Class Identity

Class is a divisive construct that has no place in a humanistic world. It plays no part in an egalitarian society, which is the truest form of a socialized society that there is. In an egalitarian society the personal is the political. In a classist society delineated public demographics is the political, not the personal. Classist societies are not socialist societies.

Believe it was 6089 above that noted that he believed class structure was fluid. With people moving upwards, or downwards, throughout their lifetime. Some truth to this, if a more narrow view is used, but this up down societal positioning happens mainly to women, which has been much discussed here at babble over the years. And his post at #53 is an excellent expose of the falseness of  'status', or another word would be "class".

In Canada, as was also noted above, we have people who were raised in rigid class structures, elsewhere, who like the structure of class and would apparently like to see more of it here. And we also have those on the 'left' who utilize a light form of  'pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps' meme.

In my opinion, all of the class denotations are nonsense. It is done to express what one wants to believe is their "life" denotation in order to optically frame themselves, as they would like to see themselves reflected back, from other's eyes. Perhaps it is a case of not really knowing who, or what they are intrinsically?

When I look at this thread, I see people discussing their and their family's position in Canadian society, without the slightest regard to the fact that they did not pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or get 'somewhere' through their ancestor's hard work. They and their families leveraged themselves 'up', off of the backs, nay the lives, of the Indigenous people's of Canada, primarily. And they/we are still doing it, whilst denoting the People's whose land it is, to a "lower class" than one's self. There is no up, or upward mobility, as it 'up' in a class based society means better than. And there is no 'better than' in a socialist egalitarian society that progressives I know are struggling towards. We Canadians are occupying a land that is not ours, and I for one cannot think that any of my life achievements are in anyway stellar, or better than others, given the travesty that is occurring, with our tacit consent..

For me, to accept class positioning in Canada, I would have to accept that there are lesser and greater people. I do not accept this as a reality.  I know it is not true, and it is a false construct that some, in some societies, have agreed to as a common reference point of understanding "how" things work. Or should I say; their belief in  "how it should work". With little thought given as to the unique nature of people's and their diversity. Wanting to make people a monoculture within rigid class structures is ridiculous, and destructive, just as it is in nature.

Also, when one takes the dynamics of gender and race out of discussions of identity politics, in Canada, there is only 1 demographic it would pertain to, eh.

The point about the fluidity of class is that what goes into making up class changes over time.   The details of the class structure changes over time, would be another way to say that.

remind wrote:

  

When I look at this thread, I see people discussing their and their family's position in Canadian society, without the slightest regard to the fact that they did not pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or get 'somewhere' through their ancestor's hard work. They and their families leveraged themselves 'up', off of the backs, nay the lives, of the Indigenous people's of Canada, primarily. And they/we are still doing it, whilst denoting the People's whose land it is, to a "lower class" than one's self.

Are you a mind reader?

For the record, I think pretty much the opposite of what you attribute.

Cant speak for the others. But they didnt give you any more reason to come up with this idea about what they think. 

remind wrote:

For me, to accept class positioning in Canada, I would have to accept that there are lesser and greater people. I do not accept this as a reality.  I know it is not true, and it is a false construct that some, in some societies, have agreed to as a common reference point of understanding "how" things work. Or should I say; their belief in  "how it should work". With little thought given as to the unique nature of people's and their diversity. Wanting to make people a monoculture within rigid class structures is ridiculous, and destructive, just as it is in nature.

Why do you think people talking about class, acknowledging it exists, means they want it to stay that way?

Do you think class differences dont exist?

Caissa wrote:

And with that Marx and Engels are swept aside.

Thank the Goddess for that....

KenS wrote:

Do you think class differences dont exist?

 

I think class is a very real thing for some, and less so for others.

Some of it comes down to race, gender, and physical appearance, and that a lot of it is learned - language, accent, education. I also think that for some it is financial - if you have children or other dependents or live in a certain region and have limited means of support I think that cycle of poverty is very real and hard to break out of.

But I do think that somel of it is also in the mind; I think some people just accept that they are at a certain level and resist the notion that one can break out of it. I know there are members of my family who have a seige mentality about authority, about outside criticism, and a rigid distrust of people who have money.

By contrast, I can think of people who have very little in the way of money but who don't feel the same constraints or limits. I wouldn't say I fall entirely into that category, but I don't have an answer for the question in the OP; I have never thought of myself as tied to a certain class. I can think of two former personal friends who gave me a very clear brush-off when they came into their own as members of the higher-ups, but really, I didn't consider it a great loss, and we still buy truffle oil and own a house even though we qualify for low-income benefits.

@ remind #54, 57

To a degree, yes I agree. I don't want to sound like I am blaming people for there status, but some people manage to break out of the constraints of class, while others cannot or do not.

Oops, forgot to add, the musing of Tim Wise put forth and linked to, in this thread are certainly applicable to some people's discourse here.

yes there is what some call 'class privilege', but that does not mean it should exist, and insisting that there is class distinction, is to make sure it continues to exist.

@53 and @62

I don't believe we are at risk of taking these matters to "the anti-intellectual extreme", but there is the possibility that academia may come in for a bit of a thumping from time to time - and I would not be the first to rush to their defence.

While "progressives" tend to refer to Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" when talking about the use and abuse of language, I have always had a fond spot for Betrand Russell's "How I Write".

Quote:

Take, say, such a sentence as the following, which might occur in a work on sociology: "Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behavior patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favorable circumstances, whether congenital or environmental, chanced to combine in producing an individual in whom many factors deviate from the norm in a socially advantageous manner." Let us see if we can translate this sentence into English. I suggest the following: "All men are scoundrels, or at any rate almost all. The men who are not must have had unusual luck, both in their birth and in their upbringing." This is shorter and more intelligible, and says just the same thing. But I am afraid any professor who used the second sentence instead of the first would get the sack.

I think it is the element of self-deprecation in the Russell piece that I find most endearing, and I admire the pragmaticism in his concluding paragraph:

Quote:

This suggests a word of advice to such of my readers as may happen to be professors. I am allowed to use plain English because everybody knows that I could use mathematical logic if I chose. Take the statement: "Some people marry their deceased wives' sisters." I can express this in language which only becomes intelligible after years of study, and this gives me freedom. I suggest to young professors that their first work should be written in a jargon only to be understood by the erudite few. With that behind them, they can ever after say what they have to say in a language "understanded of the people." In these days, when our very lives are at the mercy of the professors, I cannot but think that they would deserve our gratitude if they adopted my advice.

If you see linkages to what Tim Wise is saying, you will have to spell them out Remind. Thy are not self evident.

Tim Wise was talking about lefties saying that class is paramount. That it trumps racism, and focusing on racism is 'dis-unifying'.

No one here is saying or even implying anything of the kind. You cant enlist Tim Wise in saying that all discussion of class perpetutaes it.

"yes there is what some call 'class privilege', but that does not mean it should exist, and insisting that there is class distinction, is to make sure it continues to exist."

I respect that opinion of yours. And I'll ask that you return the favour by reading that by talking about class dinctinctions I and others want to perpetuate them.

@ Aalya #62

I work with words, I have no problem using a certain level of discourse or technical language when appropriate, and have never felt that I have had to dumb-down when talking to anyone.

But I meant what I said. It has nothing to do with appropriate terms; I think the academic style is simply bad English that is designed to exclude, and students get it drummed into their heads in first year university. It is the exact same convoluted muck that Orwell pilloried in "Politics and the English Language".

First time I ran into it was in first year English when I had this criticism on one of my papers: "Your paragraphs are too short".

I'm not sure what that had to do with my actual thesis, or how making the copy more dense and harder on the eye would improve the essay, but that was my professor's expert opinion.

(edit)

@ baktitty

Just read your response. Ditto. As I said, my complaint isn't anti-intellectual at all; it is anti-garbage. There is a big difference. I have been in the middle of a conversation (verbal and written) and noticed the jargon switch go on, then off again when it was clear that I actually understood what was being said.

I have also edited papers and been reduced to chewing my pencil in frustration at reading a page of convoluted nonsense that that said nothing at all.

KenS wrote:

You read in too much George. Of course people like feeling the day to day liberation from the stiffling all pervasive dead hand of class in 60s England. That, and pretty much the same thing across the Channel, is why I never thought I could live across the pond, as much as liked so many aspects of life there.

Appreciating differences does not mean people think they are free.

In fact, its painfully obvious that North Americans are literally enthralled with the idea of how different they are.

Actually Ken, you are wrong.  They told me how they felt. They were very bright, highly educated people.

It is painfully obvious that you could not have been listening in. 

Oh, I think class is alive and well and something nobody wants to address in Canada.  We don't have a problem confronting the idea that racism exists here, or sexism.  But class?  No.  We don't like to acknowledge it.

I think it's a soft thing to assess at the best of times.  There are many different permutations, many of which have been pointed out.  There's attitude toward education, level of education, type of work, general values, what we do or do not take for granted.  Race and sex both intersect with different permutations in different ways.

I think I was aware of class discrimination earlier than sex discrimination.  I mean, I knew a few vague bits about feminism, but the first time I was ever told I couldn't do something or didn't belong somewhere it was based on my class (essentially what my parents did for a living and their education levels) and not on my gender - my high school career counsellor told me not to go to university despite the marks and aptitude for academics.  I also ran up against class distinctions in university itself, sometimes from fellow students, sometimes from a prof.  Maybe it was because I was in fine arts, which isn't a course of study most working-class kids went into - the few kids I knew who went to university chose things like admin degrees or certificates, or went into engineering or computer science.  It's been mentioned upthread that there are certain codes of behaviour, a certain ease in being upper class, and I would concur.  There are also codes of dress and such that, unless you're exposed to them, you don't necessarily pick up on.  Certainly, my idea of what looked like wealth and class were different, and I was mercilessly schooled on it in my first two years.

Class is definitely more fluid here than in Europe.  I know that my British extended family is much more lodged in place than we were here.  I grew up working class, but I don't self-identify that way now - not because it's better or worse, but because it seems more honest to say that I am middle-class.  My background has had an effect on how I perceive class, for sure, and has informed my views as a feminist.  I'm not sure how feminist I'd be if I hadn't become as conscious of the existence of class as I did.  They're somewhat inter-related for me.  As are my views on race and how that plays out in the interpersonal.  I realize that may not be the case for a lot of people, but it gave me a context to process the other kinds of oppression.

Funny story - I had started a new job after university and was newly acquainted with another trainee.  She started talking about someone and used the term "north of Dewdney hair" (Dewdney being a line of demarcation between the poorer north end of the city and the wealthier south end).  I was really surprised.  I pointed out that I'd grown up north of Dewdney, and she was utterly floored - I apparently didn't look or sound like a north-ender.  The funniest part was that she was South Asian feminist and had undoubtedly encountered racism and sexism growing up in the south end.  In the end, we had a good laugh about it.

I also find it amusing when people use their working class roots as lefty cred, given the virulently racist and homophobic rants I've heard from some working class acquaintances and family.  I suppose we're all twisted little status monkeys in some form or another, we're just not always aware of it.  So, long ramble short, I think class in itself is a worthy topic of conversation.

That's the nub, isn't it George? The gulf between the classical, 19th century Marxist conception of class and the altogether messier reality of the present moment. Long discussions with orthodox Marxists impressed upon me that socio-economic 'class' remains a foundational identifier, with more realworld significance than the tiresome distractions of identity politics. I think its just that decades of remorseless propaganda have muddied the waters and as some of the examples above illustrate, individual cases can be very difficult to identify. The modern bourgeoisie sequester themselves from view in secluded private homes and gated communities, or behind the tinted windows of their limos and are careful how they flaunt their status. The working class often self-identify - thanks to television - as middle class although the nature of their relationship to capital defines them as proletarian.

My parents were the first of their families to get through university and both became teachers. My paternal grandad grew up in a coal miner's cottage with a beaten earth floor; my maternal great grandfather was the village baker. I'm proud of my working class origins. My father describes a now-lost photograph of the first British trade union delegation to Soviet Russia. My great grandfather the trade unionist stands in the front row beside Vladimir Ilyich himself.

My formal education finished after a year at art college. I married Rockcliffe Ottawa Olde Money, before which I had no idea classes existed in Canada - I thought everyone was like my family, some a bit rougher, some a bit smoother is all. But the wife's family opened my eyes - amazing how different communities can occupy the same geography and remain oblivious to each other.

Now I live around the poverty line - whose poverty line? - but I suppose I still self-identify as middle class, the lingering traces of which I have been working for years to purge from my DNA. I don't know why but I have a special contempt for the western middle class. Something about our complacency.

- editted by Merowe -

When I was a naive young bagkitty away at university I was amazed at how some of the Marxist groups (oh let's name names, WCP and CPC(M-L))  used to try to discredit, dismiss and silence second wave feminists, "black nationalists" and emergent LGBT voices as "confusing the masses" by not addressing the REAL basis of THE PROBLEM with the CORRECT line (class struggle as defined by the WCP and/or CPC(M-L)). Hopefully less naive, definitely older, I am not amazed, but dismayed to see the same argument (albeit rotated 180 degrees) trotted out here in this thread in regards to two of the cleavages in society. I believe the WCP imploded when it finally tried to de-Stalinize (the zombie of the CPC(M-L) seems to stagger into view from time to time) - I wonder what the long term fate of any "critical" analysis that demands the exclusion of all others is likely to be?

Read and reread this thread looking for the person(s) who stated, or even implied, that  class stratification did not exist, in Canada. Funny could not find a single example of anyone stating that.

Strawman kicking down went to a fine art though.

No, as it does not state what you are implying it does.

 In fact, it states that it does exist.. a couple of times.

That it is a fictional state of being, in the esoteric sense,  appears to be lost on you.

A fictional state of being? You mean like racism and sexism?

As in imposed by others, not a natural occurence?

remind wrote:

Read and reread this thread looking for the person(s) who stated, or even implied, that  class stratification did not exist, in Canada. Funny could not find a single example of anyone stating that.

Strawman kicking down went to a fine art though.

My attempt to explain "class" in Canada (upthread):

"My Marxist sociology profs took great delight in their newfound "freedom" from the class constraints that they grew up with in England. I was amazed that they had not yet discovered the subtler - yet more blatant - class forms of Canada and the U.S., based on income and conspicuous consumption...all hidden away in the name of merit."    :)

Can you see "class" in Canada, remind, based on "income and consicuous consumption," and we don't recognize it because we're all competing in a society that gives more to "merit." A soc. textbook titled "Class,Status and Power" took pains to show the relationships between the three. I'll never forget the soc. prof (himself out of a middle class background) who posited the idea with this class that working class youth were less able to 'defer gratification" (taking a job and buying a car, etc.) and try for a profession based on more schooling. But it was pointed out by this re-tread student that in fact the middle and upper middle classes of Peterborough had cottages on Stoney Lake and had to defer bugger all ...it was just a matter of asking for the keys to the car or the inboard. Fortunately, his sociology was sent packing.

There isn't anything at all strange or revalatory about "class" taking on a different aesthetic tone in North America than it does in Europe or England. Indeed, "class" is a concept that Marx appropriated from traditional feudal social stratification. He then proposed that "class" would be transformed in capitalist society and be based in ones social relationship to the economy. The fact that in North America class is defined almost strictly in economic terms, more or less without the trappings of feudal class stratification based in inherited "station", tracks Marx's view of the social transformation of feudalism into capitalism, quite closely.

@ Caissa:

There is a hell of a long way between being skeptical that Marx was even basically right about class, and outright denial of class.

Cueball wrote:

Self-identification with "class" in terms of things like "class consciousness" are pretty phony, I agree, but there is nothing wrong with making an analysis of economic relations and classifying social relations between segments of society in terms of their economic class.

Haven't we analysized it to death? We know it exists and how it exists, and what has that done for  humanity and the planet? We can keep on analysizing it as a distraction, but expecting different results based  upon a premise that there are people who are "better than others", for whatever phoney reason, is like banging one's head repeatedly on the wall and wondering why one has a headache.

Quote:

I don't see any reason that an analysis of class based in some form of Marxist social relations excludes other modes of analyzing social relations such as patriarchy and racism.

People who believe that there is no progressive thought or action without using Marxian thought and premises have lived too narrow of a life.

Quote:

Bell Hooks does a great job of explaining how she synthesizes all three as the "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy".

Exactly, and some want to keep it that way, for a variety of reasons. Even though it has proved to be anti-humane and is as phoney as a 3 dollar bill.

Quote:

It seems to me that any of these three can be operative at the same time, jointly, and individually to a greater or lesser extent in any given situation.

Of course they are, which is what is sustaining the white capitalist patriarchy. That it is a phoney construct, that is damaging perhaps to the point of absolute destruction of ourselves and the planet, appears to be lost on those who hold their trivial ego concerns as primary to their continued existence, which of course it isn't.

The acceptance that there are those who are better than and less than is decidedly non-progressive, IMV.

remind wrote:

Quote:

It seems to me that any of these three can be operative at the same time, jointly, and individually to a greater or lesser extent in any given situation.

Of course they are, which is what is sustaining the white capitalist patriarchy. That it is a phoney construct, that is damaging perhaps to the point of absolute destruction of ourselves and the planet, appears to be lost on those who hold their trivial ego concerns as primary to their continued existence, which of course it isn't.

The acceptance that there are those who are better than and less than is decidedly non-progressive, IMV.

Who accepted that?

E.P. Thompson wrote:

By class I understand a historical phenomenon, unifying a number of disparate and seemingly unconnected events, both in the raw material of experience and in consciousness. I emphasize that it is a historical phenomenon. I do not see class as a 'structure', nor even as a 'category', but as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in human relationships.

More than this, the notion of class entails the notion of historical relationship. Like any other relationship, it is a fluency which evades analysis if we attempt to stop it dead at any given moment and anatomize its structure. The finest-meshed, sociological net cannot give us a pure specimen of class, any more than it can give us one of deference or of love. The relationship must always be embodied in real people and in a real context. Moreover, we cannot have two distinct classes, each with an independent being, and then bring them into relationship with each other....

And so on. The above is from the Preface to The Making of the English Working Class by Thompson. I guess the geniuses on this thread who deny social class altogether can simply deny the existence of Thompson's book or the facts and information in it. ha ha. After all, that's exactly what that fascist-loving Margaret Thatcher did with her denial that society exists.

I'm curious as to how those geniuses - on this thread - address the whole matter of the ruling class in our own society making war on working people. Attacks on unions. Attacks on the poor. Tax cuts for the rich. And so on. The list is endless and obvious.

Do you deny that this is going on? Or do you say that the bosses and their representatives "also" have this wrong-headed idea of social class (as well as the nasty Marxists, of course) and they just need to "get rid of the idea" and all will be well in this classless land of the present?

Thompson wrote:

I am seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the 'obsolete' hand-loom weaver, the 'utopian' artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott, from the enormous condescension of posterity.  ... they lived through these times of acute social disturbance, and we did not.

Long live Thompson, and other brilliant historians like him, who have contributed to clarifying and rescuing a serious understanding of social class ... from the enormous condescencion of social ostriches everywhere.

Class is a pre-meditated henhouse.