Something to consider. http://economist.com/intel...

2004-09-29T12:46:00.000-04:00

Something to consider.

http://economist.com/intelligentlife/work/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2785166

Fascinating read. I've been reading it over a few...

2004-08-31T14:34:00.000-04:00

Fascinating read. I've been reading it over a few days interspersed with actual work, and hoping none of my coworkers catches me educating myself when I should be working on some technical problem.

I believe that your basic argument is that we have definite classes even in (obstensibly) meritocratic society. This is nothing particularly revealing, as it's probably quite obvious to anyone who travels from one side of the city (DC) to the other.

Your more controversial argument, perhaps, is that there is nothing wrong with the existence of higher classes, or at the very least nothing wrong with lionizing certain characteristics or elements (culture, education, society, nonlocal politics, etc.) of the higher classes. I think this is a rather courageous thing to say, and I applaud you for it. I even agree; however, I expect you to receive some mild (and perhaps not-so-mild) criticism for making value judgements on the behaviors of the lower classes, largely because you are differentiating between the classes.

Screw that. The thing that separates you from a machine is that you *can* make value judgements, and I'm happy that someone is brave enough to come out and say that a college-educated person discussing international affairs at Politics and Prose is engaging in a higher activity than the uneducated janitor drinking away his sorrows at the local dive. Furthermore, engaging in that higher activity says something about the person. Perhaps it is unfair to say that it *always* translates into one being "better" than the other, but that *general suggestion* seems fair.

Am I better than everyone else? Of course not. Am I better than the average shlump who doesn't know who is running for president, who can't even identify a differential equation, who has no idea of the origin of the term "Catch-22", or why ad hominem tu quoque attacks are logically invalid? Yes, I think I am. I think you believe this of yourself, as well.

Where we get into danger is in assuming that there is nothing redeeming about the behaviors of classes outside of our own, or in believing that by membership in our class intrinsically translates into a member of that class being unquestionably valuable.

The book illustrates this: the lower classes value hard work, result-driven work ethics, family ties, and such, yet also [apparently] value blind obedience, conformity, a short-sighted view of wealth, and education *merely* as a means to a more comfortable existence (not as an end in itself). Those who really succeed "move on to the next level," i.e., move up to the middle class, and are what the author labels "Straddlers". Those who moderately succeed remain in their class, perhaps small business owners or a good steady union job, to raise a loving family and continue the struggle through to the next generation. Those who do not succeed at all die, end up in prison, or have such positions in life as such that they cannot maintain a family (and one may hope that they do not procreate).

We can also easily recognize things in the upper classes that are perhaps less desireable elements: decadence, ostentatiousness, elitism, consumerism, and quite frankly, we see a disturbing number of uneducated philistines in the "upper classes". A prime example of this would be Paris Hilton, whose behavior we clearly find appalling.

So when we are defining class, I think it might be appropriate to differentiate between those merely with money, and those who rank high in [our concept of] the meritocracy.

Comments on Sic faciunt omnes.: Virtutis Ex Gratiae

Something to consider. http://economist.com/intel...

Fascinating read. I've been reading it over a few...