Hm

[sciatrix]

So I asked Metafilter about class and socioeconomic status yesterday. Not theoretically, either: I was pretty direct about where I was coming from and openly curious about other people and their thoughts.

(I'm honestly kind of surprised the thread went up immediately without workshopping from mods; I'm not bothered by it either, just startled.)

And... predictably, people are really uncomfortable! I totally understand that--I'm uncomfortable having written it out, frankly--but I'm kind of impressed at the number of people who jump to "this thread is a doxxing honeypot" or "this thread is an exercise in making us all feel bad!" Not really surprised, but impressed.

I mean. I didn't bring that here. That's you, buddy. I'm trying to be careful to signal both "I come from an incredibly privileged class background that just got more so after I left" and "I am currently struggling in SES but I have a way forward not everyone does." I'm actually more vulnerable feeling about the first one, which is why I took care to bring it. Economic inequality and class privilege exist. It's not a personal insult to talk about where I stand and invite others to do the same.

(At the same time I totally understand why that makes people feel vulnerable and why people might feel uncomfortable both that they feel like they're being pressured to contribute--I tried not to do that but you know how that goes--and like the conversation itself is something of a threat.)

In some ways I think internalized classism is harder to deal with because it is so complicated, and you get the same privilege fragility as you get on any axis except it's coupled with more defensive "I'm not REALLY privileged because--" thought because it's complex and there aren't discrete categories that any given person obviously belongs to. And also everyone quietly hides their advantages.

I'm not really bothered by the defensiveness, but I'm thinking about it. I spend a fair bit of time sitting with my own class based discomfort, often because T has heard something fall out of my mouth and explained why it was a real real "wow your class background is obvious" moment; our backgrounds are really different and mine is a lot more divorced from many of our friends' realities.

So. I don't know. I'm sitting thoughtfully right now and putting my thoughts here rather than there. I'm not feeling much in the way of personal emotion, just intellectual interest. But I had thoughts, and I figured this was probably the place to have them without distorting the entire conversation around me.

Comments

[kore]

I think in the US the idea of the 'genteel poor' was tied more to higher education and bohemianism, but that's fallen almost completely out of favour in the past couple of decades -- the emphasis is on college as a way to get started in a career (and yet there are still people getting lots of degrees in the humanities). Or that was also maybe the class of university professors, who were seen as highly educated and were often artists teaching on the side, but now with the hiring crises a lot of the labour falls to adjunct faculty who are often just plain poor.

But it was kind of amusing how many US readers thought the Weasleys in HP were on the economic brink!

//probably not making sense, haven't had enough coffee

[siderea]

... the idea that the Weasleys are a class Rorschach test is kinda brilliant.

[kore]

Heh, I only knew that type by being very familiar with that kind of British shabby-genteel character from other books. Including Pratchett, but Raymond Chandler also once wrote this hilarious bit about the more down-at-heel a British man was, the higher up the class strata he seemed to be. I think even Dickens gets into that, but I can't remember.

[sciatrix]

I think the emphasis being on college as a way to get a foot in a career is more of a symptom of economic stress than anything else, and I also think that the emphasis on STEM as a way to do that is more of a way to undermine the value of STEM workers than a statement on the actual value of the occupation.

I might be a touch bitter.

But I think that as economic stresses get more risky, the pressure on students to study something that is perceived as financially comfortable increases even when those occupations are not necessarily more lucrative than others, in part because then the market gluts and often the salaries erode. Especially if too many of "not the right sort" get into the field.

[horusporus]

good point. and it's probably related to the story of immigrant America, and starting with a clean slate, and the idea that you can leave the old elites behind (to varying success depending on the group -- tangentially i've been meaning to share a couple of posts on hindu casteism surviving in the usa), but stratification inevitably happens anyway, so the american set of cultural markers are still mostly 'achievable' things you can do in one generation. now that more people are making less, that chips away at income being a proxy indicator, so the other capital sources are made more apparent.

[kore]

Exactly, plus in early Gilded Age America there was still the difference between the nouveau riche and I guess inherited money? (One of the big problems in the Great Gatsby is even after Gatsby makes his fortune, it's from dodgy shit and he's "Mr Nobody From Nowhere.") There was the stratification and also the younger generations pulling away from it in Edith Wharton's novels. But the division persisted a long long time -- I remember reading Dominick Dunne's People Like Us in the late eighties. Now if anything being nouveau riche, making your own billions before you're thirty, is the height of aspiration.

now that more people are making less, that chips away at income being a proxy indicator, so the other capital sources are made more apparent.

Gosh now why does that make me think of the current US President :-/