Class
April 3, 2019 7:01 AM Subscribe
It has long been commented that discussing [social] class is basically taboo in American culture. This presents a problem for Americans because social class is a real phenomenon, an important phenomenon around which huge amounts of American policy, politics, and culture organizes. It's the elephant in the American living room. Social class is taboo to discuss, but economic class is not, and that presents an obvious "solution": Americans conflate social and economic class so they can talk about social class under the guise of talking about economic class. (previously)
This is great, thanks for posting. The author does a great job explicitly laying out a lot of things that I have been peripherally aware of for years, but never really examined. The stuff about higher education and students who are the first in their family to go to college (I often see them referred to as "First-Generation Students") is particularly insightful.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:37 AM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Rock Steady at 7:37 AM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
I don't know, I think that economic class is discussed, if at all, in terms that are extremely mystifying. (And I think the linked essay focuses mostly on either the mystifications or on the social aspects of class, not that there's anything wrong with that, and I personally would read a lot more about the writer's upbringing.)
We treat economic class as if it's...quantitative rather than qualitative, as if being upper class is just a matter of having more money than someone else. (And I think this is the link between "social" and "economic" class that is a bit tricky to unpick.)
To wit: to be upper class (in the aggregate; individual upper class people can, like, lose their money or be cut out of the will) is not just to have a lot of money, it's to literally have capital - investments, property, possessions that are themselves investments like fine art and jewelry. To be upper class means that you don't just get your bread by the sweat of your brow, and maybe you don't need to sweat at all.
But it means more than this, and that is where the cultural bit comes in: First and most obviously, because you have a lot of money, you can do expensive things and you can be socialized into how to do them. Secondly, because you have a lot of money, you never need to fear the kinds of consequences that other people do, so you have an understanding of the world as a pleasant place where you do what you want. Third, you are cultured into command, because people do what you say, from servants and employees to randos who are impressed by your money.
And because you have so much money, you have a lot of political-social-legal power, and you have common interests with other people who have this power, and you develop a self-policing common culture to assure the passing on of that power. The culture that is generated here is upper class culture. Around the fringes, certain experts and funny people and "extra men" and so on get included in this culture by virtue of their style and charm, but in general, no amount of aping the behaviors of the upper class will make you upper class; it's the class interests that create the class.
You can say the same set of things about how middle and working class cultures come into being, except with more constraints and suffering, and with less exclusion, because there's less power at stake.
But you can't really separate "social class" and economic class at the macro level. Fussell's book, which is mean-spirited, funny and a real window on a bygone world, serves as a guide for class-climbers, which is really what he's talking about when he describes Class X - he's talking about people from the working or middle classes who are hoping to be accepted in the bohemian part of the aristocracy. It's for people who want to be on the fringes of the upper class world based on charm and cleverness, and certainly it's, like, funner there with the travel and the crystal and the knowing-things-about-art and so on, but "Class X" isn't really a class.
posted by Frowner at 7:39 AM on April 3, 2019 [46 favorites]
We treat economic class as if it's...quantitative rather than qualitative, as if being upper class is just a matter of having more money than someone else. (And I think this is the link between "social" and "economic" class that is a bit tricky to unpick.)
To wit: to be upper class (in the aggregate; individual upper class people can, like, lose their money or be cut out of the will) is not just to have a lot of money, it's to literally have capital - investments, property, possessions that are themselves investments like fine art and jewelry. To be upper class means that you don't just get your bread by the sweat of your brow, and maybe you don't need to sweat at all.
But it means more than this, and that is where the cultural bit comes in: First and most obviously, because you have a lot of money, you can do expensive things and you can be socialized into how to do them. Secondly, because you have a lot of money, you never need to fear the kinds of consequences that other people do, so you have an understanding of the world as a pleasant place where you do what you want. Third, you are cultured into command, because people do what you say, from servants and employees to randos who are impressed by your money.
And because you have so much money, you have a lot of political-social-legal power, and you have common interests with other people who have this power, and you develop a self-policing common culture to assure the passing on of that power. The culture that is generated here is upper class culture. Around the fringes, certain experts and funny people and "extra men" and so on get included in this culture by virtue of their style and charm, but in general, no amount of aping the behaviors of the upper class will make you upper class; it's the class interests that create the class.
You can say the same set of things about how middle and working class cultures come into being, except with more constraints and suffering, and with less exclusion, because there's less power at stake.
But you can't really separate "social class" and economic class at the macro level. Fussell's book, which is mean-spirited, funny and a real window on a bygone world, serves as a guide for class-climbers, which is really what he's talking about when he describes Class X - he's talking about people from the working or middle classes who are hoping to be accepted in the bohemian part of the aristocracy. It's for people who want to be on the fringes of the upper class world based on charm and cleverness, and certainly it's, like, funner there with the travel and the crystal and the knowing-things-about-art and so on, but "Class X" isn't really a class.
posted by Frowner at 7:39 AM on April 3, 2019 [46 favorites]
Interesting piece, thanks for sharing.
Are American classes well-ordered? It's definitely true that some specific ones outrank other specific ones but I'm not as sure we could put them all in a neat row. I guess the answer to that probably depends on how many classes we think there are.
posted by eirias at 7:46 AM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Are American classes well-ordered? It's definitely true that some specific ones outrank other specific ones but I'm not as sure we could put them all in a neat row. I guess the answer to that probably depends on how many classes we think there are.
posted by eirias at 7:46 AM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Economic class is far simpler to discuss than social class is, which is likely part of it.
I don't really know what my social class would be since I've heard wildly different definitions. Is having an advanced degree more relevant than most of my extended family doing manual labour their whole lives? Or does the fact the one parent worked in a white-collar profession (without the degree that is normally needed) change it again? My religious and political views? That I have investments? That money was very tight growing up? Our parents (and middle-class-ish schools) raised us to expect university in our future, but I was the first one in my extended family to get a university degree. It's all so confusing. I don't feel like I fit neatly into any class. I don't know how useful it is to divide people into discrete "classes" when the reality is likely more complicated for many.
I agree with the article's view of social class as culture, as certainly people can identify with more than one culture, and it's very difficult to "pass" in a social class/culture that you weren't raised in (even with tutoring). The part about being socialized into a "higher" class through interacting with people in college also rings very true. Not quite sure I agree with having clear boundaries between the classes, though simplifying it in that way does make abstract discussion much easier.
posted by randomnity at 7:48 AM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
I don't really know what my social class would be since I've heard wildly different definitions. Is having an advanced degree more relevant than most of my extended family doing manual labour their whole lives? Or does the fact the one parent worked in a white-collar profession (without the degree that is normally needed) change it again? My religious and political views? That I have investments? That money was very tight growing up? Our parents (and middle-class-ish schools) raised us to expect university in our future, but I was the first one in my extended family to get a university degree. It's all so confusing. I don't feel like I fit neatly into any class. I don't know how useful it is to divide people into discrete "classes" when the reality is likely more complicated for many.
I agree with the article's view of social class as culture, as certainly people can identify with more than one culture, and it's very difficult to "pass" in a social class/culture that you weren't raised in (even with tutoring). The part about being socialized into a "higher" class through interacting with people in college also rings very true. Not quite sure I agree with having clear boundaries between the classes, though simplifying it in that way does make abstract discussion much easier.
posted by randomnity at 7:48 AM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
Secondly, because you have a lot of money, you never need to fear the kinds of consequences that other people do, so you have an understanding of the world as a pleasant place where you do what you want.
Absolutely. And as amusing or interesting as upper class “guides” like the Preppy Handbook or Nancy Mitford’s U vs. Non-U lists are, they don’t so much apply. Because you can get away with whatever gauche words or clothes or manners you want if you grew up in a certain family or with a certain set of people (although you may become the black sheep or be accused of slumming it), and you can follow social rules to a T and never fit in if you didn’t.
Are American classes well-ordered?
I would say regionally and in a social sense, yes. But since at least Commodore Vanderbilt there’s been significantly more power in having money (even if new) than being part of a WASP upper class here as compared to somewhere like the UK, I think. You might not get into the right social club but you can accrue things like political office, and you can shove your kids into the clubs or schools that wouldn’t admit you. Social class without wealth here is more of a toothless diversion (Tad Friend’s book on the decline of the WASPs is good on this point).
posted by sallybrown at 8:14 AM on April 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
Absolutely. And as amusing or interesting as upper class “guides” like the Preppy Handbook or Nancy Mitford’s U vs. Non-U lists are, they don’t so much apply. Because you can get away with whatever gauche words or clothes or manners you want if you grew up in a certain family or with a certain set of people (although you may become the black sheep or be accused of slumming it), and you can follow social rules to a T and never fit in if you didn’t.
Are American classes well-ordered?
I would say regionally and in a social sense, yes. But since at least Commodore Vanderbilt there’s been significantly more power in having money (even if new) than being part of a WASP upper class here as compared to somewhere like the UK, I think. You might not get into the right social club but you can accrue things like political office, and you can shove your kids into the clubs or schools that wouldn’t admit you. Social class without wealth here is more of a toothless diversion (Tad Friend’s book on the decline of the WASPs is good on this point).
posted by sallybrown at 8:14 AM on April 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
It is quite a good essay, though for me some of the emphasis may be a touch misplaced at times. Talking about social class markers as "liked" rather than having a more quasi-purposeful function of defining a boundary, which goes into something mentioned in the comments about, sigh, hipsters and "slumming".
There is more awareness and investment in the adoption of social class markers than the essay seems to suggest, where discomfort over some cultural values can lead to purposefully shifting "downwards" along some axes while maintaining or shifting "up" along others within some limited form. It isn't all a put on and that interaction is vital. The author allows for this in discussing four year colleges, as a move "up", but seems to denigrate it in other contexts, especially as a purposeful move "down".
posted by gusottertrout at 8:20 AM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
There is more awareness and investment in the adoption of social class markers than the essay seems to suggest, where discomfort over some cultural values can lead to purposefully shifting "downwards" along some axes while maintaining or shifting "up" along others within some limited form. It isn't all a put on and that interaction is vital. The author allows for this in discussing four year colleges, as a move "up", but seems to denigrate it in other contexts, especially as a purposeful move "down".
posted by gusottertrout at 8:20 AM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
How you define class distinctions defines your class of origin.
Money : poor, working class
Education : middle
Taste : upper
Not sure where I got that
posted by goinWhereTheClimateSuitsMyClothes at 8:25 AM on April 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
Money : poor, working class
Education : middle
Taste : upper
Not sure where I got that
posted by goinWhereTheClimateSuitsMyClothes at 8:25 AM on April 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
I've often noticed just the opposite--we obfuscate economic class by only talking about social class. At least in the Midwest, you can have much of the power of the upper class (money, political connections, etc.) but still identify as working class because your grandpa was a farmer and you like hunting and fishing instead of, say, ballet. Think of all the people who were happy to imagine George W. Bush as a man of the people because he claimed to be clearing brush on his ranch even though he's clearly upper class in every meaningful respect.
Meanwhile, you can be a first-generation college student with a budding interest in art history, and everyone assumes you're snooty and upper class even though you're broke and likely to remain financially insecure. So you get a kind of reverse snobbery despite the fact that economically you're lower down the ladder. In this case, because you've somewhat successfully acculturated to upper class norms, you're actually less able to talk about continuing economic disadvantages. This makes it harder to foster solidarity with workers who should be natural allies, economically speaking.
Which I guess means I'm agreeing with the author's main point about social classes being cultures, but it's not as simple as saying we can talk about economic class but not social class. Sometimes it's the other way around.
posted by Hypocrite_Lecteur at 8:35 AM on April 3, 2019 [33 favorites]
Meanwhile, you can be a first-generation college student with a budding interest in art history, and everyone assumes you're snooty and upper class even though you're broke and likely to remain financially insecure. So you get a kind of reverse snobbery despite the fact that economically you're lower down the ladder. In this case, because you've somewhat successfully acculturated to upper class norms, you're actually less able to talk about continuing economic disadvantages. This makes it harder to foster solidarity with workers who should be natural allies, economically speaking.
Which I guess means I'm agreeing with the author's main point about social classes being cultures, but it's not as simple as saying we can talk about economic class but not social class. Sometimes it's the other way around.
posted by Hypocrite_Lecteur at 8:35 AM on April 3, 2019 [33 favorites]
Yeah, the cultures idea has some grip to it, but it does seem to me to be more multivalent in how those cultures interact than seems suggested by the piece. Attitudes towards wealth, politics, aesthetics, and education all mark different groupings that can be fit into different "cultures" in varying ways. Or to put it differently, there is more maneuverability in subgroups than defining by class socially and/or economically seem to allow for. In the US, I mean, I can't say for elsewhere other than by hearsay.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:46 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by gusottertrout at 8:46 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
How you define class distinctions defines your class of origin.
Money : poor, working class
Education : middle
Taste : upper
Not sure where I got that
I think you're kinda/sorta getting at Church's "Three-Ladder" class system, which is linked from the article. (Those distinctions seem to correspond to the Labor, Gentry, and Elite ladders, respectively.)
posted by ragtag at 8:53 AM on April 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
Money : poor, working class
Education : middle
Taste : upper
Not sure where I got that
I think you're kinda/sorta getting at Church's "Three-Ladder" class system, which is linked from the article. (Those distinctions seem to correspond to the Labor, Gentry, and Elite ladders, respectively.)
posted by ragtag at 8:53 AM on April 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
Yay! I was hoping that Ladder system article would show up in this post, I saw it linked here a few years back but haven't been able to find it since. I kept considering posting about it but this has solved it for me.
posted by Caduceus at 8:57 AM on April 3, 2019
posted by Caduceus at 8:57 AM on April 3, 2019
if we approach social classes as a collection of cultural markers, then considering the recent immigrant history of many americans and also the racialised social infrastructures, then it's almost inescapable for me as an outsider to consider if one reason classes in america isn't as well defined is simply because it didn't have time to be entrenched according to only one community's traits and values for their upper class, though WASPs as a group certainly had a good go at it for a while, because what defines as meeting the standards of good taste is certainly highly contextual.
posted by cendawanita at 9:13 AM on April 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 9:13 AM on April 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
We had a recent discussion about this on the Grey, and I have to say...
in terms of economic class, there is still a lot of shame and discomfort about discussing things, particularly if you try to delve into the territory of hard numbers. Anyone who thinks Americans are chill about discussing economic class and individual relationships to economic class, or that Americans even necessarily have a good sense of their economic class in relation to others, has... probably never asked a group of Americans to talk about the subject, honestly.
posted by sciatrix at 9:25 AM on April 3, 2019 [22 favorites]
in terms of economic class, there is still a lot of shame and discomfort about discussing things, particularly if you try to delve into the territory of hard numbers. Anyone who thinks Americans are chill about discussing economic class and individual relationships to economic class, or that Americans even necessarily have a good sense of their economic class in relation to others, has... probably never asked a group of Americans to talk about the subject, honestly.
posted by sciatrix at 9:25 AM on April 3, 2019 [22 favorites]
This is a key point: "to be upper class ... is not just to have a lot of money, it's to literally have capital".
Most people seem to make class distinctions by consumption, but it's really a distinction of capital. In my opinion, the reason economic inequality is as bad as it is is because of the lack of class consciousness of white collar employees. They seem to believe that, because they have six-figure salaries and new cars and fancy TVs that they're somehow a part of the upper class. Not so. If someone else signs your paycheck, you're a worker, buddy.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:35 AM on April 3, 2019 [20 favorites]
Most people seem to make class distinctions by consumption, but it's really a distinction of capital. In my opinion, the reason economic inequality is as bad as it is is because of the lack of class consciousness of white collar employees. They seem to believe that, because they have six-figure salaries and new cars and fancy TVs that they're somehow a part of the upper class. Not so. If someone else signs your paycheck, you're a worker, buddy.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:35 AM on April 3, 2019 [20 favorites]
in terms of economic class, there is still a lot of shame and discomfort about discussing things, particularly if you try to delve into the territory of hard numbers. Anyone who thinks Americans are chill about discussing economic class and individual relationships to economic class, or that Americans even necessarily have a good sense of their economic class in relation to others, has... probably never asked a group of Americans to talk about the subject, honestly.
Well, I think we're not always precisely discussing class so much as the mere fact of having money and the social obligations attending on it. Like, two people could come from the same social background, graduate from the same school and work in the same field, and one could be a highly paid tax lawyer while the other made worked for a nonprofit and made relatively little money. I think metafilter-shame is more likely to be "I make a lot of money but manage it poorly or keep it all for myself or just feel that I should do more for others but don't" rather than "I went to Harvard and now I work providing free legal services to low income clients". And mefites are likely to feel that more responsibility rests on the richer person to share their wealth than it does on the poorer person, even if both went to Harvard, know how to use a fish fork, etc.
Or, TBH, two people could come from the same background, have attended the same trade school and make radically different amounts of money, and thus have radically different social responsibilities in using it.
I think this overlaps with class in that if one is middle or upper class one is more likely to have more money, and "what do I owe to others?" becomes a more serious question once the rent is paid, but it's not exactly the same thing.
posted by Frowner at 9:39 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Well, I think we're not always precisely discussing class so much as the mere fact of having money and the social obligations attending on it. Like, two people could come from the same social background, graduate from the same school and work in the same field, and one could be a highly paid tax lawyer while the other made worked for a nonprofit and made relatively little money. I think metafilter-shame is more likely to be "I make a lot of money but manage it poorly or keep it all for myself or just feel that I should do more for others but don't" rather than "I went to Harvard and now I work providing free legal services to low income clients". And mefites are likely to feel that more responsibility rests on the richer person to share their wealth than it does on the poorer person, even if both went to Harvard, know how to use a fish fork, etc.
Or, TBH, two people could come from the same background, have attended the same trade school and make radically different amounts of money, and thus have radically different social responsibilities in using it.
I think this overlaps with class in that if one is middle or upper class one is more likely to have more money, and "what do I owe to others?" becomes a more serious question once the rent is paid, but it's not exactly the same thing.
posted by Frowner at 9:39 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
I've been fascinated by class for the past few years, partially because I've been trying to figure out my own complex family history. The 3-ladder system is very helpful, as is the concept of classes as cultures. Like, now I can say, oh, my parents were L2 (largely because my dad had a union job) and I'm G3.
And part of the conflict/distance between me and my parents was because we were acculturated into different classes. I mean, this was at least semi-intentional on my parents' end, they sent me to a well-regarded private elementary school (which was also because of wanting me to be indoctrinated into Christianity) where I was totally socialized into another class, because most of the other kids at those schools were from G3 and G2 families and maaaybe even a few from E3--I mean, I was not really tracking that as a kid, I just knew most of the other kids had bigger, nicer houses and parents with more prestigious jobs. (Also curious where professionals like lawyers and doctors fall in that system, though I'm sure the answer is more than one category--just seems like the conception of the Gentry is a bit more focused on creativity than is true from some fields that seem clearly to be on that ladder.)
Also, though, I know they were other L2 families in that school and I'm curious about private intensely religious schools as one of the places where folks from different classes mix. Like, they were definitely people who were true believers and sent their kids there for that and other people who just wanted their kids to have a higher quality of education than was available from the public schools, and I think a tendency for the first category to be L families who could afford the tuition and for the second category to be G families.
So, in a way, my Labor parents bought me access to the world of the Gentry. But because of the taboo on speaking about social class, I didn't fully understand what was happening or what to do about it, and I definitely did not get how important networking was as an undergrad. So the fact that my parents didn't understand that world either and didn't have the family social/cultural capital and connections to connect me with other adults in that world meant me transition into the G class has been fairly rocky and confusing and slow. There's a lot of variations and nuances of class privilege--I have it in many, many ways, and also due to switching from my parents' differing class, I have less than most other people in my current class. At least that's how I'm perceiving it now.
posted by overglow at 9:58 AM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
And part of the conflict/distance between me and my parents was because we were acculturated into different classes. I mean, this was at least semi-intentional on my parents' end, they sent me to a well-regarded private elementary school (which was also because of wanting me to be indoctrinated into Christianity) where I was totally socialized into another class, because most of the other kids at those schools were from G3 and G2 families and maaaybe even a few from E3--I mean, I was not really tracking that as a kid, I just knew most of the other kids had bigger, nicer houses and parents with more prestigious jobs. (Also curious where professionals like lawyers and doctors fall in that system, though I'm sure the answer is more than one category--just seems like the conception of the Gentry is a bit more focused on creativity than is true from some fields that seem clearly to be on that ladder.)
Also, though, I know they were other L2 families in that school and I'm curious about private intensely religious schools as one of the places where folks from different classes mix. Like, they were definitely people who were true believers and sent their kids there for that and other people who just wanted their kids to have a higher quality of education than was available from the public schools, and I think a tendency for the first category to be L families who could afford the tuition and for the second category to be G families.
So, in a way, my Labor parents bought me access to the world of the Gentry. But because of the taboo on speaking about social class, I didn't fully understand what was happening or what to do about it, and I definitely did not get how important networking was as an undergrad. So the fact that my parents didn't understand that world either and didn't have the family social/cultural capital and connections to connect me with other adults in that world meant me transition into the G class has been fairly rocky and confusing and slow. There's a lot of variations and nuances of class privilege--I have it in many, many ways, and also due to switching from my parents' differing class, I have less than most other people in my current class. At least that's how I'm perceiving it now.
posted by overglow at 9:58 AM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Taste: Champagne
Upbringing: Supermarket Chardonnay
Budget: Coors
posted by thivaia at 10:07 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Upbringing: Supermarket Chardonnay
Budget: Coors
posted by thivaia at 10:07 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
I always find the distinctions between weath and social class to be much thinner because they always point to a single point in time and therefore ignore weath accumulation (or wealth loss), they also often rely on comparing the highest earning blue collar with the lowest earning white collar positions as though they are the averages, and they conflate class based myths as truths rather than work to refute them, possibly because refuting them weakens their case. This article is rife with all three:
1) plumber (presumed working class) may make much more money than a professor (presumed professional). "May" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The actual income stats for these two jobs say otherwise. But then again, 'plumber' can also mean a 'dude that owns a plumbing company', which is a very different social class than the guy in the hole fixing the pipe and this is never acknowledged.
2) this is a day job while she pursues her singer-songwriter career while living out of her lover's condo on Beacon Hill -- this person's relative social position is undetermined (as she didn't say 'married', she said 'lover'.) If she gets dumped, then what? Then she's a barista with an old guitar on her wall.
3) the smoking thing. Not sure what to do with that. Maybe it's classist. What about drinking and driving? I'd agree they are class-based, because apparently now insider trading and light treason is totally cool, but I'm still not sure that is a useful distinction. Not everything can be viewed through such distinctions.
4) Maybe remember this the next time someone suggests community college is a great way to skip the expense of the first two years of a bachelor's degree. Yes, because tons of high-prestige institutions have feeder community colleges. Hint: they don't, and prestige colleges do not offer positions to many beyond the top few social classes. Again, comparing unicorns to work horses. The average class that community college skips are 400 student 101 basics, not major courses so you aren't gaining any social access to peers by skipping them. Of course, the number of people who transition from community college to mid-class university vs just starting at a major university is not that high. Otherwise, how would your average mid-class university have a freshman class of 3-5 thousand students?
"This is a key point: "to be upper class ... is not just to have a lot of money, it's to literally have capital". The distinction between capital and money is not useful or material. A owned home is capital. Maybe you have a point about how to purchase assets that grow income vs those that destroy, but it's totally a (class-based) myth that people of many social classes do not do that.
"They seem to believe that, because they have six-figure salaries and new cars and fancy TVs that they're somehow a part of the upper class. Not so. If someone else signs your paycheck, you're a worker, buddy." No they don't. They think that they can become members of the upper class based again on lifetime earnings. That's why the Chris Rock "rich" vs "weathy" is incomplete at best. Those guys he was talking about then- they own teams now. High income plus time is required to become wealthy. Weath is required for high social class. However, there is no cap on wealth so earning active vs passive income is really immaterial. Listen to interviews of the upper class: they express worry about losing their money, which for many is nearly impossible. Plenty of retirement-age white collar workers earn more passive income than active income - it generally doesn't mean they retire from active earning.
I also find that class distinctions fall apart as income rises, which is why class barriers are less sticky than this article implies. I mean *multiple* members of Congress (both state and national) were reality tv stars or professional athletes. They traded relatively low class for real power (high class) based on income. Social class is dwarfed by economic class given the ability to move between the two. Therefore this is completely incorrect: :it is impossible to join a culture the ways of which you know nothing. You may come by money, but the ignorance of how to use it to perform that higher class will keep you out as adamantly as if there were a wall built around it." Plenty of your local government elected officials would be considered blue-collar builders or plumbing company owners. They aren't really - elected jobs require hours which are working hours for true blue collar workers.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:47 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
1) plumber (presumed working class) may make much more money than a professor (presumed professional). "May" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The actual income stats for these two jobs say otherwise. But then again, 'plumber' can also mean a 'dude that owns a plumbing company', which is a very different social class than the guy in the hole fixing the pipe and this is never acknowledged.
2) this is a day job while she pursues her singer-songwriter career while living out of her lover's condo on Beacon Hill -- this person's relative social position is undetermined (as she didn't say 'married', she said 'lover'.) If she gets dumped, then what? Then she's a barista with an old guitar on her wall.
3) the smoking thing. Not sure what to do with that. Maybe it's classist. What about drinking and driving? I'd agree they are class-based, because apparently now insider trading and light treason is totally cool, but I'm still not sure that is a useful distinction. Not everything can be viewed through such distinctions.
4) Maybe remember this the next time someone suggests community college is a great way to skip the expense of the first two years of a bachelor's degree. Yes, because tons of high-prestige institutions have feeder community colleges. Hint: they don't, and prestige colleges do not offer positions to many beyond the top few social classes. Again, comparing unicorns to work horses. The average class that community college skips are 400 student 101 basics, not major courses so you aren't gaining any social access to peers by skipping them. Of course, the number of people who transition from community college to mid-class university vs just starting at a major university is not that high. Otherwise, how would your average mid-class university have a freshman class of 3-5 thousand students?
"This is a key point: "to be upper class ... is not just to have a lot of money, it's to literally have capital". The distinction between capital and money is not useful or material. A owned home is capital. Maybe you have a point about how to purchase assets that grow income vs those that destroy, but it's totally a (class-based) myth that people of many social classes do not do that.
"They seem to believe that, because they have six-figure salaries and new cars and fancy TVs that they're somehow a part of the upper class. Not so. If someone else signs your paycheck, you're a worker, buddy." No they don't. They think that they can become members of the upper class based again on lifetime earnings. That's why the Chris Rock "rich" vs "weathy" is incomplete at best. Those guys he was talking about then- they own teams now. High income plus time is required to become wealthy. Weath is required for high social class. However, there is no cap on wealth so earning active vs passive income is really immaterial. Listen to interviews of the upper class: they express worry about losing their money, which for many is nearly impossible. Plenty of retirement-age white collar workers earn more passive income than active income - it generally doesn't mean they retire from active earning.
I also find that class distinctions fall apart as income rises, which is why class barriers are less sticky than this article implies. I mean *multiple* members of Congress (both state and national) were reality tv stars or professional athletes. They traded relatively low class for real power (high class) based on income. Social class is dwarfed by economic class given the ability to move between the two. Therefore this is completely incorrect: :it is impossible to join a culture the ways of which you know nothing. You may come by money, but the ignorance of how to use it to perform that higher class will keep you out as adamantly as if there were a wall built around it." Plenty of your local government elected officials would be considered blue-collar builders or plumbing company owners. They aren't really - elected jobs require hours which are working hours for true blue collar workers.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:47 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
But then again, 'plumber' can also mean a 'dude that owns a plumbing company', which is a very different social class than the guy in the hole fixing the pipe and this is never acknowledged.
What. Nearly every plumber who owns their own company (unless it’s the CEO of roto rooter) does this or did it for 20 years.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:11 AM on April 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
What. Nearly every plumber who owns their own company (unless it’s the CEO of roto rooter) does this or did it for 20 years.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:11 AM on April 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
What. Nearly every plumber who owns their own company (unless it’s the CEO of roto rooter) does this or did it for 20 years.
Maybe they did it in the past, but it's not what they do now. That's the point I'm trying to make. As a parallel: the CEO of Southwest works for a day a year slinging bags on to airplanes. Does that make him blue collar? No. The primary job of a plumbing company owner is hiring people, bidding jobs, marketing, and other white collar work. Unless they are a 1 man company, and if they are they are earning plumber wages, far less than those of your average professor and the average starting salary for white collar workers.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:20 AM on April 3, 2019
Maybe they did it in the past, but it's not what they do now. That's the point I'm trying to make. As a parallel: the CEO of Southwest works for a day a year slinging bags on to airplanes. Does that make him blue collar? No. The primary job of a plumbing company owner is hiring people, bidding jobs, marketing, and other white collar work. Unless they are a 1 man company, and if they are they are earning plumber wages, far less than those of your average professor and the average starting salary for white collar workers.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:20 AM on April 3, 2019
4) Maybe remember this the next time someone suggests community college is a great way to skip the expense of the first two years of a bachelor's degree. Yes, because tons of high-prestige institutions have feeder community colleges. Hint: they don't, and prestige colleges do not offer positions to many beyond the top few social classes. Again, comparing unicorns to work horses. The average class that community college skips are 400 student 101 basics, not major courses so you aren't gaining any social access to peers by skipping them. Of course, the number of people who transition from community college to mid-class university vs just starting at a major university is not that high. Otherwise, how would your average mid-class university have a freshman class of 3-5 thousand students?
This paragraph comes across as missing the core assertion of section VI:
"The one great instrument of social mobility in the US is college. But it's not the degree. It's the socialization. College – residential college – is most people's one great shot (or not so great shot) at being socialized into a higher social class." [bold face mine, italics hers]
The important thing is the socialization into the new class that residential college offers you by putting you around a bunch of other people who are part of or being socialized into that class the same as you. Even a state school is going to socialize you into the Professional class, even if it's not to the elite level that an Ivy-League is going to get you to, in a way that going to community or commuter college never living on campus is simply not going to; you're not around all those other people all the time like you are at a residential school.
I also find that class distinctions fall apart as income rises, which is why class barriers are less sticky than this article implies. I mean *multiple* members of Congress (both state and national) were reality tv stars or professional athletes. They traded relatively low class for real power (high class) based on income. Social class is dwarfed by economic class given the ability to move between the two. Therefore this is completely incorrect: :it is impossible to join a culture the ways of which you know nothing.
Um. Reality TV stars and professional atheletes? By using the incredible, ridiculous wealth that being the very highest paid tier of entertainment workers, which they got access to through both bloody-minded determination (to become famous at any cost in the case of reality tv stars, to hone an athletic talent in the case of the atheletes), and an incredible, mind-boggling amount of luck that neither they nor anyone else with that much money will ever admit, and have at this point used that access to be around high class people for lots and lots of time, enough time to aculturate into the higher class.
Your examples do not support the point you seem to be trying to make.
Maybe they did it in the past, but it's not what they do now. That's the point I'm trying to make.
They're also not hanging out at the country club with the CEOs of law firms, I bet. They're hanging out with guys who own furnace servicing companies and used care dealerships.
posted by Caduceus at 11:26 AM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
This paragraph comes across as missing the core assertion of section VI:
"The one great instrument of social mobility in the US is college. But it's not the degree. It's the socialization. College – residential college – is most people's one great shot (or not so great shot) at being socialized into a higher social class." [bold face mine, italics hers]
The important thing is the socialization into the new class that residential college offers you by putting you around a bunch of other people who are part of or being socialized into that class the same as you. Even a state school is going to socialize you into the Professional class, even if it's not to the elite level that an Ivy-League is going to get you to, in a way that going to community or commuter college never living on campus is simply not going to; you're not around all those other people all the time like you are at a residential school.
I also find that class distinctions fall apart as income rises, which is why class barriers are less sticky than this article implies. I mean *multiple* members of Congress (both state and national) were reality tv stars or professional athletes. They traded relatively low class for real power (high class) based on income. Social class is dwarfed by economic class given the ability to move between the two. Therefore this is completely incorrect: :it is impossible to join a culture the ways of which you know nothing.
Um. Reality TV stars and professional atheletes? By using the incredible, ridiculous wealth that being the very highest paid tier of entertainment workers, which they got access to through both bloody-minded determination (to become famous at any cost in the case of reality tv stars, to hone an athletic talent in the case of the atheletes), and an incredible, mind-boggling amount of luck that neither they nor anyone else with that much money will ever admit, and have at this point used that access to be around high class people for lots and lots of time, enough time to aculturate into the higher class.
Your examples do not support the point you seem to be trying to make.
Maybe they did it in the past, but it's not what they do now. That's the point I'm trying to make.
They're also not hanging out at the country club with the CEOs of law firms, I bet. They're hanging out with guys who own furnace servicing companies and used care dealerships.
posted by Caduceus at 11:26 AM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
The primary job of a plumbing company owner is hiring people, bidding jobs, marketing, and other white collar work.
Sorry unless you have data to support this assertion I won’t beleive it. I’ve been a plumber, been raised by one, spent my entire teenage and adult life around them and it simply doesn’t happen. There are huge diseconomies of scale that prevent it. You would need 10+ employees to make it profitable for the owner to be fully occupied by the running of the business, and the labor costs for an outfit like that would be well over a half a million dollars a year. That’s a huge business.
You see this sometimes in cases where labor costs are low and the level of work varies based on weather: roofing and landscaping. But not for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:33 AM on April 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
Sorry unless you have data to support this assertion I won’t beleive it. I’ve been a plumber, been raised by one, spent my entire teenage and adult life around them and it simply doesn’t happen. There are huge diseconomies of scale that prevent it. You would need 10+ employees to make it profitable for the owner to be fully occupied by the running of the business, and the labor costs for an outfit like that would be well over a half a million dollars a year. That’s a huge business.
You see this sometimes in cases where labor costs are low and the level of work varies based on weather: roofing and landscaping. But not for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:33 AM on April 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
Yeah, I'm not so sure about the differentiation being one of either wealth or social class alone as there are plenty of owners that hang out with their workers outside working hours and share like sensibilities when it comes to how they express and enjoy themselves, even though the owner may also spend time with people of a higher economic class when it comes to where he lives and sends his kids to school or in who he hob nobs with at political events or other practical interactions.
Aesthetic class tastes cut through different boundaries than wealth or social status alone, which is why so many lower income folks feel connected to Trump, their tastes are similar, even as the rest of their lifestyles are not and wouldn't align.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:34 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Aesthetic class tastes cut through different boundaries than wealth or social status alone, which is why so many lower income folks feel connected to Trump, their tastes are similar, even as the rest of their lifestyles are not and wouldn't align.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:34 AM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think it's useful to understand classes as part of a class structure and the class structure itself being about power, rather than getting into the weeds of who wears what, whether a musician who is making $30,000 a year is in the same social class as a check out clerk or the same social class as Kanye West, etc.
The class structure is about maintaining the power of the richest people over all, and the power of less rich people over those less rich than they are. There's a lot of fuzzy edges/constellation stuff going on, but it all needs to be understood in terms of maintaining or contesting power.
The boss may hang out with the staff, but if the boss has several million dollars and the staff live from check to check, they're almost certainly going to vote differently and support different social policies. And if the staff try to unionize, the boss is almost certain to smack that down.
Some lower income people may feel connected to Trump because they too would like solid gold toilets and a trophy wife, but that doesn't mean Trump feels connected to them - and that's the real of class. I feel a lot of kinship to aristocratic WWI poet and all around weirdo Siegried Sassoon, but I know that were we contemporaries, he would not have viewed me as an equal no matter our shared weirdness, anxieties and aesthetic goals. We don't have class kinship, because class may be marked by aesthetic preferences, but it is not defined by them.
I think it's important that "class" not be framed as "people who all like opera are part of the same social class", partly because there's no reason not to say "opera fans" and partly because it obscures why social classes exist in the first place.
posted by Frowner at 11:50 AM on April 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
The class structure is about maintaining the power of the richest people over all, and the power of less rich people over those less rich than they are. There's a lot of fuzzy edges/constellation stuff going on, but it all needs to be understood in terms of maintaining or contesting power.
The boss may hang out with the staff, but if the boss has several million dollars and the staff live from check to check, they're almost certainly going to vote differently and support different social policies. And if the staff try to unionize, the boss is almost certain to smack that down.
Some lower income people may feel connected to Trump because they too would like solid gold toilets and a trophy wife, but that doesn't mean Trump feels connected to them - and that's the real of class. I feel a lot of kinship to aristocratic WWI poet and all around weirdo Siegried Sassoon, but I know that were we contemporaries, he would not have viewed me as an equal no matter our shared weirdness, anxieties and aesthetic goals. We don't have class kinship, because class may be marked by aesthetic preferences, but it is not defined by them.
I think it's important that "class" not be framed as "people who all like opera are part of the same social class", partly because there's no reason not to say "opera fans" and partly because it obscures why social classes exist in the first place.
posted by Frowner at 11:50 AM on April 3, 2019 [15 favorites]
I think it's important that "class" not be framed as "people who all like opera are part of the same social class", partly because there's no reason not to say "opera fans" and partly because it obscures why social classes exist in the first place.
I only disagree in the idea of limiting class to just one axes since that isn't how it's used or received. The boss and workers often do vote for the same candidates and support the same social positions because they feel kinship of aesthetics that differs from that of those who they might actually benefit from voting for.
There's a reason why so much effort is spent on propaganda, on the Nazis attempting to creating a visceral disgust for the Jews, the Soviets selling a vision of class unity and the proletariat rising and the joys of collective farming, how racism flourishes in the US and on and on. A cross economic unity of ideals can be created by shared aesthetic values that link some otherwise varied individuals and groups in the culture together under a shared vision of what's "right". That doesn't deny the other applications of class, just shows there are different types of social connection that can band people together and can be wielded as power other than economic and education which is a major reason why there aren't class revolts.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:33 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
I only disagree in the idea of limiting class to just one axes since that isn't how it's used or received. The boss and workers often do vote for the same candidates and support the same social positions because they feel kinship of aesthetics that differs from that of those who they might actually benefit from voting for.
There's a reason why so much effort is spent on propaganda, on the Nazis attempting to creating a visceral disgust for the Jews, the Soviets selling a vision of class unity and the proletariat rising and the joys of collective farming, how racism flourishes in the US and on and on. A cross economic unity of ideals can be created by shared aesthetic values that link some otherwise varied individuals and groups in the culture together under a shared vision of what's "right". That doesn't deny the other applications of class, just shows there are different types of social connection that can band people together and can be wielded as power other than economic and education which is a major reason why there aren't class revolts.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:33 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Oh, and I don't mean to limit the idea just to propaganda, as suggested by the article, the clothes people wear and what they like set boundaries and build communities of sort by their shared vision of pleasure, acceptability and the like. NASCAR, gun culture, Hip Hop, Country music, literature, museums all work to create shared class, or if you prefer class-like, social structures of strong solidarity.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:58 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by gusottertrout at 12:58 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Sorry, I'm half asleep, but one last point. When you ask people who they are or how they identify themselves, they don't tend to respond by economic or education markers first, but by aesthetic markers of who they see themselves as being and what they like. Those markers are of enormous importance to people which is why trying to lump them under some other indicator as being of secondary importance just doesn't work. They have a power of their own that people use to claim their place in the world.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:04 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by gusottertrout at 1:04 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
They have a power of their own - but they're not economic class and very rarely override it. (You only have to look at how the GLBTQ community fragments as soon as people stop, eg, getting fired for being gay - as soon as respectability politics become an option, the most advantaged members of the community peel off). And again, they're classes, not individuals. My friend Smiler, of the Boston Smilers and heir to a large fortune, may share a vision of pleasure with me, and may even share their money with me. In general, the Smilers of the world do not share their pleasure and money with the Frowners. The Boston Smilers aren't going to write me into their wills, you know?
Aesthetics are an important political tool; people don't always hew strictly to their class interests; but this does not make aesthetic affinities a substitute for class, any more than they are a substitute for race or gender. We don't imagine for a moment that a straight person who enjoys, eg, house music or watching the Pride parade is therefore an ally to queer people (or that straight people who don't enjoy house music or Pride are therefore not allies). Enjoyment of house music or the Pride parade might be used as a tool to get someone to allyship (and I want to stress that I stopped going to Pride because I had some shitty experiences with straight people - don't assume that straights who go to Pride are there as anything but gawkers) but those things don't automatically generate allyship. And identifying as an ally doesn't make you one.
If there's anything that left history tells you, it's that getting people (even getting yourself) to act against or outside of their material interest in any significant and sustained way is very difficult, and getting people to do it effectively is even harder.
posted by Frowner at 1:24 PM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
Aesthetics are an important political tool; people don't always hew strictly to their class interests; but this does not make aesthetic affinities a substitute for class, any more than they are a substitute for race or gender. We don't imagine for a moment that a straight person who enjoys, eg, house music or watching the Pride parade is therefore an ally to queer people (or that straight people who don't enjoy house music or Pride are therefore not allies). Enjoyment of house music or the Pride parade might be used as a tool to get someone to allyship (and I want to stress that I stopped going to Pride because I had some shitty experiences with straight people - don't assume that straights who go to Pride are there as anything but gawkers) but those things don't automatically generate allyship. And identifying as an ally doesn't make you one.
If there's anything that left history tells you, it's that getting people (even getting yourself) to act against or outside of their material interest in any significant and sustained way is very difficult, and getting people to do it effectively is even harder.
posted by Frowner at 1:24 PM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
Excellent essay. Thanks for posting!
posted by sensate at 2:07 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by sensate at 2:07 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
How you define class distinctions defines your class of origin.
Money : poor, working class
Education : middle
Taste : upper
Not sure where I got that
I'm pretty sure that's from the aforementioned Fussell's book:
I've worked in I.T. and software development and noticed some interesting class collisions in those occupations. The work somehow combines class characteristics of being a plumber and being a professor, depending on which direction you're looking at it from.
posted by clawsoon at 2:14 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Money : poor, working class
Education : middle
Taste : upper
Not sure where I got that
I'm pretty sure that's from the aforementioned Fussell's book:
At the bottom, people tend to believe that class is defined by the amount of money you have. In the middle, people grant that money has something to do with it, but think education and the kind of work you do almost equally important. Nearer the top, people perceive that taste, values, ideas, style, and behavior are indispensable criteria of class, regardless of money or occupation or education.I first got a shock of class recognition from Education and the Working Class. Working class parents, with a "fallen middle class" mother (though in our case the fall happened two or three generations back). Result: Me, somewhat lost and alone, not working class or middle class, just like the people in Jackson and Marsden's book.
I've worked in I.T. and software development and noticed some interesting class collisions in those occupations. The work somehow combines class characteristics of being a plumber and being a professor, depending on which direction you're looking at it from.
posted by clawsoon at 2:14 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Elizabeth Currid-Halkett's The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class is well worth reading on this topic.
The book's approach is elegantly simple: Look at remaining visible class markers qua consumption, then follow them back to the cultural and economic structures that amass and reinforce economic and social capital.
She starts with the thesis "Most consumption choices are made at the intersection of the economic, cultural, and social values of particular classes and they are consciously and unconsciously appropriated to sort different groups from one another," then explains how those consumption choices don't happen in a vacuum and affect social policies big and small.
Or as Halkett says more than once in her book, "Material consumption (particularly post-Recession) is less valuable than investing resources into the consumption that counts, like education, retirement, and health care, all of which price-out ordinary people but are critical conduits in the reproduction of aspirational class position and further separating the rich from the rest."
It's a great, accessible, well-sourced read for anyone who is wrestling to articulate different U.S. societal approaches to economic and cultural capital.
posted by sobell at 2:51 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
The book's approach is elegantly simple: Look at remaining visible class markers qua consumption, then follow them back to the cultural and economic structures that amass and reinforce economic and social capital.
She starts with the thesis "Most consumption choices are made at the intersection of the economic, cultural, and social values of particular classes and they are consciously and unconsciously appropriated to sort different groups from one another," then explains how those consumption choices don't happen in a vacuum and affect social policies big and small.
Or as Halkett says more than once in her book, "Material consumption (particularly post-Recession) is less valuable than investing resources into the consumption that counts, like education, retirement, and health care, all of which price-out ordinary people but are critical conduits in the reproduction of aspirational class position and further separating the rich from the rest."
It's a great, accessible, well-sourced read for anyone who is wrestling to articulate different U.S. societal approaches to economic and cultural capital.
posted by sobell at 2:51 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Another great engine of class transition, in addition to college, is church, especially certain sorts of Protestant churches, and especially when a nation is rapidly urbanizing. Methodists in early industrial England and the U.S.; Evangelicals and Pentecostals in Nigeria and Brazil right now. Every week you learn how to dress, how to act, what sorts of people to condemn.
Those churches - and this is where class transition comes into it - also heavily emphasize literacy and lay leadership. If you want to make the transition from lower class agricultural labourer to the bottom rungs of the middle class, church is a good place to start.
posted by clawsoon at 3:56 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Those churches - and this is where class transition comes into it - also heavily emphasize literacy and lay leadership. If you want to make the transition from lower class agricultural labourer to the bottom rungs of the middle class, church is a good place to start.
posted by clawsoon at 3:56 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
previous discussion of this post on metafilter
posted by vibratory manner of working at 3:57 PM on April 3, 2019
posted by vibratory manner of working at 3:57 PM on April 3, 2019
I've seen this essay before on Metafilter and looking at it again, I feel like the author was having to reinvent the wheel without having read any sociology or Marx. The rhetoric of the piece's conclusion, that scholars don't study class conflict in discourse compatible with post-cultural relativism (or at least, accounting for sociology of culture) is just very strange to me. A mainstream example would be Zizek, just listen to his youtube talks.
It makes me a tiny bit angry. Because some internet person can write all that stuff and get attention and be paid for it on Patreon, but other people have done a lot of footwork in the area already. It's why giving credit to the literature matters, and it shows you're engaging with the scholarship rather than claiming to think up new problems yourself. Imagine writing about problems in global warming without mentioning any scientists' work.
posted by polymodus at 4:01 PM on April 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
It makes me a tiny bit angry. Because some internet person can write all that stuff and get attention and be paid for it on Patreon, but other people have done a lot of footwork in the area already. It's why giving credit to the literature matters, and it shows you're engaging with the scholarship rather than claiming to think up new problems yourself. Imagine writing about problems in global warming without mentioning any scientists' work.
posted by polymodus at 4:01 PM on April 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
(And I now see that my comment in 2016 also literally accused the piece of attempting to reinvent the wheel so apparently I have not changed my mind on it.)
posted by polymodus at 4:05 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 4:05 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
I've seen this essay before on Metafilter and looking at it again, I feel like the author was having to reinvent the wheel without having read any sociology or Marx.
A ha ha ha -- that's why I'm having deja vu! I had parsed this essay in 2016 and contributed to the thread then too.
Back to re-reading Currid-Halkett, which really is worth the time.
posted by sobell at 4:12 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
A ha ha ha -- that's why I'm having deja vu! I had parsed this essay in 2016 and contributed to the thread then too.
Back to re-reading Currid-Halkett, which really is worth the time.
posted by sobell at 4:12 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
For the autodidacts among us, what would be the best books to read first in order to avoid re-inventing the wheel?
posted by clawsoon at 4:45 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 4:45 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
I recommended Elizabeth Currid-Halkett a few comments up, so that's one suggestion. I'd also consider reading any of the following:
-- Nelson Aldrich's Old Money: The Mythology of Wealth in America
-- William A. Henry III's In Defense of Elitism
-- Tad Friend's Cheerful Money
-- George Howe Colt's The Big House (which illustrates, in a frajillion ways, the delineations between cultural and economic class constructions and privileges)
-- Alfred Lumbrano's Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams
-- C.L. Dews' This Fine Place So Far From Home
-- Richard V. Reeves' Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It
-- Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America
Ruby K. Payne has done a lot of work on poverty and education, but she has her detractors -- some people really object to how she characterizes classes -- and while I find her useful to understand where some people internalize ideas of class behavior, I don't know if I'd recommend her wholeheartedly.
The New York Times did a series called Class Matters, which offers some on-the-ground stats and reportage on social and economic class lines in the U.S. I haven't seen good, systemic reporting on this sort of thing from other metro dailies but if anyone else has, please share.
posted by sobell at 5:12 PM on April 3, 2019 [12 favorites]
-- Nelson Aldrich's Old Money: The Mythology of Wealth in America
-- William A. Henry III's In Defense of Elitism
-- Tad Friend's Cheerful Money
-- George Howe Colt's The Big House (which illustrates, in a frajillion ways, the delineations between cultural and economic class constructions and privileges)
-- Alfred Lumbrano's Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams
-- C.L. Dews' This Fine Place So Far From Home
-- Richard V. Reeves' Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It
-- Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America
Ruby K. Payne has done a lot of work on poverty and education, but she has her detractors -- some people really object to how she characterizes classes -- and while I find her useful to understand where some people internalize ideas of class behavior, I don't know if I'd recommend her wholeheartedly.
The New York Times did a series called Class Matters, which offers some on-the-ground stats and reportage on social and economic class lines in the U.S. I haven't seen good, systemic reporting on this sort of thing from other metro dailies but if anyone else has, please share.
posted by sobell at 5:12 PM on April 3, 2019 [12 favorites]
...so that's what I've been doing that makes everyone so uncomfortable.
posted by medea42 at 5:50 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by medea42 at 5:50 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
> The rhetoric of the piece's conclusion, that scholars don't study class conflict in discourse compatible with post-cultural relativism (or at least, accounting for sociology of culture) is just very strange to me.
The way I read it, it sounded like the author's stance is closer to pointing out that the general public, not necessarily scholars, does not discuss class and generally pretends that it doesn't exist, but perhaps I've missed something.
Thank you for the recommendations, sobell! This is an interesting topic and I'd like to learn more about it.
posted by bring a tuba to a knife fight at 8:15 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
The way I read it, it sounded like the author's stance is closer to pointing out that the general public, not necessarily scholars, does not discuss class and generally pretends that it doesn't exist, but perhaps I've missed something.
Thank you for the recommendations, sobell! This is an interesting topic and I'd like to learn more about it.
posted by bring a tuba to a knife fight at 8:15 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
If my stance were to tell the general public that most people are clueless about global warming, then I take it upon myself to say something about global warming but rely on generalizations and autobiographical anecdata to weave a narrative without scrutiny by others or many verifiable references, and then in the closing section expound on a bunch of claims because I feel they are true, that's an intellectual disservice to the topic of global warming.
posted by polymodus at 9:42 PM on April 3, 2019
posted by polymodus at 9:42 PM on April 3, 2019
Aesthetics are an important political tool; people don't always hew strictly to their class interests; but this does not make aesthetic affinities a substitute for class, any more than they are a substitute for race or gender.
Hmm, I can see I didn't quite explain what I think very well. Aesthetics aren't just trivial taste items, though taken by themselves they sometimes can be that. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia are all part of larger aesthetic structures organizing how people relate. If one thinks of class, whether economic or social, as having a horizontal hierarchical form of relationships or bonds, aesthetic "class" structure is vertical and oppositional which helps maintain control of the horizontal and hierarchical construction. That's why economic class revolt is constantly stunted, the bond over shared world view is stronger for some than bond over material well being.
Establishing an aesthetic view creates an "other" that is seen as opposing, tainting, or threatening the more "perfect" vision of likeness the group you are associated with claims as their own. Whether it's Catholics vs Protestants, Christians vs Jews, whites vs blacks, "Americans" vs "Mexicans", or straight vs gays, the organizing principle is one of building associations between certain practices, looks, or ideals that create a division between "us" and "them". It's done by making people see the other as corrupting an ideal that would be reached were they not present or adopted views like one's own. The descriptions used to reach this end can be directed at the physical characteristics of the group or through disgust association with the things they do or like that "we" don't.
Individual aesthetic choices will be used connotatively as signalling some larger system of belief when a number of individual choices are taken together viewed as a whole. Latte sipping or the brand of mustard someone chooses on their own have no meaning, but used as a signal of difference they work to shape a view of the person and their practices as alien when added to other qualities their group is alleged to share. In like fashion, adopting certain "tastes" signal a shared view with those you do associate with, sometimes by choice, other times by indirect influence. NASCAR, guns, football, flags, country music all can carry an associative meaning that say something about the person beyond just the liking of any one of those things alone, which is why they also can spark a stronger negative reaction than any of those things alone might have otherwise.
Aesthetic choices, the world view one holds, is often the deepest part of a person's identity, the things they feel most strongly about as being right and true, even as, or because, they are so subjective. Shared likeness in these regards cuts across economic and social class, which is why some see Trump as closer to them then people who share their economic status. They don't care about his wealth because they see him use it more or less as they would. They willingly accept his status as better than them for having the wealth so it causes no divide. He's one of them for talking like them, seeing the world like them, and expanding that vision, the money is a plus for "their side" because of that. None of this means economic and social class aren't important, but that there are other things that influence and maintain those structures by building a different sense of group identity that can actively work against one's own self interests in the more traditional sense of class.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:06 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
Hmm, I can see I didn't quite explain what I think very well. Aesthetics aren't just trivial taste items, though taken by themselves they sometimes can be that. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia are all part of larger aesthetic structures organizing how people relate. If one thinks of class, whether economic or social, as having a horizontal hierarchical form of relationships or bonds, aesthetic "class" structure is vertical and oppositional which helps maintain control of the horizontal and hierarchical construction. That's why economic class revolt is constantly stunted, the bond over shared world view is stronger for some than bond over material well being.
Establishing an aesthetic view creates an "other" that is seen as opposing, tainting, or threatening the more "perfect" vision of likeness the group you are associated with claims as their own. Whether it's Catholics vs Protestants, Christians vs Jews, whites vs blacks, "Americans" vs "Mexicans", or straight vs gays, the organizing principle is one of building associations between certain practices, looks, or ideals that create a division between "us" and "them". It's done by making people see the other as corrupting an ideal that would be reached were they not present or adopted views like one's own. The descriptions used to reach this end can be directed at the physical characteristics of the group or through disgust association with the things they do or like that "we" don't.
Individual aesthetic choices will be used connotatively as signalling some larger system of belief when a number of individual choices are taken together viewed as a whole. Latte sipping or the brand of mustard someone chooses on their own have no meaning, but used as a signal of difference they work to shape a view of the person and their practices as alien when added to other qualities their group is alleged to share. In like fashion, adopting certain "tastes" signal a shared view with those you do associate with, sometimes by choice, other times by indirect influence. NASCAR, guns, football, flags, country music all can carry an associative meaning that say something about the person beyond just the liking of any one of those things alone, which is why they also can spark a stronger negative reaction than any of those things alone might have otherwise.
Aesthetic choices, the world view one holds, is often the deepest part of a person's identity, the things they feel most strongly about as being right and true, even as, or because, they are so subjective. Shared likeness in these regards cuts across economic and social class, which is why some see Trump as closer to them then people who share their economic status. They don't care about his wealth because they see him use it more or less as they would. They willingly accept his status as better than them for having the wealth so it causes no divide. He's one of them for talking like them, seeing the world like them, and expanding that vision, the money is a plus for "their side" because of that. None of this means economic and social class aren't important, but that there are other things that influence and maintain those structures by building a different sense of group identity that can actively work against one's own self interests in the more traditional sense of class.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:06 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
Thinking more about church as an engine of social class, it occurs to me that all the churches I mentioned emphasize being "born again". Thinking of yourself that way would be useful if your goal is to learn a whole new set of class signifiers from scratch. You're a newborn, a cultural clean slate, ready to absorb the knowledge appropriate to your new social class.
posted by clawsoon at 3:52 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 3:52 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
The Horatio Alger Illusion, that anybody in America can get to the top if they work hard enough (and maybe get one break here and one break there) is an enormous potential energy well for productivity. Work for its destruction at your own peril.
posted by bukvich at 7:57 AM on April 4, 2019
posted by bukvich at 7:57 AM on April 4, 2019
Why would you want to optimize for productivity? Productivity is inversely proportional to happiness.
posted by ragtag at 8:54 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by ragtag at 8:54 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
You would need 10+ employees to make it profitable for the owner to be fully occupied by the running of the business, and the labor costs for an outfit like that would be well over a half a million dollars a year. That’s a huge business.
Yeah, and if they aren't doing that (staffing) they are earning plumber wages. I'm certainly not disagreeing there are many small businesses, just pointing out that small companies earn (comparatively) small wages. You can even see this in the income disparity and wage scale disparity - 1/2 a million dollars a year in revenue is not a huge business. It's a small business. Small businesses do small jobs. To rope that back into comparing vs college professors, who can earn $200k at any decent grad school program with fewer employees and responsibilities, more opportunities for income growth, and a longer lifetime of earnings.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:11 AM on April 4, 2019
Yeah, and if they aren't doing that (staffing) they are earning plumber wages. I'm certainly not disagreeing there are many small businesses, just pointing out that small companies earn (comparatively) small wages. You can even see this in the income disparity and wage scale disparity - 1/2 a million dollars a year in revenue is not a huge business. It's a small business. Small businesses do small jobs. To rope that back into comparing vs college professors, who can earn $200k at any decent grad school program with fewer employees and responsibilities, more opportunities for income growth, and a longer lifetime of earnings.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:11 AM on April 4, 2019
To rope that back into comparing vs college professors, who can earn $200k at any decent grad school program with fewer employees and responsibilities, more opportunities for income growth, and a longer lifetime of earnings.
And because I forgot to tie this back to class, it's why so many are willing to take on debt to go to college vs into the trades. You need to be a superstar and to grow beyond your skills (in this case plumbing) to be a high earner whereas with a degree plenty of jobs don't require that same level of skills to earn comparatively high incomes.
"At the bottom, people tend to believe that class is defined by the amount of money you have. In the middle, people grant that money has something to do with it, but think education and the kind of work you do almost equally important. Nearer the top, people perceive that taste, values, ideas, style, and behavior are indispensable criteria of class, regardless of money or occupation or education."
It gets back to this, that they pretend that income is necessary but not sufficient to attain higher class, but ask your plumber family members how much time your average family who has hired a plumber even spends talking to them to ascertain their opinions on taste, values, or style. I bet the average answer is 'not much'.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:27 AM on April 4, 2019
And because I forgot to tie this back to class, it's why so many are willing to take on debt to go to college vs into the trades. You need to be a superstar and to grow beyond your skills (in this case plumbing) to be a high earner whereas with a degree plenty of jobs don't require that same level of skills to earn comparatively high incomes.
"At the bottom, people tend to believe that class is defined by the amount of money you have. In the middle, people grant that money has something to do with it, but think education and the kind of work you do almost equally important. Nearer the top, people perceive that taste, values, ideas, style, and behavior are indispensable criteria of class, regardless of money or occupation or education."
It gets back to this, that they pretend that income is necessary but not sufficient to attain higher class, but ask your plumber family members how much time your average family who has hired a plumber even spends talking to them to ascertain their opinions on taste, values, or style. I bet the average answer is 'not much'.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:27 AM on April 4, 2019
college professors, who can earn $200k at any decent grad school program
Half that would be a better ballpark for full professors at "decent" grad programs, especially if you exclude the law and medical faculty (which are more different career paths for people trained as attorneys and physicians).
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 9:54 AM on April 4, 2019
Half that would be a better ballpark for full professors at "decent" grad programs, especially if you exclude the law and medical faculty (which are more different career paths for people trained as attorneys and physicians).
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 9:54 AM on April 4, 2019
Work for its destruction at your own peril.
Why would you want to optimize for productivity? Productivity is inversely proportional to happiness.
Sorry, I realize I'm being flippant.
Economic stratification increases the proportion of societal output that goes to the top of the class ladder, and decreases the proportion of societal output that goes to the bottom of the class ladder, right?
If you decrease productivity by decreasing stratification, yes, overall productivity may well go way down. But there's going to be some class line somewhere where people on one side see a loss of their slice of that output and people on the other side see a gain in their slice of the output. So if you're above that line in the class hierarchy, you want to maximize productivity, and if you're below that line in the class hierarchy, you want to minimize social stratification.
There's add-on effects to consider, too. The Vimes Boots Theory thread talks about how if you're poor you tend to spend more on things in the long run because you don't have the money on hand to buy high quality things or you don't have the class knowledge necessary to capitalize on the money you do have. (Let alone that some insanely rich people might not be able to even spend all their money if they tried.) So there's also a sense where productivity isn't even a good measure of what matters, it's more like productivity and how efficiently that productivity is utilized. This means that there's some magical optimal line somewhere where you can optimize for what society can do with everything it produces, even without considering the happiness of the people involved.
I don't personally know where that line is, but I think there's a solid case it's somewhere below where it's at right now, and so I think it's a little silly to worry about reducing social stratification or dispelling the myth of the American Dream.
(Also, this is all said as somebody who doesn't get any of this stuff at all even though I bump into the edges of it a lot. Thanks for the references, sobell!)
posted by ragtag at 9:58 AM on April 4, 2019
Why would you want to optimize for productivity? Productivity is inversely proportional to happiness.
Sorry, I realize I'm being flippant.
Economic stratification increases the proportion of societal output that goes to the top of the class ladder, and decreases the proportion of societal output that goes to the bottom of the class ladder, right?
If you decrease productivity by decreasing stratification, yes, overall productivity may well go way down. But there's going to be some class line somewhere where people on one side see a loss of their slice of that output and people on the other side see a gain in their slice of the output. So if you're above that line in the class hierarchy, you want to maximize productivity, and if you're below that line in the class hierarchy, you want to minimize social stratification.
There's add-on effects to consider, too. The Vimes Boots Theory thread talks about how if you're poor you tend to spend more on things in the long run because you don't have the money on hand to buy high quality things or you don't have the class knowledge necessary to capitalize on the money you do have. (Let alone that some insanely rich people might not be able to even spend all their money if they tried.) So there's also a sense where productivity isn't even a good measure of what matters, it's more like productivity and how efficiently that productivity is utilized. This means that there's some magical optimal line somewhere where you can optimize for what society can do with everything it produces, even without considering the happiness of the people involved.
I don't personally know where that line is, but I think there's a solid case it's somewhere below where it's at right now, and so I think it's a little silly to worry about reducing social stratification or dispelling the myth of the American Dream.
(Also, this is all said as somebody who doesn't get any of this stuff at all even though I bump into the edges of it a lot. Thanks for the references, sobell!)
posted by ragtag at 9:58 AM on April 4, 2019
Work for its destruction at your own peril.
Thanks, I think I'll be fine! So will all the people now being tortured at work to "increase productivity" where the gains are almost entirely captured by the 0.1%.
posted by praemunire at 10:42 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
Thanks, I think I'll be fine! So will all the people now being tortured at work to "increase productivity" where the gains are almost entirely captured by the 0.1%.
posted by praemunire at 10:42 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
« Older Maps of historic public transit systems and their... | Wait, astronauts pooped on the moon and just left... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Working class: “I’m poor”
Middle class: “I’m broke”
Upper class: “I’m impecunious”
posted by Sterros at 7:34 AM on April 3, 2019 [5 favorites]