# Social Class



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

As a follow-up to the "Middle Class" thread, here is an article that I found quite interesting.

From .

A Study of Social Class in America
by Will Skinner

For full enjoyment and comprehension, readers should familiarize themselves with the works of Thorstein Veblen, Paul Fussell, Nelson W. Aldrich, C. Wright Mills, and others, specifically the following books:

Theory of the Leisure Class 
Class by Cooper
Class by Fussell
Old Money by Aldrich
How to Meet the Rich
How to Marry the Rich
Rich Kids by Sedgwick
Bobos in Paradise
The Tastemakers
The Power Elite
and innumerable other texts that can be found online and in the library.

What is the upper class?

The upper class is an element of society that is made up of people who all have the same training, the same goal and the same "occupation." In that way, it is like any other social segment.

The upper class man or woman is one who has been trained -- generally from birth, or at least from a very early age -- to be, first and foremost, a representative of the prowess and acumen of someone who has lived in the past. It is by this relationship with the past that the upper class is differentiated from the lower orders.

Simply put, the upper class is a living representation of the power of an earlier age. This concept will help one understand the behavior of the uppers as well as how they differ from others.

An upper class person has a duty to his forebears to paint them in as grand a light as possible to anyone who would care to notice. As Veblen showed, there are two ways of doing this: conspicuous consumption & conspicuous leisure. I will not rehash the two here other than to point out the following:

With the rise of the middle classes in the 19th and especially 20th centuries, it has become relatively easy for a man to acquire a vast fortune in a short span of time. Thus, the ability to consume is no longer the perquisite of a select few. Conspicuous consumption has since fallen out of favor by the "true uppers" for showing lineage (see Fussell), and has been taken up by the "new rich" (generally represented by the upper-middle, middle, and even a lucky few of the lower classes called lottery winners).

Conspicuous leisure, on the other hand, is still as powerful a motivating factor for the uppers as it has always been, because it still has the ability to distinguish them from new money. A "self-made" man usually has limited time for non-productive endeavor for two reasons: first, quite often the only reason he stays rich is because of continuing gainful employment. Second and more importantly, it is often drummed into the lower orders from an early age that they are to work hard and be productive. Even when they reach a socially acceptable and potentially self-sustaining level of wealth, that early training is hard to overcome (cf. Freudâ€™s "superego") and usually drives them to some sort of productive labor whenever they get a spare moment. It is only the upper orders who feel no sense of shame when doing nothing productive.

In this case we're using Veblen's definition of the term "productive," since even uppers regularly engage in work. Their "work" usually consists of learning new things, making art (or crafts), traveling, amateur sporting, philosophizing, political activism and the like. True enough, there are those who don't even do that, and merely use their lives to spend money, party and use drugs. And there are some who vigorously reject their role as foil to an ancestor's might and "descend" to productive work.

Understand that the vast majority of the upper classes, and all classes for that matter, have no conscious idea that any of these things are happening. Uppers merely feel an instinctive disdain for productive labor, they know not why. If circumstances arise that put them in dire financial circumstances they very often fall into serious and problematic "impecunity" and become part of the "spurious leisure class" a la Veblen.

Different people and institutions categorize the classes and indeed the term "class" itself in different ways depending upon personal and political goals. Marx defined class as a relation to the production of material goods and thus in his mind there existed only two classes. And while this is perfectly valid, it is also exceptionally dull. I find it helpful to generalize American social classes in the following way, the "232+1" approach, a takeoff of the classic 9-tier sociology approach:

232+1 Traditional 
Upper-upper | 
Lower-upper | "Upper class" 
Upper-middle | | 
True Middle | "Middle class" 
Lower-middle | | 
Upper-labor | (The Great Middle) | "Working class" 
Lower-labor | | "Lower class" 
Underclasses |

"232+1" refers to the fact that the upper classes are divided into 2 subsets, the middles into 3, the labors (working) into 2, with a "kicker" Underclass that is separated from the others and is akin to the Hindu "untouchable" caste.

You'll notice that classes within the 232+1 model frequently overlap when compared to traditional thinking. That fact, along with the classes themselves, will now be discussed.

Before we go into them, let's make it clear that, since this is a model of reality, it's not completely accurate because it's simpler than reality. It is a 'digitization,' a compartmentalization of reality, not reality itself. Therefore, obviously, some of the following generalizations will be inaccurate. However, they serve as an enlightening, and fairly specific, way of looking at society, especially American society.

Upper-upper

The Upper-upper class usually has an income that is 90% or more inherited. They run the gamut as far as education, sophistication, and the middle-class concept of "manners" go. They generally do NOT behave in a way that the Middles think of as "upper class." Table etiquette, gentlemanliness, cleanliness and other modes of behavior, held in high esteem by the middles, can be nonexistent in the Upper-uppers. While the stereotypical Upper-upper, driving an expensive car (or being driven in one), living in a s****y abode far from the masses, etc., certainly holds true for many of them, quite often Upper-uppers live in what has been called "poverty chic" -- driving beat-up cars, dressing shabbily, living in run-down quarters, etc. Some Upper-uppers are even quite insane, driven mad by the fact that they are outside the realm of understanding of most other humans. If their family wealth has deteriorated to the point that it cannot support them, they descend to Lower-Upper status, but can drop no further. Once bred to be upper class, one cannot be any other. Even when they are down-and-out and living in the gutter, as a surprising number of Upper-uppers find themselves, they are still upper class.

Otherwise, the Upper-uppers can be found doing their own thing far from everybody else, or attempting to make a difference in the world through philanthropic activities. A remarkable few of them are ever in the celebrity spotlight, though many could be if desired.

The big question for the Upper-uppers is: What now? Their lives are lived day-to-day almost in the same way the lower class' are, since they have essentially no long-term goals. But while the lowers have no goals because they're sure they'll never reach them, Upper-uppers have no goals because fulfilling them is so easy. They display all the decadence, licentiousness and decay one might expect from a group that has no place to go and nothing to strive for.

Upper-Upper is frequently called "Old Money" because its wealth has been around for awhile. This comes from the days when money begat money and wealth grew generation after generation. With the advancement of crushing death taxes beginning in England around a century ago the ability of personal money to span generations became limited. This is also the case in the US. However, it is true that the children of self-made men can't really be members of the Upper-Uppers, because only an upper (Upper-Upper or Lower-Upper) can raise an Upper-Upper, and self-made men are, by definition, not either, as we will see.

Lower-upper

Lower-uppers are the children of the newly rich or Upper-uppers who have descended due to poverty or personal choice (see Part II). The children of the newly rich have been bred in childhood, not usually at birth, to be upper class. Hence they have some remnants of the middle-class "work ethic" in them and have a better time finding goals to strive for. They also have a better sense of money than the Upper-uppers, since their parents instilled some memories of poverty in them. And, with the exception of a few children of tech-boom, entertainment or pro-athlete new money they're not as rich as the Upper-uppers. They usually have a fairly high level of education, but generally never strove very hard in school and probably got "Cs" across the board, much to their middle-class parents' chagrin.

That's not to say that the children of ALL new money will be Lower-upper class. Middle-class new rich sometimes effectively train their kids to remain productive, middle-class citizens. In fact it has become very trendy for Upper-Middle and True-Middles to leave very little to their children, with the purpose of making the kids work for a living just as the parent had to. And very low class people who have, for example, won the lottery, usually will not have the social wherewithal to give their children an upbringing that will allow them to reach Lower-upper class status. Generally the children then will fall somewhere in the middle orders in values and style.

And please do not confuse the Lower-Upper class with "New Money," as many people do. "New Money" itself can NOT be part of the upper classes, and is by definition anything other than the uppers. Your own personal wealth does not lift you into the upper classes. In fact -- with the exception of marriage, which traditionally and troublingly can raise a middle-class person into the uppers -- nothing you can do can make you upper class, your parents had to have done it.

The Upper Class in General

Again, a child's parents being rich doesn't ensure the child will be upper class. There has to be an intention, conscious or not, on the part of the parents (or guardians appointed by the parents, or grandparents, or whomever) to raise the child in that way. Parents who were themselves raised to be upper class will almost assuredly, by instinct, raise their children (directly or through a nanny) to be the same.

One can feel a certain emotional distance when near an upper-class person. This sometimes comes off as a "snobbishness" to the lower and middle classes. And while, yes, there is always an air of superiority inbred into the uppers, there is another, more interesting reason for the perceived distance as well. The interpersonal distance one feels is a result of the upper class person being raised in a relatively large space -- separated from others both physically and emotionally. Upper class folks can almost immediately recognize this distance in other upper class folks and it makes them feel extremely at ease, whereas the lower classes seem to psychologically "crowd" them. Let's look into these physical and social distances further.

An example of physical separation would be the large house and grounds an upper class person is raised in. At least comparatively large to the small suburban tract homes and apartment complexes of the middle and working classes respectively. Vacationing on a ranch, sailing on the seas far from others, shopping and dining in places that few can afford to be... all these are examples of the physical isolation that uppers grow up with.

Socially and emotionally, uppers are separated from others through manners. Manners, not to be confused with etiquette, are an attempt to ritualize common social interactions. This makes them more routinized, more predictable, more homogeneous and hence less personal. These manners are deeply bred into uppers, and do far more than the middles think they do. They aren't an attempt to be "nice" and to make social interactions run smoothly (though they end up doing so), they are really an attempt to remain psychologically separated from others, even when physically close to them.

Etiquette, on the other hand, is the middle-class idea of doing what is least likely to make others despise you. While there is some overlap of etiquette and manners, the intent of each is rather different. We'll talk futher about etiquette in the middle-class section.

Uppers who are conscious of their higher status in life say "How do you do" when meeting so as to be recognized by other uppers as such. Others have unconsciously aped the standard middle- and lower-class greetings, which are discussed later. And some simply do not wish to be identified as part of a class and/or think the above greeting to be overwrought, outdated and affected.

C. Wright Mills' hierarchy (as well as many others) lists CEOs of large corporations in the upper classes. But truly, CEOs are most definitely NOT "uppers" and are profoundly middle class. The ability to generate a profit (though not found in all CEOs) is a very middle-class ability. Make a real born-and-raised "upper" CEO and more often than not he'll run the business straight into the ground. With few exceptions, uppers have little understanding of how a production process works. They do not understand it at a gut level like the middle class does, because the ability to make money through productive enterprise is a result of the need for money, which an upper did not grow up with and doesn't fathom. He was raised, on the other hand, to shun productive labor at a gut level (see Veblen) and to look down on "trade" in all its manifestations.

Upper-middle

Leaving the ranks of the upper class, which usually grows up with and inherits a good deal of money, one encounters the middle class, which doesn't. Upper-middles may be as rich or richer than uppers, but they have generally worked for it. Profession and education are important to the Upper-middles. They are the true "professionals:" doctors, lawyers, professors, and the like. They are "successful" in the middle-class definition of the term. They are also the most cultured of society and are the major frequenters of the symphony, avant garde theater, and lovers of foreign film. More than the other classes, an Upper-middle will know who Rodin or Pollack were. He also would be most likely to know the implications of the Diet of Worms in modern society and understand the second law of thermodynamics though not an engineer.

Some CEOs may be considered Upper-middle because of their power and influence, but frequently CEOs are so intent on the "bottom line" and running their business that they never become cultured or mannered. They remain stuck in the True-Middle class and raise their children to be the same (see chapters on Bill Paley in Aldrich's Old Money). True-Middles don't have the style of the Upper-middle, which is best exemplified by the "Bobos" in Brooks' Bobos in Paradise.

Education is vitally important to the Upper-middles, and one truly cannot be ranked a member without at least a 4-year degree from a tier-one school, and preferably a post-graduate degree. They are often better educated than the uppers and advertise their alma mater freely with bumper stickers, license plate frames and tassles hanging from their rear-view mirrors (see Fussell). They remain interested in whether their school's football team wins or loses even into old age.

The True Middle

True Middles are at the fulcrum, at the turning point, between the lower and upper orders, between the high and the low, and they receive the ire of both. Uppers dislike them, lowers hate them, and for essentially the same reason: they remind each of the other. A True Middle is the combination, in one individual, of upper class and lower class. The resulting psychological indesiveness and insecurity, caused by being truly stuck smack in the middle, is obvious to all.

True middles are the quintessential strivers of the world. The money and status seekers. The salesmen and their entourage. The entrepreneur, the real estate agent, the insurance agent, the car salesman, the stock broker, the local politician, the mid-level accountant, the middle manager. They dream about fast cars, big houses and beautiful women. They are the people that America enshrines and who reached their pinnacle in the mid-1980s.

Bud Fox in the movie Wall Street is a specimen of this class. Note, his father (from whom Bud wants to distance himself), a Lower-middle union leader (a step above Upper-Labor due to the managerial position), Gordon Gecko (whom Bud wants to be like), a borderline True-Middle/Upper-Middle wannabe. The movie is a fantastic study about the trauma that this class experiences.

True-Middles' social and, hence, psychological instability is exemplified by their assiduous devotion to etiquette and "correctness." Correct behavior, correct dress, maintaining their cars and homes in a neat, polished, correct way. In this vein, True-Middles are apt to ape the uppers and look silly doing it, as discussed by Fussell and others. But they are often and reliably uncovered by the first words they utter upon meeting a new person, namely, "Nice to meet you." This differs from the upper- and lower-class introductory declarations as discussed below.

Note on greetings and introductions:

Greetings, namely the first words that you utter when meeting someone new, are an interesting and specialized form of human recognition. They are designed to identify members of your social circle to you, to identify friend or foe. Let's look at their unique character.

Two people meet. "Nice to meet you." "Nice to meet you." They have said the same phrase to each other. It is a code phrase, to be echoed exactly the same way back to the original speaker to show that one belongs. More notable are the upper- and lower-class versions of the same, "How do you do" and "How ya doin'/How's it goin'/What's up" respectively. While posing as questions so as to deceive, these code phrases are, again, meant to be echoed back rather than answered.

Also note, these forms of recognition can be easily fooled, by simply knowing that one is not to answer the questions posed. However, this can be surprisingly difficult when one hasn't been raised in the corresponding way. Non-working class folks frequently find themselves instinctively saying "Fine, thanks, and you?" when a laborer greets them with "How's it going?"

Lower-middle

The Lower-middles are a fairly small class of folks. Generally they are white-collar, but extremely low-level white collar. The door-to-door salesman, the local restaurant manager, the foreman or overseer of blue-collar workers. Also included in this class are waitresses, bartenders, checkout clerks, etc. While some studies drop these folks even lower in the social hierarchy, they are in fact not lower, because in dealing with the public on a regular basis they require at least a little sophistication and psychological understanding of people and the world. Far more than, say, a working-class machinist.

Lower-middle class workers often find themselves doing their non-working class jobs in close proximity to working-class folks and thus can be (and frequently are) classed in with them. The shift manager at the local auto-parts shop, for example.

The Lower-middle class is the meeting place and transition area of the blue collar and the white collar. No heavy lifting is involved and no hands get soiled, but just barely.

The Middles in General and the "Great Middle"

The middle class is characterized by striving and wanting, "want" being derivative of "lack." Upper-middles strive to be upper class through "culture," because Upper-middles assume that uppers spend their lives drinking champagne in Paris and reading Proust. True Middles mimic the Upper-middles by trying to obtain money and an education, which they see as elevating themselves above their working-class forefathers. Lower-middles ape True Middles by trying to get a decent job, which they imagine separates the highs from the lows.

Interestingly, what we experience as Americans is largely dictated by the middle class, since there are so damn many of them here. As a group they have a large purchasing power and pretty much all American culture is aimed at them along with the Upper-labor class. When the middles and the Upper-labor classes are lumped together in this way for marketing purposes I call the resulting mass the "Great Middle" because it encompasses probably 85% of the American population.

All major newspapers, radio and network television and most cable TV is aimed at the Great Middle. Even if one is raised in another class, it is essentially impossible to avoid the cultural, hence psychological impact of the Great Middle. And this makes everybody more or less a part of it or at least a corollary to it, unless one grew up and lived without television, popular books, radio, Internet, or any contact with the society at all. Even when one rejects the Great Middle, as many Uppers and Underclass do, one's point of reference is still it.

In fact, many of the Uppers do their best to vigorously avoid being lumped together with the Great Middle, and their entire essence and all of their behavior is a result of that desire. Much of the upper class, then, defines its entire persona as a rejection of the mass of the Great Middle. Vanderbilt's line, "The public be damned," is echoed, at least in private, by many of the uppers.

Upper-labor

What I call the "Labor class" has traditionally been called working-class, but since even white-collars and professionals "work," I've chosen to use the term "Labor" to connote the physical nature of their work.

Though as we've seen they're often lumped in with the middles to form the Great Middle, Upper-labors are really not. They may have as high or higher an income as the middles, as great or greater a political pull, but they generally lack the refinement, the people skills, in short, the education. The broad education. That is, they may be extremely trained in a certain special occupation, but their overall knowledge of the world and, yes, of "culture," is less.

So even more than the fact that they use their bodies rather than their minds to make a living, it's the lack of education that socially separates the Upper-labor from the middle. Upper-labor usually has more of a regionally based accent than the middles. In the UK, the "cockney" and other localized accents determine the laboring classes while the broader and rapidly expanding "Estuary Accent" determines the middles and the regionless "Received Standard" identifies the uppers. Regional dialects identify social status less in the US, but still to some degree.

Oddly enough, the uppers can frequently mix better with the labors than they can the middle. The labors know they're uneducated and make no pretenses about it, whereas the affectations of the middles tend to turn off the uppers. It's usually the Upper-middles, with their educations that are superior to the uppers, that have the most problem with the Labors, and Labors with them.

The Labors see the Lower-middles as kiss-ass company men, the True Middles as greedy money hungry cheats, and the Upper-middles as over-refined, snobbish homosexuals.

Lower-labor

Lower-labor consists of poor whites ("white trash") as well as immigrants from poor countries and downtrodden ethnic minorities. Also inner-city blacks with fairly steady employment frequently belong to this class.

Lower labor is differentiated from the Underclasses by actually having a regular job. It is differentiated from Upper-labor because the job is unskilled. And, though sometimes Lower-labor jobs can be somewhat akin to Lower-middle class clerical jobs, the difference between the two is that Lower-middles have some sort of upward mobility, while Lower-labors do not.

One's social class hinges upon situational aspects other than one's job. So while a white girl from an average family working the counter at McDonalds during summer break would probably be considered Lower-Middle, a, say, poor Mexican immigrant who can barely speak English doing essentially the same job to support her 4 kids would be considered Lower-Labor. Sadly for the Spanish-only speaker, her prospects of furthering herself in American life are nil, and this differentiates her from the Anglo and prevents her from being considered Lower-Middle.

So again, and this point should be taken to heart, occupation alone does not differentiate the classes in the US, but rather lifestyle, ancestry, values, race, language spoken, and many other things too numerous to mention.

For the Lower-labors, money is tight and they often live with extended family in cramped quarters to make ends meet. Everyone is forced to work, young children, grandparents. Life is lived always under the poverty level and hope and religion play a large role in this class' culture, because that's really all it has.

Alcoholism is rampant and "living for today" is also, since tomorrow brings nothing better. Frequently the end-of-week paycheck is spent on booze or drugs with little left for real necessities. This is sad, because this class also generates a disproportionate number of children, and these kids turn out undereducated and with serious emotional problems, frequently preventing them from leaving the class in a vicious cycle of poverty and distress. This class, more than even the upper class, perpetuates itself.

Lower-Labor is often combined with the class below it to form the "lower class."

Underclasses

The Underclasses are actually many different types of people, but the one thing that defines them as a class is that they have essentially no money, little prospect of ever having any, and their parents had little if any money either.

The Underclasses are made up of lunatics, wanderers, petty criminals, drug addicts, recently arrived illegal immigrants, jailbirds, etc. They generally have little means of social support.

The most interesting aspect of this class is the lengths that the Upper-upper and even Lower-upper classes will go to be a part of it, at least for awhile. It's almost as if, in the great wheel of being, the social classes touch at their extreme points. Take, for example, William S. Burroughs, whose rich family put him through Harvard. His grandfather invented the adding machine and founded Burroughs Corp. (now a part of Unisys), his mother was descended from Robert E. Lee. After school and a stint in the military, William S. Burroughs plunged into an "alternative lifestyle" that included living in squalor, becoming addicted to heroin, shooting his wife in the head and general behavior that is more appropriate to the Underclasses.

Of course Burroughs could never truly be lumped in with the Underclasses because of his breeding. It's more appropriate to consider his waywardness as an attempt to experience a different side of life, a life perhaps more interesting than he was raised to be a part of. This behavior would be unthinkable to the middles, whose sole desire in life is to join the ranks of the uppers. And it would be undesirable in the labor classes, who want to put as much distance between themselves and this class of people as they can.

Conclusion

There are many factors that differentiate the classes: breeding, manners, occupation, values, money, ancestry. Ginie Sayles gives an excellent breakdown of "class factors" in her book Meet the Rich which I won't reiterate.

The funny thing about the classes is that each thinks that what differentiates it from the class below is the same as what differentiates it from the class above. Thus, Lower-Labor class folks, who are above the Underclasses essentially because they have a job, think that the Middles are superior simply because they have an even better job; and while yes, the middles do have better jobs, they also have a more cosmopolitan understanding of the world and that is the larger factor in the class difference. The Upper-Middles think that because they're above the True-Middles due to education and understanding of culture, the upper classes must have even more education and cultural knowledge; and this is usually very untrue.

To give a very simple summary, the difference between the upper and middle classes is primarily one of upbringing: the uppers are raised to be uppers, the middles raised to work and breed and hopefully someday create uppers. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the upper class are a nation's past, the middle, a nation's future. The primary difference between the middles and the labor classes is that of education, culture and refinement. And the difference between the labor and lower class is generally one of money and steady employment.

Social Mobility

Generally, one cannot move more than one class up or down in a lifetime, and one can't really move into (or out of) the upper classes at all; since their major criterion is that of breeding, one is either "bred" into them or not (marriage being a historically troublesome exception).

The reason one can't move up very far is the socioeconomic capital required to do so, if present, would have lifted one's ancestors there already. One's social capital can only increase or decrease slightly in a lifetime.

I think the fundamental point of class is that, yes, it comes down to money, but it comes down to how money and its effect on childrearing has formed a person. That is, the money he or she grew up with/in/around. His pecuniary milieu. From money (or a lack of it) springs refinement, education, manners, distinguished speech, wisdom, licentiousness, decay and everything else that is indicated by the word "class" (or a lack of it).

###

back 
Contact the author at [email protected].
Copyright Â©2003-2004 Will Skinner All rights reserved.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Very informative. Probably applies to most countries, at least in the West, possibly nearly everywhere. 

What is interesting though is the discrepancy between this objective analysis and how people subjectively perceive their own class affiliation and that of others, and how ideology can try to distort the reality be denying the existence of certain classes, or even of all classes.

The idea of a "classless" society crops up every now and then in political discourse (e.g. in the UK). The idea of the US being a vast "middle class" often appears in the media. The underclass gets swept under the carpet, and the upper classes, which pull all the strings, are also hidden from view (discretion).

The result is that individual perceptions of class are extremely variable and often surprising.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I like his 'Modern Ruins' photographs:

Sad, though. Very sad.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> I like his 'Modern Ruins' photographs:
> 
> Sad, though. Very sad.


Indeed. The factories all look like prisons to me.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by GentleCheetah_
> 
> Indeed. The factories all look like prisons to me.
> 
> The Gentle Cheetah


Cathedrals also come to mind.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Thanks for posting Cheetah!

That is a great summary.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Took me a while to get through it, but then I only got 'C's at school - LOL. Thanks for the post, an enjoyable read.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

Interesting post, but I disagree with most of the conclusions concerning uppers, at least for the US. (And also, while Veblen has been very influential and his observations were correct for the time in which they were written, they no longer reflect people's relationship to money. Fussell, on the other hand, has been wrong almost from the day his book came out).

*Any* definition of "upper class" for the US that excludes the richest part of the population in favor of some neo-aristocratic conception of upper class is just not accurate. I suppose you may find someone who inherited a lot of wealth who believes the "to the manner born" crap, but neither people ahead of him on the wealth scale nor people below him would accept that designation.

Bobos in paradise does a better job of descibing who the upper class are in the US, and how this has changed, by, among other things, comparing how NY Times wedding announcements have changed since the 50's.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> 
> Interesting post, but I disagree with most of the conclusions concerning uppers, at least for the US. (And also, while Veblen has been very influential and his observations were correct for the time in which they were written, they no longer reflect people's relationship to money. Fussell, on the other hand, has been wrong almost from the day his book came out).
> 
> ...


 Reminder: This thread is discussing 'class', not 'net worth'.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> Bobos in paradise does a better job of descibing who the upper class are in the US, and how this has changed, by, among other things, comparing how NY Times wedding announcements have changed since the 50's.


I've read almost all of the books mentioned, except this Bobos one. What is the general gist of their upper description, as opposed to Fussell?
Cheers


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> 
> Interesting post, but I disagree with most of the conclusions concerning uppers, at least for the US. (And also, while Veblen has been very influential and his observations were correct for the time in which they were written, they no longer reflect people's relationship to money. Fussell, on the other hand, has been wrong almost from the day his book came out).
> 
> ...


Bobos are upper middle. They are strivers, so they are middle.

Bobos by their birth cannot get shed the middle category completely. Yes, the money they make allows them to be the movers and shakers of the country, but it does not make into pure uppers, unconcerned about social rank.

However, as the author of the article stated, the children of the upper middle can become uppers. An example:

Father, middle class midwestern, becomes rich through own talents. Son, educated well, becomes a painter who lives abroad and in big city metro. Eventually son decides to become a "farmer" and buys midwestern farm. Son is now a "farmer", however, basically lives off his investments.

Son doesn't really care about social status, is just doing what he loves or is interested in doing. He is established, content. This is the upper class mark.

For the record, this not an autobiographical tale, lest anyone make that conclusion.

Comments are welcomed.

Cheers,

JRR


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by mpcsb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are the new upper middle mover and shaker type. Meritocratic in orientation versus background.

In Cincy are the people who buy the 5 acre homesites in Indian Hill subdivided from the old family estates.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Why are we so preoccupied with fitting people of people into categories and groups? Everyone needs a label these days; lower middle class, euro-American, educated, geocentric, whatever. What benefit does all of this have? Personally, I just don't care what other people are.


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> Why are we so preoccupied with fitting people of people into categories and groups? Everyone needs a label these days; lower middle class, euro-American, educated, geocentric, whatever. What benefit does all of this have? Personally, I just don't care what other people are.
> 
> Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


In my business, to know how to best serve people in a manner that will make them comfortable. Depending what class the client is, they will have different styles and wants. If you understand the differences among people, you will be more effective.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Seems to me that it's easier, in America, to jump from Middle-middle to upper than it is to jump from upper-middle to upper. I agree with the idea that inheriting your class in America through some long ancestry is not applicable.

For example, Paris Hilton is upper upper but she is the great granddaughter of the guy who founded the Hilton hotel chain, so that's not really some long ancestry.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Thanks Cheetah. I find this sort of reading very interesting. As a parent I'm aware that how I choose to live has impact on how my kids will deal with the world when they grow up. It gives me things to think about.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> Seems to me that it's easier, in America, to jump from Middle-middle to upper than it is to jump from upper-middle to upper. I agree with the idea that inheriting your class in America through some long ancestry is not applicable.
> 
> ...


I am not sure about paris. I think that I read someplace that her net worth is about 8 million, because there are so many other grandkids. when you compare her to somebody like onnasis's heir, she is not that rich. I wonder how this is quantified?

but I think that you are right - it is pretty much impossible to imagine how to get into that group. maybe a handful of familes do it every generation.

I would say, however, that in general America allows a great deal of class mobility, relative to many other places.

sorry - just checked. she stands to inherit $50 mil. so I guess it doesn't ger much better than that.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Interesting and entertaining read. I concur with much of it, disagree with some. However, as models go, it is very workable.

Warmest regards

P.S. I feel I jumped more than one class


----------



## CWJ (Mar 22, 2006)

Family man - I see that you include a John Adams quote in your signature. With your interest in parent's impact on their children, you should read Descent From Glory by Paul Nagel. I doubt that I was ever used the same parenting style as John Adams, but I've certainly become more laid back with my parenting after starting the book. It's really pretty sad at times to see how such a high achieving family could have such emotional baggage. If you can get past the emotional toll you'll feel, you'll walk away with a much better understanding of the Adamses.

Back to the spirit of the thread -- Several upper upper families that I've known have carried around some pretty significant baggage of their own. It's pretty hard to keep up with the high achieving ancestors.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Very informative. Probably applies to most countries, at least in the West, possibly nearly everywhere.
> 
> ...


You pointed out that this study was quite objective. Now come to think about it, it is indeed much less emotional and self-serving than Fussell's book. For one thing, the author doesn't exhibit strong likes and dislikes of any particular class.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by GentleCheetah_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the study strives to be objective, though class is such an elusive thing that it is probably impossible to make a truly objective breakdown.

The only objective, quantifiable component of class is wealth. All the others - prestige, power,lineage, etc. are subjective and controversial. Even wealth is tricky because different sorts of wealth might have to be weighted differently to get an accurate picture.

Interesting that something so all-pervading should be so difficult to pin down.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> However, as models go, it is very workable.


With $50 mil on the way, even Ms Hilton is a workable model 

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JRR_
> ...Bobos are upper middle. They are strivers, so they are middle...


Anyone here ever see the movie, _The Bobo_, with Peter Sellers and Britt Eklund? 

Are there any links left to that Paris Hilton bedroom video? I missed the brouhaha over it, and would like to see it 

M8

_Currently posting from Angola_


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you know that P.H. did an extensive face life? Her pre-life look was, well, very very ordinary, nothing to write home about. How she's got good chin and jaw.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## alastair (May 21, 2008)

There is always " Society as I Have Found It " by Ward McAllister


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Sociologists, trained or Lay are nothing less than anthropologists with their brains kicked out. There are classes, true. But CLASS cannot be bought or inherited. And a goodly number of people subscribe to the two class theory as told by Utah Jack Phillips, " If you work for somebody else, you're working class."


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*non-mobility is a relief*



jbmcb said:


> Why are we so preoccupied with fitting people of people into categories and groups?


Unfortunately once you are aware of the differences within the structure, automatic classification is inescapable.

However, knowledge relieves (or at least explains) some anxieties. As a child it perpetually frustrated me that cruder people seemed to enjoy a better standard of living. I assumed my parents were cheap, or that we were actually poorer. It took Fussell to explain that high-proles (lower-middle here) spend inordinately on things like home entertainment and I finally understood.

Understanding class is like understanding genetics: you can't change your own, but now you know why you're like that (and unlike others) and how best to cope.


----------



## trentblase (May 14, 2008)

Interesting read... I've been trying to reason out the parentage issue myself. I guess one question is, if you're an upper-middle, do you WANT to breed an upper-upper? Also, this was illuminating: "Non-working class folks frequently find themselves instinctively saying "Fine, thanks, and you?" when a laborer greets them with "How's it going?". If true, this totally explains the awkward silences that ensue after I reply to another's "how's it going?". Does the part about "How do you do" still apply? People just say "How do you do?" "How do you do?" and nobody tells anyone how they are doing? MADNESS!


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the study strives to be objective, though class is such an elusive thing that it is probably impossible to make a truly objective breakdown.
> 
> The only objective, quantifiable component of class is wealth. All the others - prestige, power,lineage, etc. are subjective and controversial. Even wealth is tricky because different sorts of wealth might have to be weighted differently to get an accurate picture.


I don't think it is wealth. I think "class status" is determined through culture and outlook.

I think I read Bobos in Paradise. Weren't the Bobos basically wealthy yuppies who buy organic cotton t-shirts from the Sundance Catalog?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The only objective, quantifiable component of class is wealth.


That's a uniquely middle-class sentiment.


----------

