Classy Thoughts
Nov. 27th, 2007 01:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
femkes_folliesYes, I've been a bad blogger. Too many things going on - on call over Thanksgiving, houseguests, new interview for Darling, etc., etc. What can I say?
However, recent interactions with various people in my life and some time spent curled up on the couch with Darling's newest copy of The Robb Report have wound my little brain into knots over the concept of Class.
In part, I mean Class in terms of etiquette and graceful social behavior. But I've been maundering more deeply about Class as in a stratified society. And make no mistake, gentle reader, American Society is indeed stratified. Whilst not so rigid as a caste system, it isn't all that easy to move from one class to another, and gets more difficult all the time. Granted, the American Dream involves upward mobility - but it must be admitted that this is more the exception than the rule.
Let's face it, we all feel more comfortable with and prefer to spend time largely with people from our own class. Similar experiences, values, and points of reference make it easier to relate. After all, funny as she may have seemed to some - how many of us would ever have felt at home spending time with Roseanne Barr? Did that show curl anybody else's hair?
A number of little things have brought this into sharper focus for me lately, and I think it's because my social network since graduation has continued to shift toward those people who share the middle to upper-middle class experience I've had. And because I interact on a daily basis with all classes of people. I find, whether because I'm getting more set in my ways or just flat losing patience that over time I have more and more difficulty relating with some of my clients or others I encounter.
Example one: Part of the traditional scope of a University education includes forcible soaking in cultural information of no discernable value at the time. We railed loudly at the time about taking classes we would never use. The University would spit back it's line about "well-rounded" students. Ah, but even a state university provides (and insists on doing so) a wide-ranging number of topics that every student must endure a certain level of exposure to. This does two things: First (and the point of the exercise) is that it forces interaction with people from other disciplines and peels the most dedicated away from their field just enough to prevent such intense narrowing of focus that you loose the ability to relate with people who aren't as wrapped up in their key project as they are. This is not always successful - the Computer Science department in particular was notorious for being largely composed of people who couldn't function in a social situation that consisted of non Computer Science people. And it utterly collapses at least on a temporary basis in intensive programs like Engineering, or professional programs, or those pursuing advanced degrees. BUT - it's presumed at that point that you HAVE the background - it's just being temporarily put into abeyance. Second - and less intentional, I think - it creates a point-of-reference gap between the college educated and those who for whatever reason forgo higher education. I have one technician who married at 18, and has worked in clerical positions since. She's a sweetheart - and I have so little in common with her that I can hardly even tell where she's coming from some days.
Another "fer instance": I stop of regularly at the same gas station. Twice now, one clerk has attempted to get me a pack of cigarettes. I do not, and have never, smoked. I give her my best perplexed look, and she tells me that I have a twin. I said "Ah, you've seen my Doppleganger, have you?"
Clerk: "What?"
Me: "My Doppleganger."
Clerk: "Huh?"
Um, never mind. I had assumed that the concept of a Doppleganger was ubiquitous enough that this quip would be received with humor. Hmmmmmm......
In my defense, I'm not the only one who considers mythology and ancient culture to be so readily understood as to require no explanation. I blame Darling. The poor dear raked all our leaves into the street yesterday, per city instructions, for collection by what we term "The Leaf Sucker." Last night began high winds gusting up to 65 mph. Darling sighed and said "I think I'll give it up and back the leaf pile, or, as I prefer to think of it, The Rock of Sisyphus." I found this hilarious. The above-mentioned technician - didn't get it. *sigh*
This is not to say that knowledge of ancient myths and legends is a sign of superiority. It is, in fact, a rather useless bit of trivia that knocks around in my brain. However, because these things are considered "classics" and commonly covered in High School college prep and College courses, they serve as common ground for those exposed to them.
Which brings me around to the general conundrum of College in general. Wherever did we, as a society, get the goofy notion that everybody can and should go to college? This is neither feasible, nor desirable. Many, many people don't have any desire to spend additional time in this sort of structured environment - learning things largely irrelevant to what they will do for a living. And a good many more (as I've gone on about previously) lack the mental capacity to handle the challenge. Dumbing down the curriculum is certainly not the right answer.
And "colleges" like Baker are not really colleges at all, but rather glorified vocational training programs. Note - there is nothing at all wrong with vocational training. In fact, I think we need more of it available. And many of the skilled trades need to be pried out of the hands of the Unions and placed into availability - like electrician education, for example. However, calling it a College trades on the notion of upward social mobility.
Why? Because the predominant determinator of class is educational level. Yes, the Upper classes have money. However, the income (and prestige) are incentives provided to those who possess rare skills deemed necessary by society. Money doesn't create social standing - it's a by-product of it. Therefore, the prevailing view is that the way to ascend in class is to increase educational level. And this is largely the case. Yes, there are those in the upper classes who never finished high school, but they are far more the exception than the norm. And, for the most part, obtaining those skills that are rare enough to accumulate such incentives requires higher education.
All in all, an interesting little catch-22. Because, unarguably, access to higher quality education is certainly easier for the upper classes.
What absolutely grinds me are those who shriek and moan that everybody has a "right" to a college education. ?!? And you figure that in what way? Folks, College is nothing more than the modern version of the Grand Tour coupled to more specific training in a specific area. Is it the key to entrance into that amphorous Shangri-La known as the Middle Class? Largely, yes. Does this mean that "the man" is keeping you down and denying you your right? No. It will require greater effort for those that come out of the lower classes to make the leap into the next level up than it will for those who already exist there to maintain their status. This isn't a deliberate attempt to maintain the crystalline plains of Suburbia free of the proles - it's the way our social system works, will we, nil we. And good luck trying to change the behavior of that many people that occurs at such an ingrained level we don't even realize we do it, most of the time.
Nor does it always work. My boss has managed to educated herself out of the social stratum she came from. Quite late in life, at about 50 years of age. Bully for her. Except that she acquired her advanced degree in atypical fashion - and is gradually finding that she has no touchpoint or degree of commonality with her new "peers." In addition, her husband is quite content in remaining the Hillbilly at heart that he has always been. And their four grown children, whom they raised with a much more working class attitude, will not follow their mother - they don't begin to know how and they are as uncomfortably in that sphere as she is. It's a little scary to watch.
And by "working class values" I mean (as snagged from the ubiquitous Wiki):
"Parental views are the perhaps most essential factor in determining the socialization process which shapes new members of society. The values and standards used in child rearing are commonly closely related to the parent's occupational status. Parents from the professional class tend to raise their children to become curious independent thinkers, while working class parents raise their children to have a more communal perspective with a strong respect for authority. Middle class parents tend to emphasize internal standards and values while working class parents emphasize external values. Sociologist Dennis Gilbert uses a list of values identified by Melvin Kohn to be typical of the professional middle and working class. Middle class parents values for their children and themselves included: "Consideration of Others, Self-Control, Curiosity, Happiness, Honesty, Tolerance of Nonconformity, Open to Innovation... Self-Direction." This contrast to surveyed working class individuals who reported "Manners, Obedience... Neatness, Cleanliness, Strong Punishment of Deviant Behavior, Stock to Old Ways, People not Trustworthy... Strict Leadership" as values for themselves and their children. There is a strong correlation between these values and the occupational activities of the respondents. The job characteristics of middle class respondents included: "Work Independently, Varied Tasks, Work with People or Data," versus working class parents of reported "Close Supervision and Repetitive Work..." "
It will be interesting to see what lies ahead. Many an economist has made hay in the last 10 years over the increasing difficulty in class status advancement. Darling even commented after 10 years in the Marines that the ongoing shift toward the lower classes bearing the bulk of the burden for military service may cause problems in the future. Societal pressure has moved from general acceptance of military service and considering it something of high regard to a class-based dichotomy. Enlisted service tends to appeal much more strongly to the lower classes - largely because compensation is so poor and benefits like the GI Bill less generous. In one of his more morose moments, Darling even commented that within a generation or two a military coup would not surprise him overmuch if politics continues to pit a low-income military force against the whines of an Upper Class that fails to respect it. Though that might have been the Scotch Ale talking.
Still, one wonders how much class truly affects our daily lives, and how vital at least the myth of the potential for upward advancement is to our sanity.
However, recent interactions with various people in my life and some time spent curled up on the couch with Darling's newest copy of The Robb Report have wound my little brain into knots over the concept of Class.
In part, I mean Class in terms of etiquette and graceful social behavior. But I've been maundering more deeply about Class as in a stratified society. And make no mistake, gentle reader, American Society is indeed stratified. Whilst not so rigid as a caste system, it isn't all that easy to move from one class to another, and gets more difficult all the time. Granted, the American Dream involves upward mobility - but it must be admitted that this is more the exception than the rule.
Let's face it, we all feel more comfortable with and prefer to spend time largely with people from our own class. Similar experiences, values, and points of reference make it easier to relate. After all, funny as she may have seemed to some - how many of us would ever have felt at home spending time with Roseanne Barr? Did that show curl anybody else's hair?
A number of little things have brought this into sharper focus for me lately, and I think it's because my social network since graduation has continued to shift toward those people who share the middle to upper-middle class experience I've had. And because I interact on a daily basis with all classes of people. I find, whether because I'm getting more set in my ways or just flat losing patience that over time I have more and more difficulty relating with some of my clients or others I encounter.
Example one: Part of the traditional scope of a University education includes forcible soaking in cultural information of no discernable value at the time. We railed loudly at the time about taking classes we would never use. The University would spit back it's line about "well-rounded" students. Ah, but even a state university provides (and insists on doing so) a wide-ranging number of topics that every student must endure a certain level of exposure to. This does two things: First (and the point of the exercise) is that it forces interaction with people from other disciplines and peels the most dedicated away from their field just enough to prevent such intense narrowing of focus that you loose the ability to relate with people who aren't as wrapped up in their key project as they are. This is not always successful - the Computer Science department in particular was notorious for being largely composed of people who couldn't function in a social situation that consisted of non Computer Science people. And it utterly collapses at least on a temporary basis in intensive programs like Engineering, or professional programs, or those pursuing advanced degrees. BUT - it's presumed at that point that you HAVE the background - it's just being temporarily put into abeyance. Second - and less intentional, I think - it creates a point-of-reference gap between the college educated and those who for whatever reason forgo higher education. I have one technician who married at 18, and has worked in clerical positions since. She's a sweetheart - and I have so little in common with her that I can hardly even tell where she's coming from some days.
Another "fer instance": I stop of regularly at the same gas station. Twice now, one clerk has attempted to get me a pack of cigarettes. I do not, and have never, smoked. I give her my best perplexed look, and she tells me that I have a twin. I said "Ah, you've seen my Doppleganger, have you?"
Clerk: "What?"
Me: "My Doppleganger."
Clerk: "Huh?"
Um, never mind. I had assumed that the concept of a Doppleganger was ubiquitous enough that this quip would be received with humor. Hmmmmmm......
In my defense, I'm not the only one who considers mythology and ancient culture to be so readily understood as to require no explanation. I blame Darling. The poor dear raked all our leaves into the street yesterday, per city instructions, for collection by what we term "The Leaf Sucker." Last night began high winds gusting up to 65 mph. Darling sighed and said "I think I'll give it up and back the leaf pile, or, as I prefer to think of it, The Rock of Sisyphus." I found this hilarious. The above-mentioned technician - didn't get it. *sigh*
This is not to say that knowledge of ancient myths and legends is a sign of superiority. It is, in fact, a rather useless bit of trivia that knocks around in my brain. However, because these things are considered "classics" and commonly covered in High School college prep and College courses, they serve as common ground for those exposed to them.
Which brings me around to the general conundrum of College in general. Wherever did we, as a society, get the goofy notion that everybody can and should go to college? This is neither feasible, nor desirable. Many, many people don't have any desire to spend additional time in this sort of structured environment - learning things largely irrelevant to what they will do for a living. And a good many more (as I've gone on about previously) lack the mental capacity to handle the challenge. Dumbing down the curriculum is certainly not the right answer.
And "colleges" like Baker are not really colleges at all, but rather glorified vocational training programs. Note - there is nothing at all wrong with vocational training. In fact, I think we need more of it available. And many of the skilled trades need to be pried out of the hands of the Unions and placed into availability - like electrician education, for example. However, calling it a College trades on the notion of upward social mobility.
Why? Because the predominant determinator of class is educational level. Yes, the Upper classes have money. However, the income (and prestige) are incentives provided to those who possess rare skills deemed necessary by society. Money doesn't create social standing - it's a by-product of it. Therefore, the prevailing view is that the way to ascend in class is to increase educational level. And this is largely the case. Yes, there are those in the upper classes who never finished high school, but they are far more the exception than the norm. And, for the most part, obtaining those skills that are rare enough to accumulate such incentives requires higher education.
All in all, an interesting little catch-22. Because, unarguably, access to higher quality education is certainly easier for the upper classes.
What absolutely grinds me are those who shriek and moan that everybody has a "right" to a college education. ?!? And you figure that in what way? Folks, College is nothing more than the modern version of the Grand Tour coupled to more specific training in a specific area. Is it the key to entrance into that amphorous Shangri-La known as the Middle Class? Largely, yes. Does this mean that "the man" is keeping you down and denying you your right? No. It will require greater effort for those that come out of the lower classes to make the leap into the next level up than it will for those who already exist there to maintain their status. This isn't a deliberate attempt to maintain the crystalline plains of Suburbia free of the proles - it's the way our social system works, will we, nil we. And good luck trying to change the behavior of that many people that occurs at such an ingrained level we don't even realize we do it, most of the time.
Nor does it always work. My boss has managed to educated herself out of the social stratum she came from. Quite late in life, at about 50 years of age. Bully for her. Except that she acquired her advanced degree in atypical fashion - and is gradually finding that she has no touchpoint or degree of commonality with her new "peers." In addition, her husband is quite content in remaining the Hillbilly at heart that he has always been. And their four grown children, whom they raised with a much more working class attitude, will not follow their mother - they don't begin to know how and they are as uncomfortably in that sphere as she is. It's a little scary to watch.
And by "working class values" I mean (as snagged from the ubiquitous Wiki):
"Parental views are the perhaps most essential factor in determining the socialization process which shapes new members of society. The values and standards used in child rearing are commonly closely related to the parent's occupational status. Parents from the professional class tend to raise their children to become curious independent thinkers, while working class parents raise their children to have a more communal perspective with a strong respect for authority. Middle class parents tend to emphasize internal standards and values while working class parents emphasize external values. Sociologist Dennis Gilbert uses a list of values identified by Melvin Kohn to be typical of the professional middle and working class. Middle class parents values for their children and themselves included: "Consideration of Others, Self-Control, Curiosity, Happiness, Honesty, Tolerance of Nonconformity, Open to Innovation... Self-Direction." This contrast to surveyed working class individuals who reported "Manners, Obedience... Neatness, Cleanliness, Strong Punishment of Deviant Behavior, Stock to Old Ways, People not Trustworthy... Strict Leadership" as values for themselves and their children. There is a strong correlation between these values and the occupational activities of the respondents. The job characteristics of middle class respondents included: "Work Independently, Varied Tasks, Work with People or Data," versus working class parents of reported "Close Supervision and Repetitive Work..." "
It will be interesting to see what lies ahead. Many an economist has made hay in the last 10 years over the increasing difficulty in class status advancement. Darling even commented after 10 years in the Marines that the ongoing shift toward the lower classes bearing the bulk of the burden for military service may cause problems in the future. Societal pressure has moved from general acceptance of military service and considering it something of high regard to a class-based dichotomy. Enlisted service tends to appeal much more strongly to the lower classes - largely because compensation is so poor and benefits like the GI Bill less generous. In one of his more morose moments, Darling even commented that within a generation or two a military coup would not surprise him overmuch if politics continues to pit a low-income military force against the whines of an Upper Class that fails to respect it. Though that might have been the Scotch Ale talking.
Still, one wonders how much class truly affects our daily lives, and how vital at least the myth of the potential for upward advancement is to our sanity.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-27 07:13 pm (UTC)I was very happy when shows like Rosanne and Married with Children came on because finally there were (to me) believable families on sit coms, who didn't have the latest greatest everything.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-27 07:47 pm (UTC)My argument was more that class lines are less income based than education. Which are intimately tied, admittedly.
As to those type of sitcoms - I never could cope. Not because of the economic situation (heck, who COULD relate to the Cosby's, after all). It was the way they treated each other and their attitude about the world that was a major disconnect for me. I would NEVER have lipped off to my parents that way. OTOH - My high school years encompassed many a philosophical and/or theological conversation with Dad. Who is NOT, in fact, a college grad - but DOES have that innate curiosity and information-seeking attitude that tends to be more common in those in whom education is valued and encouraged. In spite of parents who put no value whatever on education (and complain to him that I am spoiled and over-educated). This same attitude is found at what I consider an abnormally high level in the SCA when compared to society at large.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-27 08:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-27 08:39 pm (UTC)I never "got" Roseanne. My mum started Universtity the same time my brother and I did (actually I started the year before).
But...
Holy Cow! Did I notice the class difference when I began working at the museum. I started with a lady who was definately Upper Class (I use the capitals on purpose). I didn't get her at all, why would she be stooping so low as to work with us, and she definately gave off the attitude that she was above us...then I learned that she never finished High School. She wasn't expected to, she's in her late 50s and at the time, she had a few suitors. Unfortunately, none of them asked her to marry. I understand her a lot more now, and even though she gives off the air, I understand that it's her upbringing, just like mine was when we were living below the poverty line.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-27 09:13 pm (UTC)Funny how that works, isn't it? My husband probably had an even lower income childhood than I did. And he's got much more of the Upper Crust attitude than I do. BUT - his grandparents and great grandparents were "gentlemen farmers" - huge acreage and influence in the region. And if you follow the tree further back, he's a Nesbit, and a Plantagenet. The veneer is paper thin, but it sticks like glue. ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-27 10:07 pm (UTC)We are the Gentry
Date: 2007-11-28 01:41 pm (UTC)Last night I'm talking to my brother about Femke's post, actually reading it to him over the phone. Then he made a good point about class in America and our involvement in the SCA vs. historical context. WE ALL ARE THE GENTRY BY OUR VERY ACTIONS. In truth, not as a bequithment by Society custom.
When something goes wrong, who steps up to fix it at the local level? We do. When something needs to be done and done well, quickly and with insight who does it? We do.
When new people need help setting up their SCA kit, who helps them? We do. When someone needs helps building something , moving their posessions or organizing willing hands to help who does it? We do.
When there is some controversy or issue and no one wants to be the lightening rod or provide the decisions behind the scenes that people are looking for? We do.
Those actions are the traditional duties of the Gentry. If we bring our mundane lives and backgrounds as part of of personas into the SCA, can't we also bring our SCA experiences and skills into our personas in mundane life?
Just a thought!
Re: We are the Gentry
Date: 2007-11-29 05:17 pm (UTC)Though I've noticed that our Class conditioning bleeds through there, as well.
I've noticed a few people of high Society Rank who come from working class backgrounds that have a RABID dislike of anybody they find out mundanely carries an advanced degree. I suspect it's a feeling of "I finally got one-up on them in the Society, I'll be damned if I have to treat them as an equal!"