Dear Victor and everybody-
_____
From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 3:03 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Working and upper classes
Gene,
This kind of stereotyping is highly suspect - but it's fun to do.
Victor, I think that the notion of "stereotyping" (like "bias") is one of
the most misunderstood and mistreated. It has bad reputation and rightfully
so when it is rigid and used disrespectfully to other people. However,
critique of stereotyping also comes from old positivism urging to eliminate
stereotyping (and biases) to be "fair" and "objective" (or namely dead :-)).
Stereotyping is patterning other's people behaviors and actions to develop
certain expectations for other people's actions and prolepses for
communication with them. I think that stereotyping like biasing is the core
of any organism - it means to be alive. To address the problems with
stereotyping and biases, one needs to master them (to avoid to become a
slave of one's own stereotyping and biases) rather to eliminate them (which
is never possible unless one commits suicide). Biases have to be revealed
and thought through; stereotypes have to also revealed and tested.
So do not be afraid of stereotyping - just do it responsibly (like
drinking!)
Victor, I was "meditating" on your three points (very-very good points) and
found one more that relate to your points (they all seem to relate to each
other which probably mean that they are aspects of bigger patterns).
4. (or whatever number) Middle-class people often explain other people's
motives by reference to "choices" and "choice making" while working class
people refer to "necessity" and upper class old moneys refer to "destiny"
(which some people may call "privilege"). By the way, in its own turn, this
defines how differently people discipline their children: middle class
people discipline their children through organizing "choices" for their
children, working class discipline their children through organizing
"necessities" for their children, upper class people discipline their own
children through organizing "destinies" for their children (W is a good
example of such disciplining).
What do you think?
Eugene
Marx's disdain for the "timidness" and "hypocrisy" of the middle-classes
fits both lowest and highest class valuations of Middle class "culture." I
don't know if you can imagine the extreme contempt implied by the term,
"bourgeois," or,even better, "petty bourgeois" in left and right-wing
circles. One of the more enduring successes of the effort of the left-wing
kibbutz movement here was rejection of "bourgeois" politesse in
interpersonal relations. Talking straight without diplomatic concern for the
feelings and beliefs of others, "dugri" is still regarded as right-practice
by large sectors of Israeli society.
Here are a few additional stereotypes for distinguishing upper and lower
class custom from that of the middle classes.
1. A cavalier attitude towards contractual responsibility: The
middle-classes pay their bills promptly, while upper and lower classes will
do all they can to postpone payment.
2. A cynical regard for the workings of society and for the motives of
"those that work them." (This is something of a synthesis of 1: Disrespect
of many middle-class values and manerisms, 7: Respect of direct speech and
direct (physical) actions.and 8: "Us vs. them" mentality; and somewhat
contradicts 2: Respect of traditions and authority.)
3. High regard for the role of fortune, "luck," in determination of
one's fate. As opposed to the "hard work" strategy of most members of the
middle-classes. (This is another aspect of 4, Belief that "people are born
who they are" rather than "become who they are".)
Hochschild isn't the first to have made the observation that there is more
resemblence between upper and lower class cultures than either have with the
culture of the middle-classes. A much experienced private soldier put it
this way: "The best ranks in the army are at the very bottom or the very
top; at the bottom no one bothers giving you orders and at the top there's
no one to give you orders." What do you think of that?
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Matusov <mailto:ematusov@udel.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:48 AM
Subject: Working and upper classes
Dear Peter and everybody-
Thanks a lot, Peter, for very useful article. Recently I read several
interesting books discussing certain cultural alliances between working
class people and upper class people (so-called "old moneys"). Of course,
such discussions involve certain overgeneralizations and rigidity (like
discussions of any social groups) but I think they reflect certain true
tendencies in their "cultural models" (or ideologies). I definitely
recommend the following book for all xmca-ers interested in the issue:
Lubrano, A. (2004). Limbo: Blue-collar roots, white-collar dreams. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Here, I extracted several common features of working class and upper class'
cultural models:
1. Disrespect of many middle-class values and manerisms.
2. Respect of traditions and authority.
3. Value of honor. It is interesting that the movie Titanic has
distorted historical truth by portraying passengers (especially upper class
male passengers) fighting with each other for access to the lifeboats. In
reality, this behavior was exceptional if non-existent (I personally checked
the documental sources). Rich males guided by the honor rule "women and
children first" were the highest among drowned (about 70% in first class and
90% in second class), while only 4% first class and 20% second class women
drowned. I agree with Fareed Zakaria (a rather conservative author) that if
the movie had portrayed the truth, it would have been unbelievable for
middle class audience.
4. Belief that "people are born who they are" rather than "become who
they are". You have to be born into working class and upper class to be in
your class. Middle class life-style always involves certain metamorphosis
that each generation has to go through. Unlike working and upper (old money)
classes, middle class status is never guarantee simply by birth.
5. Deep anti-intellectualism, anti-credentialism, and anti- (formal,
bookish) education. Bush was not stupid when he "proudly" exposed his C in
Yale - it did appeal to working class people.
6. Patriarchy and machismo. Respect of physical force and physical
power. Alfred Lubrano, a working class rooted journalist, confessed that he
often mentally checks if he can beat up any newly met male.
7. Respect of direct speech and direct (physical) actions. This is
limited in upper class people who prefer direct speech with equal or below
and diplomacy with more powerful others. Middle class folks use diplomacy
with everybody which is often perceived by working and upper class people as
hypocrisy.
8. "Us vs. them" mentality. It is interesting that for both working
class and upper class people, "they" are overlap. For working class, "they"
are bosses - managers - which are often middle class. For "old moneys" upper
class, "they" are "new rich" middle class. Middle class has more
"classless", non-adversarial mentality of "smoothness" and "niceness".
It can be argued that although working class people and middle-class people
may often have common interests, their cultural models are very different
and often incompatible. Also, although working class and upper class
economic interests are often at odds, their cultural models are often more
compatible than ones of middle class. Arlie Hochschild, the author of the
article that Peter cited below, raised a very good question of when and why
interests take over cultural models for working class people.
What do you think?
Eugene
_____
From: Peter Farruggio [mailto:pfarr@uclink4.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 6:01 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: false consciousness
To me the question of false consciousness is the key to why there has been
no workers' revolution in the US, despite the fact that it has had a large
powerful working class for more than 100 years. I agree with Marx that
"being determines consciousness" which means that the natutre of one's
relationship to capital and income-producing property is what sets the tone
for how one views the world and the particular social/economic/political
system. Middle class people see the world very differently than working
class people (including Bourdieu's "habitus" and all that), and the
bourgeoisie sees things very differently from all of the above. But I also
agree with Marx about the dastardly role of false consciousness among the
working class (cleverly cultivated and manipulated by the bourgeoisie, as
explained by Gramsci) in duping people into accepting values inimical to
their own welfare.
Here's an interesting recent study that documents once again how it works in
electoral politics. This is just a snippet from the intro, along with one
link to a discussion of the larger study. I have more material on this for
interested parties.
Cheers,
Pete Farruggio
UC Berkeley Sociologist Arlie Hochschild answers the question, "Why are 50%
of Blue Collar White Males Planning to Vote for Bush in 2004, Even When He
is Picking Their Pockets and Stealing the Futures of Their Children?"
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
"George W. Bush is sinking in the polls, but a few beats on the war drum
could reverse that trend and re-elect him in 2004. Ironically, the sector of
American society now poised to keep him in the White House is the one which
stands to lose the most from virtually all of his policies -- blue-collar
men. A full 49 percent of them and 38 percent percent of blue-collar women
told a January 2003 Roper poll they would vote for Bush in 2004." -- Arlie
Hochschild
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16885
****************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
At 11:36 AM 12/24/2003, you wrote:
Thanks for another great thought-provoker, Eugene. I will be away from
computer for the next days but I want to slip in a thought in this thread
because I have been giving this problem of false consciousness some thought,
especially in respect to workers, but also all social classes. My
experience has generally confirmed the idea that a key driver of people's
political and social consciousness is the relationship they have with
property - their own, and that of others. Just measuring income and assets
in dollar totals loses much of the dynamics of this relationship. In my
opinion it is property (of which money is one form) that really constitutes
membership and aspired membership in a social class. Property comes in
various forms; capital (loosely, objects that can be worked on or with that
can produce saleable products) at one end of the spectrum and personal
property with negligible value (mundane clothes, dishes, etc.) at the other.
Its the relationship people and families have to the first end, to capital
(money-making property) that I think has the deepest effects on working
people and everyone else. These relationships come in many, many forms,
from outright ownership, to owing a substantial debt to be the caretaker of
some property, to owning a capitalist business, to working for a capitalist
and identifying with their capital and methods of business. Aspirations for
shifting one's class position - for example, quitting one's job and owning
one's own business - also play an enormous role. When major aspects of the
capitalist property system break down, or especially, alternate between
stability and mass misery, working people begin to restructure their
conception of property - personal, private and public - and under those
conditions, begin to lose their false, individualistic consciousness and
gain a much more realistic sense of the socio-economic system they are
collectively trying to live in. Under such conditions, mass working class
consciousness often begins to emerge. Attitudes about social issues undergo
deep transformations as the oppressed engage in struggle; notions of
emancipation and freedom become paramount. Rich capitalists, of course,
would see this process in just the opposite way - when the workers begin to
think of property and social change in a socialist way, they are losing
their minds. The essential idea I am suggesting here is to view people's
relationships with property as a key to comprehending core features of their
political, social and cultural consciousness. As their relationships with
property change, so does their consciousness.
Best,
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST