Fussell should be humiliated by proposing "Class X", which is clearly the (self-defeating) upper-middle attempt to ascend into the upper by demonstrating superior sophistication via tasteful subversion of good taste. Class X is not some escape, it is just the same old engine that keeps the thing turning (which is why it diffused down to the middle class over the next generation or so).
Conscious subversion of class expectation is the core goal of (failing) upper middle status climbers. Why? Because actual indifference to class expectation is the fundamental class marker of the upper class, and the climbing upper middles are ineptly aping it.
True ascent to the upper requires actually not caring, which is why the upper class is so hard to enter: it must be stumbled into indifferently like some magic door only found by those to whom it is invisible. Being third+ generation rich unsurprisingly makes this easier.
Very nice, Thankyou Psmiths. When I read about this type of class stuff I'm always reminded of "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. Our deepening class divide has some of it's roots in an intelligence, learning divide, that sent most of our young smart people to college in the big cities. Where they stayed. I love living in rural america, I wish there were more people out here who liked to read books.
Very enjoyable. I have not completed a survey of your work, but I would be interested to know your interpretation of “intelligence“ with regard to class membership. For example, did Einstein receive a US upper class membership based on the strength of his scientific achievements? Perhaps not. Further, do truly stupid exemplars tend to fall out of their class more frequently due to self-inflicted wounds? Is this more typical of the US than other cultures? Do figures such as Musk and Bezos and Ellison et. al. represent an entirely new class, or just oddly visible members of a previously invisible class?
Politics has been called “show business for ugly people“ and it seems that most politicians are dependent upon monetary support. If this is the case, most politicians could not be considered upper class due to the restrictions on their beliefs, or at least their ability to act on those beliefs. Can we say that money and class are at odds with regard to expression of values by the political system in general, and is this really a good thing? Do we in fact have “a political class?“
Sorry for all the questions, but it was a very thought-provoking piece. Thanks again.
I'm a little skeptical that the US is a less "class-based society" than the UK or elsewhere in the eurozone- last I checked twin studies looking at UK GCSE results indicated a "50% random, 50% genetic" result typical of heritability studies in general, although twin studies from the first half of the 20th century showed much stronger influences of SES. Studies looking at Scandinavian populations also show no strong influence of parental SES on lifetime income, IIRC.
I can't really comment in detail on all the status-seeking behavioural markers you're listing here, but the probability of changing your SES relative to your parents in different countries seems like an empirical data-driven question, and it's not obvious to me the US is radically different in this regard.
Okay, but if the probability of changing your SES has almost nothing to do with your parents/background aside from genetic factors, is this even a class system, as opposed to just subcultures?
Fussell suggests that “caste” might be a better term for what he’s describing, since it avoids the confusion about economics, but it’s not the way anyone in the English-speaking world actually discusses any of this.
The "I don't have a TV" of today is "I'm not on social media" :D
Fussell should be humiliated by proposing "Class X", which is clearly the (self-defeating) upper-middle attempt to ascend into the upper by demonstrating superior sophistication via tasteful subversion of good taste. Class X is not some escape, it is just the same old engine that keeps the thing turning (which is why it diffused down to the middle class over the next generation or so).
Conscious subversion of class expectation is the core goal of (failing) upper middle status climbers. Why? Because actual indifference to class expectation is the fundamental class marker of the upper class, and the climbing upper middles are ineptly aping it.
True ascent to the upper requires actually not caring, which is why the upper class is so hard to enter: it must be stumbled into indifferently like some magic door only found by those to whom it is invisible. Being third+ generation rich unsurprisingly makes this easier.
Very nice, Thankyou Psmiths. When I read about this type of class stuff I'm always reminded of "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. Our deepening class divide has some of it's roots in an intelligence, learning divide, that sent most of our young smart people to college in the big cities. Where they stayed. I love living in rural america, I wish there were more people out here who liked to read books.
Very enjoyable. I have not completed a survey of your work, but I would be interested to know your interpretation of “intelligence“ with regard to class membership. For example, did Einstein receive a US upper class membership based on the strength of his scientific achievements? Perhaps not. Further, do truly stupid exemplars tend to fall out of their class more frequently due to self-inflicted wounds? Is this more typical of the US than other cultures? Do figures such as Musk and Bezos and Ellison et. al. represent an entirely new class, or just oddly visible members of a previously invisible class?
Politics has been called “show business for ugly people“ and it seems that most politicians are dependent upon monetary support. If this is the case, most politicians could not be considered upper class due to the restrictions on their beliefs, or at least their ability to act on those beliefs. Can we say that money and class are at odds with regard to expression of values by the political system in general, and is this really a good thing? Do we in fact have “a political class?“
Sorry for all the questions, but it was a very thought-provoking piece. Thanks again.
I'm a little skeptical that the US is a less "class-based society" than the UK or elsewhere in the eurozone- last I checked twin studies looking at UK GCSE results indicated a "50% random, 50% genetic" result typical of heritability studies in general, although twin studies from the first half of the 20th century showed much stronger influences of SES. Studies looking at Scandinavian populations also show no strong influence of parental SES on lifetime income, IIRC.
I can't really comment in detail on all the status-seeking behavioural markers you're listing here, but the probability of changing your SES relative to your parents in different countries seems like an empirical data-driven question, and it's not obvious to me the US is radically different in this regard.
It’s not less class-based, the classes are just less explicit and legible.
Okay, but if the probability of changing your SES has almost nothing to do with your parents/background aside from genetic factors, is this even a class system, as opposed to just subcultures?
Fussell suggests that “caste” might be a better term for what he’s describing, since it avoids the confusion about economics, but it’s not the way anyone in the English-speaking world actually discusses any of this.