mean it was an arranged marriage?” “Yes, very much plotted by my grandfather T’sien Tsai Tang and Nick’s great-grandfather Shang Loong Ma. Good thing they actually liked each other. But it was quite a masterstroke because it strategically bound together T’siens, the Shangs and the Youngs.” “What for?” Rachel asked. “Oh come on, Rachel, don’t play the naif with me? For the money, of course. It joined together three family fortunes and kept everything neatly locked up.”’

As a result, Nick and Rachel’s relationship is judged by the suitability of their backgrounds and pedigree instead of their personality and feelings. It also explains why Eleanor and Shang Su Yi believe that love is insufficient and even unimportant in the face of social approval and family obligations.

We can see some parallels to this in Wilde’s play as well. Wilde has satirised the snobbish, shallow, wealth-obsessed qualities of society by distilling and personifying them into a single entity – Lady Bracknell, the mouthpiece of high society. The play critiques these features by exaggerating them to the point of hilarity, thus showing how trivial they can be. This can be seen with Gwendolen’s strange obsession with the name ‘Ernest’: “My ideal has always been to love someone of the name of Ernest” and “The only really safe name is Ernest.” This fascination with “Ernest” is also very interlinked with her relationship with Jack. One can go as far as saying that the relationship depends on the name, showcasing how love can be quite conditional.
Back to Lady Bracknell, Gwendolen and Jack’s prospective engagement is also treated in a very shallow way. Lady Bracknell evaluates Jack like he’s a piece of property whose worth can be objectively determined with a few questions. His intentions, personality, and emotions do not seem to matter, but his net worth, land, and social status are important. 

Even Lady Bracknell’s basis for rejecting Jack depends solely on appearances. We see how family lineage and societal reputation trump empathy in the following lines regarding Jack’s obscure origins: “A cloak-room at a railway station might serve to conceal a social indiscretion – has probably, indeed, been used for that purpose now – but it could hardly be regarded as an assured basis for a recognised position in good society.” and, “One cannot possibly imagine that Lord Bracknell would dream of allowing our only daughter – a girl brought up with the utmost care – to marry into a cloak-room, and form an alliance with a parcel.”

Another example of Lady Bracknell’s materialism is how Cecily’s beauty and social worth suddenly shoot up when her net worth is revealed.

This suggests that, like Shang Su Yi and Eleanor Young, Lady Bracknell is someone who reinforces class boundaries and gatekeeps access to high society. To her, wealth and status are inherent features to one’s character. Appearances are key. Her obsession with wealth and class is a product of her place in high society.

 It reinforces her belief that economic and social power grant her the authority to look down on others. This, in turn, reinforces her sense of authority, one that remains unchallenged throughout the play.

Overall, Wilde mocks the system of trivial logic. By doing this, he satirises its power. Kwan highlights the emotional violence of high society, and shows its consequences. Both of them show us how emotions are treated as subordinate to status, and how that sort of power and wealth leads to people developing a certain sense of entitlement and superiority.

The texts also explore societal pressure and expectation. This theme is prominently explored in Crazy Rich Asians, especially with respect to the expectations of Chinese familial traditions. In The Importance of Being Earnest, Victorian morals and hypocrisy play a similar role, in a slightly more subtle way.

The effects of social pressure in The Importance of Being Earnest manifest as Bunburying and the dual identity of Jack. Bunburying is a direct product of Algernon’s need to escape his social and familial obligations: “I have invented an invaluable permanent invalid called Bunbury in order that I may go down into the country whenever I choose.” For Jack, his dual identity is a way for him to live his life the way he wants to while still maintaining a respectable image. This is encapsulated in one of Jack’s lines: “When one is placed in the position of guardian, one has to adopt a very high moral tone on all subjects. It is one’s duty to do so. And as a high moral tone can hardly be said to conduce very much to either one’s health or happiness, in order to get up to town I have always pretended to have a younger brother of the name of Ernest, who lives in the Albany, and gets into the most dreadful scrapes.”

Both these situations arise from the need to escape pressure, and are deceptive. However, in the play, these identities are portrayed as playful and flexible.

With Crazy Rich Asians, things are more serious and direct. The characters that this is seen the most with are Astrid Leong and Michael Teo. Astrid and Michael are married. Astrid, having grown up in the world of wealth, has always been seen as perfect by the people around her; because of this, people have given her the moniker of ‘the Goddess’. Michael was born to middle-class schoolteachers in Singapore. He is an intelligent person, and had to work hard for everything he got, and he wants to be recognised for that. 

In the book, we can see Astrid and Michael’s marriage falling apart in slow motion, and the driving force behind it is the way they are viewed by society, both as individuals and as a couple. The pressures and insecurities felt by Michael could be seen as a glimpse into what the future might hold for Rachel—a life where personal accomplishments do not matter as people will be quick to label them a gold digger.

 Over time, this ate away at Michael, and destroyed his marriage. Michael’s side is seen in the following dialogues, “To them I am always ‘Astrid’s Husband’. And these people, your family, your friends stare at me with such judgement. They are all thinking, ‘Aiyah, she could have married a prince, a president- why did she marry an Ah Beng from Toa Payoh?’” and “Face it Astrid, your parents will never respect my family the same way they respect your brothers’ wives’ families.”

On Astrid’s side, this failure to have a perfect marriage in her perfect life is a cause for great distress. It is as if the rug has been pulled from beneath her feet, and everything is coming crashing down—which is why she feels the need to perform perfection for everyone else to see. Her panic and fear of failure is showcased by the following lines from a conversation with Michael: “But what are people going to say if you don’t show up at the wedding?” Astrid looked at him nervously, “You can’t do this to me. Everyone will notice, everyone will talk.” Astrid pleaded, trying not to panic.

Through this, we can see that elite society rewards a perfect appearance over truth. It demands flawless self-presentation. Ironically, this idea is captured in one of Lady Bracknell’s lines: “We live, I fear, in an age of appearances.” Wilde shows a lighter, reversible side of this, whereas Kwan showcases the psychological damage that this sort of pressure inflicts.

Oscar Wilde exposes the absurdity of high society by making it laughable, reducing its logic to something trivial and ridiculous. Kevin Kwan, on the other hand, makes it far harder to dismiss by showing what that same logic does to people—the pressure, exclusion, and emotional damage it creates. What Wilde treats as absurd, Kwan presents as inescapable.

Taken together, these works suggest that high society is not just absurd, but deeply consequential. What appears trivial on the surface is sustained by systems that shape relationships, define worth, and dictate belonging.

Once that happens, even something as personal as love becomes just another reflection of status.