What defines "class" in America?

I just finished reading the long (and interesting) thread on the NPR story and peoples' reactions thereto. A large part of it devolved into the perception of class-consciousness, and I thought I knew what was going on there, but then I was brought up short by BiggJawn's comment to the effect that he had thought he was "middle class" until someone defined that as having an income 2.5 times larger than his.

But I don't think 'class' in America is about income, not entirely, maybe not at all. I learned this lesson painfully as a child, when we were quite poor (my mother was a divorced single parent in an era when that was both unusual and slightly disgraceful.) Even though we had to rely on the charity of relations for warm winter coats, and my mother was adept at thinking up appealing names for the meals she concocted out of cheap ingredients ("cowboy hash" for a casserole of frozen lima beans, Campbells tomato soup, and a little pork sausage, yum,) it was still drilled into us that we were somehow in a 'better' class than neighbors from 'less advantageous' backgrounds.

I was taught all the correct liberal values (we were pro-Civil Rights, tolerant of religious minorities, etc.) but for the worst possible reason: Because "we" were not like the vulgar, ignorant, lower-class people who used prejudices against others to try and make themselves feel 'better' than those others. (The unspoken implication, of course, was that "we" had no need of such devices because we actually *were* better in some indefinable way...)

"We" had our fun in family gatherings where martinis or wine (but only good wine, never Mogen David) were served and the conversation turned on political and cultural matters, and sarcastic wit and ironic commentary were the coin of one-upmanship. "They" had their fun drinking beer and playing cards and laughing loud, uncontrolled laughs at fart jokes.

My mother had married a "They," and it was with a painful mixture of moral condemnation and unspoken relief that her family greeted the divorce.

Even though most of my mother's family were not wealthy or even well-to-do, we always knew that it was better to be poor and a teacher than rich because you owned a bowling alley. An out-of-work nurse was "us," an employed pipefitter was "them." But we were very pro-labor, because it was "the right thing" for "us" to be.

It's not about money. Any Southerner will tell you that, as I learned since I moved to a part of Maryland where many consider themselves Southerners. "Class" here is about who your Daddy and Momma were, who your cousins married, how long your family has owned property (even a scruffy bit of low-value homestead with a decaying unlovely American Gothic house on it) in this town. (It's not about education, either, in the South-- that's way different from the upper Midwest where I was brought up, where education was a key ingredient in "us-ness.")

Class is defined with many different geographical and ethnic twists, but, like Justice Potter Stewart, we all know it when we see it. My mother's family were good, decent people who felt an obligation to give substantially to charity. Women (this was back when few women worked in paid employment) were expected to get involved in volunteer work of 'substance,' (i.e., of direct benefit to those less fortunate than ourselves) not just Junior League or Opera Docent displays. They supported Dorothy Day and Catholic Worker causes, railed against that (unprintable) McCarthy, and genuinely wanted a society that offered greater opportunities for everyone to achieve economic prosperity and participation in the political and social processes. But they were also unmitigated snobs, mingling a genuine caring and decency with a ludicrous noblesse oblige rationale for its expression.

Thank god for my father's vulgar, cheerful, moderately prosperous but definitely "them" class family. Thank god for the experiences that put me face to face with people who didn't want my 'help,' they just wanted me to get the hell out of the way so they could help themselves. Thank god for the rigorous education in critical thinking and the broad perspectives of history.

So the other night as we were riding home in the 1994 Plymouth Duster with all the paint chips and the ceiling cloth in tatters, stopping for our small plain decaff at Caribou (because Starbucks is a bit declassee, don't you know...) I caught myself explaining to my partner why I thought a meeting had gone well that day:

"Oh, I think we communicated. We both speak fluent overeducated middle class white woman."

The same day, I had to sit with a young, just-out-of-college, AVODAH (Jewish Service Corps) volunteer, and explain to her why her carefully crafted application interview script for a workforce development program in downtown DC wouldn't work. It was superior from the technical standpoint -- as well it should have been, given she had a degree in English -- but it would have caused most of the potential customers to bolt in the other direction.

She was speaking fluent overeducated middle class white woman. They would have perceived her as an "us" regarding them as "thems." And they sure as hell have had a gulletful of that kind of BS from the bureaucracies and institutions and the smirky condescending media (and yes, NPR does it a LOT, and yes, I love NPR and listen to it all the time, but there it is...)

I'm not sure any of us can ever escape the "class" that is defined for us by the accident of family and geography and circumstance inflicted at birth and reinforced in early life. I think the only way we can ever disempower class as a negative influence in our social environment it to pull its fangs by acknowledging the essential irrelevance of it on the scale of eternity, and working to overcome its undeniable power on the scale of here and now.

And to laugh at it whenever possible. The more we can laugh at it, the more we rob it of its power. Thank you Jeff Foxworthy. Thank you Flannery O'Connor.

maunderingly,
Bright

and more importantly, about the influence the classes have in politics.

A minority upper class (or "over class") rules now, at the expense of a majority labour class. The over class wants to hang on to its power, the labour class wants to change this; that is class warefare.

Class as in 'vulgar, ignorant, lower-class people' and/or 'middle-class speak' is en entirely different thing.

For some, its money. In my family, as I was growing up, it was based on church affiliation.

There is something to be said about the various classes and factions and cultures in America, the role of education, and all of that. But it's important to keep a clear focus on property and income and wealth, because it's the bureaucratic and technical rules of our political economy that work against us. Our ethnic and cultural and even educational differences are all part of a diverse society, and snobbery can work in different directions.

The vast majority of Americans work for a living and rely on their paychecks to live. A tiny fraction of ultra-wealthy live off of society and accumulated, and almost always taxpayer subsidized wealth. That's the major class difference.

Race, wealth, and religion, in that order I believe, have always been factors in the determination of "class" in North America,

I would reverse race and wealth in your scheme, as when youre homeless, it don't matter your race... you're outcaste. Whereas, if you have lots of cash, race is not a class problem as more educated/wealthier circles of people are more paranoid about being impoverished than having brown children.

I also think Sex makes you lower class, given women's income distributions and the wealth factor. Schooling is probably below religion.

My version of your ordering:

Wealth, race/sex/nationality, religion, schooling

In britain:

Schooling, race/sex/nationality, wealth, religion

I pretty much agree with your ranking, but how does religion fit in exactly? I guess that's a part of class I've never understood.

While I am certainly no expert, only an observer, I believe religion to be an important factor in the class distinctions of rural America. Among the learned in urban areas, a degree of secularism is accepted, even at times insisted upon. However, in the backwoods areas of the US where public atheism equals ostracism, a hierarchy exists in which religious sectarian distinctions can close the doors to those social circles which hold the key to social and economic advancement.

I think one of the reasons wingnut fundamentalists are so bitter is because they are considered tacky compared to a nice tasteful Presbyterian. Southern Baptists are awfully tacky as well.

The backwoods areas where "public atheism equals ostracism" are hardly where the ruling class resides now is it? The kind of fundamentalism so lovingly attacked on DU is considered low class.

The WSJ did an article ago - the religions that the Ivy League recruit most often are Jewish and UU and Episcipalian.

Organized religion has advantages when in your church are all the "upstanding" members of the community, and if you are not of that church, you are at home on sundays watching the TV. The president and the ruling class are prodestant, with a rare catholic, but buddhist, muslim... no way in hell.

As a buddhist, i am lower class in america. In the south, i remember "before" becoming a buddhist being described as a "good chistian person" by people introducing me, as if that described the quality of my character... and my class.

Like going to regular church is the largest indication of your potential to vote republican, it is similarly an indication of your acceptance in the class system, and your setting within it.

And I'm proud of it! As a Buddhist in Southern California, though, I think I have more in common with the New Age-y subsection of the upper middle class than anyone else. Well, everywhere other than Orange County.

I was recently told by a friend in L.A. that it's "hip" to be Buddhist. That was news to me.

and i have no problem with that... Certainly i find buddhist's the hippest of the lot, as buddhism is a nonviolent and very inclusive religion of private awakening, vs. the organized brainwashing that has come to be known as religion.

If you recall the church service with all living presidents in attendence where bush called for a "crusade" against the infidel after 9/11.... it defined america as a christian nation.

Hinduism and Buddhism both are very liberal and libertarian religions, understanding that an individual's state of mind dictates EVERYTHING about life... both religions have traditions where cannabis and other drugs are used as part of the awakening process.... so christians make the other religions "illegal" by dictating their morals on a greater public.

Myself i'm from southern california originally, but on living elsewhere in the US, i've found that california is the exception. Los Angleles will change the white racists and their moral christian empire building. Most of the nation is increasingly like orange county... and surely you've encountered nazi-christians who think buddhism a heathen idol worshipping religion... ignorant fools indeed, but a majority of them makes for a national prejudice.

Tashi Dalek,
-s

eom

You are right, of course, about sex/gender. My own ingrained male bias prevented me from seeing initially that which is such an obvious factor.

And you are right, it's more than just about money. I remember a girl who went to my upper-middle-class high school who was a social untouchable because of her language. She dressed nicely, her family had money (even owning a major business in town), but she and her family spoke "lower class" English complete with the very Pittsburgh "you'ns" and double negatives. I remember how appalled we all were by the way she spoke.

Class is partly about wealth, yes, but is also about background, language, tastes, etc. There are so many class divisions in our culture. There are people who read and those who never crack a book. There are those who speak standard English, those who speak a lower-class version, and those who speak the Boston Brahmin version. There are those who can afford a car and those who can't. There are those who wear a holiday sweater decorated with glitter and those who wouldn't think of it. There are even those who back into parking spaces and those who park head in (a very real and interesting class divide where I work).

Some people do that where I work, but I had never seen that done (or at least noticed it) until I worked where I do. Is that lower or upper class? I am not going to change my parking style. I'm not a good driver so I will always park head on if I can.

to a parking space, I don't get it either. :shrug: My brother is a nice guy and a Democrat though so, whatever. :shrug: :-)

I work at a company that has both manufacturing facilities and corporate offices at one location. The people who work in manufacturing all carefully back into parking spaces. The people who work in offices all park head in. I have no idea why.

In certain towns of Bergen County, New Jersey, class has become redefined according to how much money you make, what you own, where you live, in how big a McMansion, with how many BMW's and/or Mercedes, where your kids go to school/college, other status symbols (e.g., landscaping and your drive gets immediate snow-plowing vs. your neighbor's), and a general withdrawal from the community. It is artificial in some ways.

It also generates an arrogance towards others. A family with a comfortable income moved into Franklin Lakes. They owned a pricey mini-van. Their neighbors accosted them and demanded that the family buy a Mercedes or a BMW pronto, because the mini-van could be seen from the street and THAT would bring down the value of the adjoining properties. Sick. The idea that living in a certain community with a certain income gives anyone the right to tell neighbors what to do (outside of mandated zoning ordinances, I suppose) is an indication that class is another tool to divide us.

I have also seen "class" divide families as adult siblings with means and attitude feel it is their right to lord over their less fortunate relations. It isn't what they own. It's their attitude about what they own and how it is substituted for the presence of CHARACTER.

I never identified as a class when I was growing up. My mother always told us that we were middle class and that we come from good families. I don't know if we were middle class as we ranged from poor to rich for the community when I was growing up with my mother describing us as middle class the entire time. I did not have good social skills as a child and ran into some confusing situations that I later attributed to class differences. I never quite fit in with any of them though. By some, I was accused of being too snobbish, preppy, ect. By others, they looked at me as if I was scum or something. I fit in pretty well at my selective liberal arts college where intellectualism was the key value. Most people didn't care what one wore and many people had quirky habits. Now, I am a young adult, living far from the community in which I grew up. I want to make more friends, but I feel that my lack of class counciousness makes this difficult. Instead of moving easily between "worlds", I am who I am with a wide variety of preferences and habits that are supposedly associated with different classes.

Class is defined individually. I've met poor people with more class than most wealthy people.

It is how you carry yourself. It's how you react in an undesirable situation. It's how you treat other humans.

In my experience, those who grow up with wealth, are pretentious and uncaring about the plight of others. To me that shows absolutely no class.

There are people out there that will give you their last dollar if they think you need it more than they do. That's class

There are people who you don't even know, who would come to your defense in a dangerous situation. That's class.

Haven't you ever seen someone do something extraordianry for another person, and think to yourself, "Now that was a classy move."?

The type of human you choose to be determines class, not wealth, or race, or religion. It is something you either have or you don't, you can't buy it.

and agree. there are fiscally very poor people with enormous dignity and refinement. and then there are people like the Bush family et al who are stinking rich but as devoid of "class" as dirt.

There are also lots of the media rich who hae pots of dough but who are hopelessy stupid and ugnorant which makes thm in my view thoroughly "unlcassy." Saw a home tv interview with some media bimbo who hadn't a clue about anything--she described what her decorator had done to her home as "something they call baroque"!!

I like your quote:

"It is something you either have or you don't, you can't buy it." Think of Grace Kelly, Britney, Paris HIlton or either of the Hepbvurns (Katherine and Audrey). The qaulitiative differences are there.

In a casual sense, we speak of people having class due to their dignity, refinement, etc.

But in the sense in which class is used in economics, politics, sociology, etc. it has more to do with the caste system. In other words, how much money do you have, how long have you had it, etc.

You're quite right that the Bushes, despite their old money, are vulgarians. But, to look at it another way, who has more power and opportunity in this world? A dignified, hard-working poor person or Jenna Bush?

If the recent trend toward "offshoring" professional jobs shows us anything, it's that the "captains of industry" don't make distinctions between blue-collar and professional classes anymore--both consist of people who can be put out on the streets to save a few bucks. Software engineers are, from their perspective, no different from the guys out on the loading dock. So I would argue that the term "middle-class" is increasingly outdated. Now, if you are dependent on a paycheck, you are working class.

is defined by the individual. Money has nothing to do with it all. I have seen the wealthiest people that have no class whatsoever and the poorest that have more class then most of their counterpart.

My mother though used to say their was a difference between old money and new money. She thought those with old money had more class. I don't know as I would agree with her on that now.

and I said "Oh, I just love bridges! The Golden Gate is so beautiful!" what would you think?

What if you said, "I don't like cats," and I replied, "But my next door neighbor is named Ernie Cat, and he's the nicest man I know," what would you think?

That's what's going on in this thread. Some of us are using class in the sense of refinement and manners, and some of us are using it in the political/economic sense.

Those are two very different things.

Words can have a different meaning depending on context..

It is not that because the word "class" can be used as equivalent to "style" or "manarism", that "class" can not also have meaning in the context of income.

Wouldn't your mother think there's also a difference between having a lot of money (old or new), and having barely enough money - especially wrt influence in politics? Those are also different classes.

From the time that human began living in groups of more than about 20 people, they've needed rules for how you relate to others. In kinship-based societies, those rules specify exactly how to interact (or avoid interacting) with your mother-in-law or your same-sex cousin on your father's brother's side. In hierarchic societies, the rules may specify exactly how you must dress (and penalize you if you wear too many different colors or an extra bit of lace) and prescribe the precise degree of deference or condecension to use with those above and below you.

In our society, where everybody is supposed to be equal, the rules are forced underground. They're invisible, unstated, unacknowledged. But that doesn't mean they don't exist -- they're just a lot more covert. People still classify others on the basis of how they talk, what clothes they wear, what car they drive, what sort of house they live in and how they decorate it, what church they attend, or where their grandparents came from. But outsiders may not even understand the classifications -- and that lack of knowledge itself becomes one more thing reinforcing their outsiderness.

For those who know how to work the system, it's possible to enter new situations and move up in rank by adjusting their fashion sense and lying about their backgrounds. But for those who don't have a good sense of social niceties, or who feel an aversion towards pretending to be something they're not, life can become an unending series of snubs and inadvertent offences. (Which may be why artists and science geeks tend to adopt fashion signals of their own which say, "I'm not part of the hierarchy, so I can get away with being weird.")

I wouldn't want to go back to the way things were a thousand or ten thousand years ago, but I can't say I've ever felt at ease in our society as presently constructed.

You can have an appreciation for the classics, a record collection overflowing with Mozart, think deeper thoughts than "I wonder who's gonna get kicked off 'The Island' this week?" and still not be considered "middle class" purely by virtue of your income.

On the other hand, possession of certain tokens (the SUV's, McMansions, etc.) even if mortgaged to the pommel, carries at least the illussion of a middle-class existence, even if the possessors never finished college, think Toby Keith is classical music and love to watch WWE on their 60" plasma screen.

There is a professor where I work who has what he calls the "Double Diamond" model of class distinction. there is a small diamond at the top, which represents the Upper Class, and a huge diamond underneath, repesenting the Lower Class. There is no "Middle Class", but a good deal of "churn" within the diamonds, with some in the upper end of the lower diamond making the passage through the "neck" between the two diamonds.
This is an economic model, and in the real world, the only one that counts. I understand this theory, in fact I grokked it within 5 minutes and would like to audit his class to learn more. Now, some guy who makes 100 kilobucks a year might not understand a single word of this theory, but he has an H-2 and a big ski boat at the lake to my 2-y-o Ranger truck and crummy little apartment. Who is "higher class"?

When I make a statement that I'm "not middle-class" I'm basing that entirely on economic factors. I scratch out a meager existence on less than 40 kilobucks, while listening to other people who consider themselves "middle-class" talking about boycotting Walmart, and thinking "Gee, wish *I* could afford to 'boycott' Wally-World."...

The turning point for me came a few months back in a thread here where it turned out that most the people I thought were in my economic boat made at least twice what I did. At that point, I stopped considering myself "Middle-Class".This is purely an economic label, and my preference for Mozart over Keith and dislike of the pap the Glass Tit pushes at us as "entertainment" has nothing to do with it.
I realize you don't have to have money to "have Class", but that's not what I was talking about.

"good breeding"? "well-mannered" "educated"?

A PHD working at a state college making 50k a year is middle class, and the ignorant heir of property is upper class. Education by itself doesn't change your class.

This is just another way to divide the working/middle class. The PHD think he's in a different class than the unionized construction worker making 50k, but of course they are exactly the same class, regardless of what kind of music they like.

"The vices of the powerful gain the attraction of power." What's sad is seeing educated working/middle class people ape the vices and excesses of the wealthy in a vain attempt to kid themselves that they are upper class.

Like I said, I grew up with diverse class background, while being told both when my parents ran out of gas on the way to cash their checks and when my mom and step father belonged to the wealthier country club in town that I was middle class. My husband and I make around $50,000 and prefer to wear nice clothes, eating good food, and live in a decent place. We do not buy these things because we think that we are suppose to have them to appear more prestigious. We put a priority on these things and don't buy a bunch of junk or go "out drinking". We are intellectual because we have IQs and have always been geeks. People of any income who buy things just because they feel that they are suppose to have them are stupid. No one should feel awkward about saving their money to buy something that they really like either. I have had friends of all backgrounds and many limit themselves and buy things that they don't like and do things that they don't want to do in the name of class while calling it something different. Maybe, that's why I don't understand class.

Lots of middle class families have gone through good times and sometimes very bad times, that's normal for people who rely on paychecks. This is America, wearing nice clothes and eating good food and living in a decent place is still affordable for a lot of middle class people.

That might change though.

I agree with you. The PHD who makes 50 kilobucks (in reality around here, it's more like 90 kilobucks) IS in the same economic class as the 50 kilobuck used car saleman or construction worker. They both have the same economic power.

Where I was coming from with the "Double diamond" thing was in that theory says there IS no "middle class", just a narrow neck ("wormhole"?)between the lower and upper classes. My whole thesis is that what we grew up thinking about our "station" in life may no longer be valid. I know mine is not. I have a lot more in common with those most of us here consider "working poor" than I do with the "middle-class", but ONLY on the economic plain.And at the end of the day, it is ONLY that economic plain that matters.

And if by "aping the excesses" of the upper class, you mean running up 100 kilobucks of credit card debt to "keep up apperances", again, I agree.

What's the old saying? "Wash a dog, brush a dog, STILL a dog"?

...with the "double diamond" notion.

My mother's family would have regarded itself in the lower point of the upper diamond -- not a lot of money, but oh, so "correct."

My father's family didn't give a rat's patootie, but if pressed, they'd probably point to the middle of the lower diamond and crack another Hamm's while the booya simmered.

I don't deny that money makes an enormous impact on where one stands in the power heirarchy in our society -- indeed, money is so sought-after because it is one tool sharp enough to cut a hole in that narrow neck between the two diamonds.

But I still think the non-financial factors that define class are critical factors even if one is defining "class" as "clout." If you are an upper-diamond decision maker, and you control access to a bit of clout, who are you more likely to give that access to? Someone from the lower (poor) end of your own diamond? Or someone from the "other" diamond?

The non-financial factors defining class are also critically important as tools for the upper diamond to keep control of the social heirarchy. Regardless of money, if you can't flash the *real* colors, you'll never get beyond a certain ceiling. The trappings of affluence are, in effect "false colors." The notion that if you can achieve them you will automatically "move up" keeps the lower classes focused on wasting their resources in ways that serve only to further strengthen and enrich the uppers.

It is to the advantage of the upper diamond to keep those non-financial factors nebulous and difficult to see. The lower their profile, the easier it is to convince the lowers that money is destiny, and the cruder access and control that lower money can achieve is "real" power. If the lower diamond forgets the existence of the upper diamond, they will focus their energy *within* their own diamond, rather than on the narrow channel between the diamonds.

Then, too, by fostering the illusion that money conveys class, power, and control, and encouraging an elaborate, money- and status-symbol based method of measuring "class," the upper diamond can keep the lower diamond focused on the distinctions within itself, rather than on the existence of that upper diamond.

Nor is money necessarily concommitant with the real influence that shapes social destinies, even in today's America! (Boy, watch me get flamed on that one....) Money can, indeed, buy short-term status, gratification, celebrity, etc. But if you study history you can see many places where members of the upper diamond (who had very little money or contemporary temporal power,) had profound long-term influences by their writings, teachings, researches, second-hand 'behind the throne' maneuverings of those in apparent power, etc.

In fact, I would have to say that one of the defining characteristics of the upper diamond is their ability to think in generations, rather than years, and to understand the profound change in destination over the long term that a very minor alteration in vector can produce. Big-picture thinking is valued, gratification can be delayed.

This is why some of the most seminal trends in human social development come from what might be called the "viruses" within the upper diamond -- progressive thinkers who are fully aware of the existence of the diamond and how it works, and who apply themselves to opening the channel between the diamonds and blurring the lines. But they often die young.

meditatively,
Bright

and lots of it

period

what I say.

To me, class has always been about money, but also about culture. There is a glass ceiling, and it doesn't matter how much money you might make, you can't move into that other "class" because you don't relate to the people. That's my life.

I came from poor working people. My father didn't make it past 8th grade. He didn't raise me, my mother did. She learned to type in high school, and worked as a secretary during the day and a waitress at night to keep us solvent while I was growing up. A single parent, an only child, and two jobs to keep us going. We moved a lot. I went to 10 schools K - 12. I never had many friends over; their parents didn't want their kids in my "bad neighborhood," so I went to their house instead. Middle class houses way beyond what I ever expected to live in. And I was right. I worked my way through college and 2 kids and became a teacher; low salary, but middle-class colleagues. And guess what? I don't relate to them. I don't share much about my life with them, because they can't relate to me. We like each other, and work well together, but there is a social chasm. I thought it was just me. That growing up by myself, with no family connections outside of my mom, too much latch-key time, and the constant moving, and always being the "new kid," had just shaped the introverted Lone Wolf that I am. Well, maybe.

I was listening to NPR a few months ago, and heard an interview with an author: Alfred Lubrano was talking about his new book, Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams

Here's a snip from a Publishers Weekly review:

Lubrano's view of the challenges that upwardly mobile children of blue-collar families (he calls them Straddlers) face in establishing themselves in white-collar enclaves could spark lively debates among Straddlers themselves, not to mention those Lubrano views as having a head start based on birth into a white-collar family. In this combination of memoir and survey, the Philadelphia Inquirer staff reporter recalls his freshman year at Columbia; he'd expected classmates to regard him as sophisticated because he was a New Yorker. However, this son of a Brooklyn bricklayer found himself on the outside of elite cliques populated by men he characterizes as "pasty, slight fellas-all of them seemed 5-foot-7 and sandy-haired." This was only the beginning for Lubrano, who came to see entry into a select educational institution as a harsh cultural dividing line between his blue-collar upbringing and his white-collar future. Becoming a journalist cost him emotionally when he felt torn between abandoning cherished values from his youth and accommodating his new profession's demands. Lubrano's interviews with other Straddlers have convinced him that ambition puts many of them in positions fraught with similar ambivalence and unexpected culture shock. With quotes from Richard Rodriguez and bell hooks, Lubrano illustrates his thesis: "Limbo folk remain aware of their `otherness' throughout their lives perpetual outsiders."

It described me so well. Then there is my son's best friend; a young man who just graduated from Berkely, and just finished his first semester at Yale. He reports a great divide; some students at Yale actually said, "How did you get here? (Hard work and scholarships) You don't belong here. You're not one of us." Even when they don't say it aloud, the divide is obvious.

We have a middle aged male friend who has a BA in business and series six and seven licenses. There are a number of large insurance companies in the area where he has applied and interviewed. He has been told that he does not fit their "culture". This man dresses nicely to his interviews, but his job experience is retail for ten years which used to be profitable in better economic times. He sold furniture and then computers on commission. Despite his college education, he came from a working class background and his mannerisms are stereotypical Wisconsin working class. If people cannot get better jobs based on their class or "culture", how are they suppose to advance.

Here's one example:

Study Links UC Entry, Social Class
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-feeder19nov19,1,156380.story

Social class has had more effect on whether a student will attend the University of California system than any other factor, including race, according to a new study of California high schools by UC Berkeley sociologists.

One of five students admitted to the UC system in 1999 came from 100 elite private and public schools, the study of California high schools found. By contrast, fewer than one out of 200 students who were admitted were from schools that had low-income and heavily minority student bodies.

The top "feeder" schools, which send the highest percentage of graduates to UC, are nearly all private and located in San Francisco or Los Angeles suburbs. Many of the schools in the state that send the fewest students to UC are in the Central Valley or in low-income urban areas of Los Angeles County.

It may be no surprise that wealthy students have educational advantages, but "what's surprising is how strong the association is" between affluence and UC admission, said Isaac Martin, a coauthor of the study with sociologist Jerome Karabel and Los Angeles lawyer Sean Jaquez.

designed to keep the dreaded class warfare away

see my post about "culture" vs. "class". The idea is to make intelligence, educated working middle class people identify with the wealthy and disdain their fellow working class people. Works like a charm too, just invite them to a few cocktail parties and watch how quickly they kiss ass. :evilgrin:

gentility is so often confused for class

If you do not think you are in the Upper Class then you are in the lower one or as us slime down here like to refer to it the slave class.

Lower class if you're on welfare; upper class if you're idle rich.

It shouldn't be that way but it is. Americans have no concept of class consciousness. That's why we have the most docile labor force and weakest social welfare state.

Class, as defined by dignity and manners, is also disappearing in this country.

I have never been well-off. My father was an attorney and my mom a nurse. By all accounts, we should have been upper middle class, but we always seem to be struggling financially (because my brother was sick, they divorced, and other factors). It was strange when I was a kid, I'd often wear hand-me-down clothes (and I was the oldest LOL), but I'd go to the ballet or symphony. I have met many intelligent, educated (be it self-educated or those who've gone on to grad school) in my life and for me, class was always more about what's inside and what your ideas are than ostentatious displays of money. I mean, we need enough to be comfortable and live safely, but all that extra stuff can be a trap and in the end, it's not really what makes you happy. Sometimes money though, in some circumstances, can mean more freedom of choices, but for me anyway, it doesn't define class. That's why it's often defined as socio-economic. The "socio" part is just as important (if not more so).

A polite, thoughtful person with elegant taste is considered "classy."

In the sense in which the word is used in relation to politics, it has to do with wealth and power. Who has more power in this world: a thoughtful dishwasher who listens to Mozart and reads to blind orphans on Sunday afternoons, or a vulgar, ignorant person who is fabulously wealthy?

by your birth, I found American classes to be defined by money and to a lesser extent race. You can move around from lower to upper classes or vice versa depending on your affluence. In many societies you will remain where you were born classwise no matter how much money you have or don't have.

You can go to the good school and talk the talk and pose as well-to-do or upper middle class but if you want to marry one of them, you'll find out pretty fast what really matters. Who cares who your daddy is even in the south unless he has a lot of money or he was a high school football star? Maybe I see it different because we moved around a lot as kids but, in the end, class in America is about the bling. When I worked for an oil company, I noticed that the VPs and the CEO could say "ain't" just as good as anybody. (I realize the word "ain't" has now passed from currency but it was still actively used in the early 1980s.) It wasn't about language. It was about how much money you had.

The rest is to a certain degree kidding ourselves. We don't want to acknowledge that for all our fine speech and wonderfully developed minds we are in the same financial mess as the people who sat in the back row in the 6th grade.

when some blue-haired old dowager says, "Now what does your fahtha do?"

What defines "class" in America?

SIMPLE.
THE RICH: White males because they own and control everything
MIDDLE CLASS: White people who can't exploit others as well as the rich class.
THE POOR: Everyone else get the scraps and all womyn because we get 75 cents while men get a 25% pay raise for having a penis and get $1.00

and the belief in human dignity!

Suppose you lost your job today and couldn't find another. If you would be homeless within six months or so, you have more in common with the working class than you think, regardless of your current income or education.

If you own enough capital to live off, you are part of what could broadly be called the bourgeoisie.

If you don't own enough capital to live off, you're working class.

Those are the two basic classes found in all modern industrial capitalist societies. All other classes exist only in relation to these classes.

These other classes include the petty bourgeoisie (those who live off their capital but don't employ anyone) and the lumpenproletariat (criminals and the willingly unemployed).

Within the working class, there is the proletariat. A proletarian could be defined loosely as a member of the working class who performs any work which is reflected in the cost of products.

There's also the labor aristocracy -- that section of the working class which has attained very high pay as a result of superprofits made possible due to imperialism. This group is represented by the upper echelons of the AFL-CIO bureaucracy.

Intellectuals also seem to occupy a particular class position in modern society.

The working class -- especially the proletariat -- must necessarily form the nucleus of a successful progressive movement. The other classes should be regarded as enemies until proven allies -- that is, they should be welcome into the progressive movement, but only on the terms of the working class. Intellectuals, as well as sections of the petty bourgeoisie should be actively encouraged to join a movement under the leadership of the working class. Sections of the lumpenproletariat, labor aristocracy, and even bourgeoisie are all potentially progressive as well.

do you mean 'to survive, in good health', or 'to enjoy the median lifestyle', or 'to enjoy the lifestyle they currently lead'? It makes a lot of difference - many people could afford to buy a very basic home and live simply with their capital (typically their share of equity in a mortgaged house), but choose not to, because they prefer to work and afford luxuries like a nicer house, a car etc.

"The working class -- especially the proletariat -- must necessarily form the nucleus of a successful progressive movement. The other classes should be regarded as enemies until proven allies -- that is, they should be welcome into the progressive movement, but only on the terms of the working class."

Just remember, hippies and ravers have been dismissed as lacking revolutionary potential. :evilgrin:

Money trumps everything.. Even the "lowest class" person on earth can LEARN what they need to know , provided they have the CASH necessary to go to school..

People tend to repeat the errors of their predecessors. There are cases where this is not true, but poverty is very often, generational.

It does not take a lot of class or culture to live in a nice house when you have been raised in a crappy one, or to drive a nice car, after a lifetime of junkers..

The peace of mind that arrives with money is freeing.. When you no longer have to decide between rent or car payment... or medicine or electric bill... or school books for the kids or shoes, your life automatically takes on a new outlook..

Most people I know who are struggling , don;t even "need" to be rich.. they are just enough behind, so that they know they will never "catch up".. The carrot always stays tantalizingly "almost within reach, but never quite close enough to grab"...

Class also could be defined as a control issue.. Does someone else control you?? Or do YOU have control of your life.. Does your boss have to know when you need to use the bathroom?? Can you take a day off without jumping through hoops or lying?? Can you take vacation when YOU want?? Do you control how much money you can make?? Do you set your own hours, or are you TOLD whne you MUST work??

The lack of control in our lives is what's KILLING us..

I have known very rich people who had NO class, and I have also known very poor people who were classy people.. Acceptance is a factor too.. If you are happy with what you have and do not lust after what you know you cannot have, you will be happier in the end..

It's sad that our country is so materialistic, but people are judged by so many things, and most people can never "measure up".. There will always be someone richer, prettier, smarter,with a better car, house, family.. We all take a dip in the same gene pool..some of us are in the shallow end though :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The workers can acquire political consciousness only from without, i.e., only outside of the economic struggle, outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships between all classes and the state and the government-the sphere of the interrelations between all classes. (Lenin, What is to be Done?)

Here Lenin expresses politically (i.e. in conflict with political opponents who based themselves on the supposed 'spontaneous' development of socialist consciousness from the experience of the working class) the implications for working-class consciousness of the discoveries of Marx. Scientific thought (in the philosophy of Hegel) had arrived at the point where it must accept the conclusion that it could advance further only by grasping activity its real place in the struggle to end the conditions of its own alienated character; this was only possible, Marx said, by grasping the nature of the working class as the agent of the necessary revolutionary change. The working class itself, however, could arrive at the necessary consciousness and thereby the unity necessary for social revolution only by understanding the full historical implications of its role in production and its capacity for abolishing class society. Besides the conclusion that the economic structure is 'basic', and that the class struggle of the proletariat is an objective necessity creating the conditions for socialist revolution, there was necessary the whole theory of historical materialism, the understanding of social development as a unified process, with revolutionary consciousness seizing hold of the meaning of the contradictions at the base of society in order to overthrow it. This body of theory could not come from the working class but only 'from the outside, from bourgeois intellectuals'. From that point on, the development of Marxism takes definite forms in relation to the struggle of the working class, its internal political conflicts, strategy, tactics and organisation, nationally and internationally. While Marx and Engels themselves made great contributions in this field, it has of course been most enriched in the twentieth century, above all by the work of Lenin and Trotsky.

snip

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/slaughte.htm

"The workers can acquire political consciousness only from without, i.e., only outside of the economic struggle, outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers."

False, and against common sense as well, as that's where I learned of class consciousness, right on the "factory floor" as it were. It is the sphere of relations between workers and employers where you learn it.

Of course, Lenin was talking about working class people adopting the morality and ethics and worldview of his "vanguard" which was just another form of ruling class, and made capitalists look like saints.