what i mean to suggest by the below lists, and i did it way too flippantly, is that class has no necessary markers, though i would maintain that it can be marked by clusters of sufficient markers, like food preferences or regional accent/dialect, or politics or an individual's or any number of things you think of when someone says "low class." while the class system in the U.S. has a clear history with respect to poor laws and geography and various forms of access, those easy identity markers have been blown to smithereens (note: smithereens are still very tiny pieces of what they were originally) starting around the 1950s by the onset of credit and the various types of mobility credit allows, even while it (credit) ever more finely calibrates intractable differences between people and their various forms of identity (forms of debt).
my problem is the huge bunch of difference that the term "class" invokes, that is very far from homogeneous, and that representation under such circumstances is impossible. i think other identity categories in the academy would benefit from such structural analysis that attends to difference, but class eludes that because its undefinable from the beginning. i.e., i know what "black" means, but i basically sort of only know class when i see it. plus, we can talk about class in several ways: in relation to one's job; in relation to one's lifestyle; in relation to one's economic stability; in relation to one's self-reported identity; in relation to one's tastes in consumer goods; in relations to one's appearance. these are all very different things, and but come together in various Venn diagram-like configurations, so that one person talking about "class" is talking about mountain dew and nascar, while another person talking about class is talking about exploited labor (which in turn cuts across income levels). and sometimes, but far from always, these two hypothetical people are talking about the same group. and that "sometimes" is just enough so that people can act like they know what class is, but that "far from always" is what makes it so difficult to talk about class in this country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I find your observations interesting because discussions of class are related to one of the Biq Questions in my life: to what extent someone is responsible for her life. I think I believe each of us is ultimatly responsible for her situation; I know some people were born with two strikes against them. I can't resolve the tension.
Under the "For What It's Worth" catergory: (i) Your observation about class "i basically sort of only know class when i see it" echos a famous observation by a Supreme Court justice (Potter Stewart?) about pornography ("I know when I see it"); (ii) another example of the various and conflicting indicia of class are the college graduate who chooses a low paying profession (e.g. social work), but retains expensive (viewed as "refined") tastes. Credit allows that person to have (for a time) the lifestyle to which he feels "entitled," but can't support. An extreme example of this type of behavior is the artist who on others to maintain his/her lifestyle. Of course these examples also have their exceptions. Gandhi was supposed to have said his supporters complained it cost them a fortune to keep him in poverty. Many think it was worth the expense.
/S/ A Devoted Reader
/S/A.D.R.: though i couldn't have come up with his name, i was definitely invoking the obscenity comment in the supreme court. too bad more things can't operate without an a priori. (Big Questions included?)
Post a Comment