How I See Class

By Daniel Miessler on November 6th, 2011: Tagged as Culture | Philosophy | Science

class

I recently read perhaps the best book ever written on the American class system, and it set me to thinking quite a bit about the subject.

First, I put this together as a capture location for what I learned.

Then I began to process it. The concepts listed there are appealing to me for a very basic reason: I am obsessed with growing my ability to predict unseen behavior based on observed behavior. It’s modeling. Class models us, and to the extent that it does that accurately I am interested in it.

So that’s one piece.

Another angle to this, however, is what I ultimately find to be respectable in life, and this question doesn’t really have much to do with class. Namely, I value more than anything the exploration of our world, a pursuit of understanding, a respect for logic and reason, compassion for our fellow humans and creatures on this planet, and overall a sense of appreciation for the world and the fact that we’ve been given the privilege of living in it for a spell.

Many people at the bottom layers of “class” excel at this, and many at the top are fairly horrible individuals. In my mind, this class structure (how much you care about compassion and knowledge) is without question superior to the material class discussed in the book. It is true that the book does touch on some of these behaviors, but that’s not its main focus.

I suppose what I’m saying is that material class as discussed in the book is a means of anticipating additional behaviors, be they positive or negative, and I find that fascinating. Furthermore, those types of behaviors that are correlated with success or failure should be evangelized or looked down upon based on how they tend to manifest.

This is quite in line with The Moral Landscape, which promotes using science to help increase happiness and reduce suffering.

I’d like to come up with some sort of visual way of describing these various behaviors and traits in terms of their ultimate worth (in my view). Perhaps mapping the presence of books in the home to one thing, or the belief that the poor deserve to be poor as another. Or mapping the willingness to try exotic foods to education level, or the preference for sugary foods to salary.

Actually, that’s not quite it. That’s all within the realm of material (the book). I want to map those to the real class designations, i.e. caring for others, producing art or literature, producing tools for doing the above, etc.

This is all very interesting to me. I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

Related Content

CarlM

This is an aside .. directed at Daniel .. it may be safely ignored by everyone else.

“I recently read perhaps the best book ever written on the American class system” … it seems that every book you comment on is “the best book ever written” on the subject. Unless you do an incredible amount of reading (reading all of the less good books too), you are not in a position to make that judgement. (I had to make this observation because it’s a key to why I think your argument style suffers sometimes. You make claims that you don’t have sufficient information to make .. and this just makes those you’re trying to convince wonder if you’re doing this elsewhere in your arguments as well.)

http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

So I should have said that it’s widely considered to be such, which it is by many. I was giving force to it because of that, not because I just thought it was good.

CarlM

It is helpful to mention that a book is widely considered to be important (or good or ONE OF the best ever written). I’m just trying to help you keep from making claims in a form that serves to distract from the rest of your argument.

CarlM

My only comment is that people should be judged as individuals rather than as members of groups. For example, their membership in one socioeconomic class or another is, to some degree, an accident of birth. Better to look at individuals and see how they respond to the pushes and pulls of the world they find themselves in. Judge individuals based on their actions and, perhaps to a lesser degree, on their explicitly expressed beliefs. There is a word for using an umbrella grouping (class for example) in an attempt to pre-judge how an individual will act and then judging that individual based on that assessment: prejudice.

http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

Carl, yes, there’s prejudice involved, but it’s the proper kind, i.e. the kind based on behaviors. This is what has kept humans from going extinct all these centuries, and the concept itself should not be tossed away because some people are racists or snobs and use observations incorrectly.

Both stereotypes and prejudice are useful when used properly, meaning as an information point rather than a decision point.

If I see five large men approaching me in the middle of the night in the Bronx I’m going to be apprehensive. If they are all wearing slacks and sportcoats and carrying attache cases my worry disappears completely.

Why? Because people who dress like that don’t tend to commit violent crime.

That’s stereotyping. That’s prejudice. That’s accurate.

Don’t go too PC on me. We both know it’s wrong to take a single data point about a person and come to a conclusion, but that’s the point of this type of modeling — you gather as much data as you can, and you paint a picture, and you never stop gathering more data.

All your guesses about behavior you haven’t observed become probabilities, which are hopefully getting more accurate as you feed data into your model.

Thoughts?

CarlM

Using prejudices to guide a midnight stroll through the Bronx is natural, but I don’t see that as what you’re doing here. You claim that this is the “good” kind of prejudice .. “the kind based on behaviors”. It is simply not true that everything on the other page (where you’re gathering your thoughts) is based on behaviors. You’re inserting your own beliefs of what people in different classes BELIEVE. For example: “The upper classes believe class is defined by values, tastes, styles, and behaviors. The middle class thinks it’s about education and the work you do. The lower classes think it’s about how much money you have.” I think that this is simply what YOU are projecting onto these groups. (For the record, I don’t know that I agree with any of the assertions/implications you make in that list.)

http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

That isn’t me projecting, Carl, that’s an almost verbatim capture from the book.

CarlM

Finding it very hard to believe that a scholarly book (which is what I assumed this was) would write something like the three sentences about what the classes believe about class, I decided this morning to take a look online to see if I could find the quote. (I was convinced that you had left out a word [like "status"] or somehow mistranslated what was in the book.) While on that quest, I came across some reviews of the book … http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60044.Class

Now I understand that it is NOT a scholarly book in the usual sense. It sounds more like something that Mark Twain would have written. A substantial portion of the reviewers call it “sarcastic” and an even larger proportion call is “funny”, so the style of the book is clearly informal. Many of the reviewers couldn’t tell if the author was being tongue-in-cheek when making certain comments. Obviously without reading the book, I can’t know if this is the fault of the author or the reader .. and can’t know if the author was being tongue-in-cheek or not.

When I read those three sentences: ”The upper classes believe class is defined by values, tastes, styles, and behaviors. The middle class thinks it’s about education and the work you do. The lower classes think it’s about how much money you have.” my first thoughts were “This is absurd, those are ALL definitions of DIFFERENT KINDS of class. You’re comparing apples to oranges (or at the very least illustrating my point about the importance of defining terms so that semantic arguments can be avoided). In the current climate of discussions of class (like in Wisconsin over the past year or the ones on Wall Street more recently), the poor are the ones in your list who have it right. Discussions of class in the context of the discussions of economic fairness are discussions of salary ranges.” Later, I re-read the sentences and thought something like “The problem is that the word ‘class’ is being used to mean multiple things at once. I’d change one of the uses to ‘status’ and then suddenly I have much less argument with the statement.” My initial reaction was about bad writing. Taken out of context (even if it is a direct quote), those three sentences are a mess. It seems to be a statement about confusion as to what class is .. something like “those poor saps in the lower classes don’t even know what class is really about” when in fact I’m quite sure it wasn’t written in that way.

Had I edited those sentences, I’d have made AT LEAST one small edit: “The upper classes believe that status is defined by values, tastes, styles, and behaviors. The middle class thinks it’s about education and the work you do. The lower classes think it’s about how much money you have.” If I’d written it, I’d have made a slightly more extensive edit ”The upper classes assign status largely by considering values, tastes, styles, and behaviors. The middle class largely considers education and type of employment. The lower classes focus more on wealth.” I still don’t believe that this is more than a generalization, but at least it avoids the problems of using the same word to mean multiple things over the span of a few sentences. — Semantic arguments annoy me.
http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

Isn’t that the point, Carl, that the definitions are different for the groups? It’s hard to argue with the statement by saying they’re not agreeing. That’s the entire observation.
CarlM

Replying here since the blog only allows so much depth in the replies.

It seems that you’ve missed my point. Let me try again. First of all, I’m not saying that the groups disagree on the definition of the word. I’m saying that the definitions are all valid and used by EVERYONE.

If someone was to ask me about class and I said “Calculus class or history class?” They might stop for a moment and realize that as a teacher, my greatest exposure to the word “class” is in reference to coursework and classrooms. So, they might say “no .. not that kind of class”. Then I’d try to guess from the context which type of class they meant. Unless someone had just walked past wearing something or saying something that demonstrated a lack of “class” (as in “not very classy”), I would almost certainly assume that they meant economic class (based entirely on income and wealth). If they meant anything else, I’d need an explanation of which type of class they meant.

The expectation of the meaning of the word “class” depends on the context and the experiences of the people (no surprise there), but I think that people from all subdivisions of American culture would be comfortable using the word class to mean any of the things in the quote in question. That is, those from the lower socio-economic classes would be perfectly fine describing someone who is without taste as classless (in the sense of “not very classy”). Similarly, those from the upper socio-economic classes would be perfectly fine using class in the economic class sense. For example, the term “middle class” has a meaning that refers to “salary range” in the context of MOST discussions of class in the last year (at least here in Wisconsin), and this is true across Wisconsin society. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard “regular people” (as opposed to those with more scholarly definitions) describe educational attainment as being a defining characteristic of class, but certainly job type would be universally used as an indicator of salary and living conditions.

On the other hand, STATUS is a different word with a somewhat DIFFERENT meaning, and it seems to me that it is this meaning that is intended by the quote. My understanding of the quote is reflected in how I edited it.

Once again ..

ORIGINAL QUOTE: ”The upper classes believe class is defined by values, tastes, styles, and behaviors. The middle class thinks it’s about education and the work you do. The lower classes think it’s about how much money you have.”

MINIMAL EDIT: ”The upper classes believe that status is defined by values, tastes, styles, and behaviors. The middle class thinks it’s about education and the work you do. The lower classes think it’s about how much money you have.”

FULL EDIT (which captures both what I think the quote says and my belief that absolute statements are usually inappropriate): ”The upper classes assign status largely by considering values, tastes, styles, and behaviors. The middle class largely considers education and type of employment. The lower classes focus more on wealth.”

It seems to me that the quote refers to the granting of status (which is done by individuals based on their own experiences and opinions) rather than about one or another definition of class (which I maintain are all used by everyone — what I found absurd was the implication that the different groups have different definitions for the word “class”).

http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

Check the definition of class, Carl. You’ll find it’s quite agreeable with the quote.

CarlM

Wow … really? That’s your reply? Did you read what I wrote? I’ll give this one more try.

My point is that implying that the different groups disagree on the definition of class is silly. I’m not arguing about the definition of the word class. The word has MULTIPLE meanings. ALL groups use ALL meanings.

Why not add “and students think it’s about math and history” just to point out that the word has yet another meaning? Adding this bit would be just as silly to me. It IS true that students think that ONE KIND of class is about math and history (and they are RIGHT), but it is not true that this is the only way that the word is used by students. It IS true that the lower classes think that ONE KIND of class is about wealth (and they are RIGHT), but it is not true that this is the only way the word is used by those in the lower classes. It IS true that the upper classes think that ONE KIND of class is about values, tastes, styles, and behaviors (and they are RIGHT), but it is not true that this is the only way the word is used by those in the upper classes. The implication of the sentences is that the different groups define the word differently. I’m absolutely not convinced of that. I do agree that they assign status differently, and I suspect that this is the point that was being made. If the point was NOT about assignment of status and was about the definition of the word, than I think that the statement is wrong.
http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler
Carl, I find the sentence to be perfectly informative, and I think you’ll find that most others do as well. I think you’re hyper-analysis of every single tone and semantic angle of any worthwhile statement is a detractor from productive conversation.

Most things worth saying have issues with them. It’s not impossible, but unlikely that someone can produce analysis or ideas about an interesting topic without venturing into area that involves semantics and somewhat shaky ground.

It is incumbent on the reader of such statements to adjust to context in order to proceed toward useful dialog.

Let me try to summarize the statement for you since you seem to be unable to extract useful information from it:
- When the lower classes see people who they recognize to be above them in class, they automatically think about money.
- When the middle classes see people who they recognize to be above them in class, they automatically think about the work they do, how much they make, and where they went to school
- When the upper classes see someone who is of their class, they think in terms of the types of food they like, how they spend their free time, how they speak, etc.
Can you 1) not see that was what was said, and 2) not see that it’s a useful statement?

This doesn’t mean that there isn’t cross-over. OF COURSE an upper class person if they heard that someone made 10K a year would not think that person likely to be in the upper classes. There’s obviously massive crossover among all the classes and the rating systems (definitions) they use. BUT WE KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT.

If one were to have to build all these massive defenses into every single statement made about interesting topics, nothing would ever be said.

I challenge you to look to the heart of a conversation to see what is actually being said rather than for ways to insist that nothing is being said.

The book is full of these types of statements, and I found them highly useful along with multitudes of others. Yes, it’s direct. Yes, it’s spunky. But it’s perhaps more valuable because it’s willing to be so. If it was as careful as you would like it to be nobody would have read it.
CarlM

I continue to think that the sentences would be better with the word “status” in place of “class”. This would remove the distracting (for me) overtones brought on by the implication that the word “class” has different meanings for different groups — because THAT seems to me to be false.

When the lower classes see people who they recognize to be above them in status, they automatically think about money.- When the middle classes see people who they recognize to be above them in status, they automatically think about the work they do, how much they make, and where they went to school- When the upper classes see someone who is of their status, they think in terms of the types of food they like, how they spend their free time, how they speak, etc.Can you not see that this says the same thing? (Not that I now agree with it.) The use of the terms “lower classes”, “middle classes”, and “upper classes” implies that we are agreeing on a single definition of these terms. To simultaneously state that those in these groups (however we are currently defining them) use different definitions of these terms strikes me as odd writing. Given your reaction, I suspect that this is due to its being taken out of the context of the full book and that if I was to read the full book I might not gripe so much. (It’s also possible that I’d be constantly cringing as I read the book.)I suspect that part of the problem is that I just do not think in terms of class except in terms of strata defined by income and wealth. This isn’t to say that I never use the word in other ways (such as a sarcastic “classy” when someone does something that I don’t consider appropriate behavior). Certainly, I recognize cultural differences between the well-educated and the poorly-educated and the (exhibited) style differences between those with conspicuous amounts of leisure time and those trying to make ends meet with two full-time jobs, but I don’t use these distinctions to place people into classes that are above or below each other. Yes, I think it is better for individuals to be well educated, but I don’t consider PEOPLE who are well educated to be BETTER people (or above or more worthy of anything that doesn’t directly require the education) than those who are poorly educated. Ranking makes complete sense to me when looking at wealth or income. Those are NUMBERS that can be objectively compared and it isn’t a judgement. Educational attainment can’t be ranked in the same way. Which is better: BS Mathematics or BS Art History? Further, I think it’s bizarre to think of someone who likes caviar to be above someone who likes burgers. I can’t grasp that sort of ranking at all.

So, in a nutshell, I don’t see much benefit in generalizations or in attempts to rank individuals somehow.

Also … it is FALSE that “when the middle classes see people who they recognize to be above them in class, they automatically think about the work they do, how much they make, and where they went to school”. I am in the middle class. I do not automatically think about this. QED (As you must know by now, I use myself and those I know as examples to disprove universal statements.)

By the way, I wasn’t asserting that nothing was being said. I got the meaning. I was arguing that it would have been CONSIDERABLY better to use the word “status” to lessen any ambiguity and/or unintended (or incorrect) implications. (This doesn’t make the sentences TRUE. It makes them clearer.)

Now .. to your broader point. It is absolutely true (as you point out) that I have a penchant for nitpicking. This has long been true (certainly it has been true AT LEAST since I was an undergraduate student). This turns out to be a very useful character trait in a mathematician and in an editor. It does have the unfortunate side effect that I do a lot of cringing when I read sloppily written stuff (I could not read the local paper in Americus) or when I watch television. For example, I go crazy when supposedly brilliant people – like certain characters on House or Bones – say things like “The president of the company invited John and I to the ceremony.” — It is VERY distracting to me. I go equally crazy when people use universal, absolute statements that are clearly false. Anyway, the other unfortunate side effect is that at times, my nitpicking drives my friends crazy (as it has you in this case). For that I apologize. I don’t intend to drive people crazy, but I do recognize that it happens sometimes (particularly when I run into someone as stubborn as I am who has an equally difficult time letting go of things). :-)

http://kenswain.com Anonymous

I would like to see how mobility between classes works and if it is posible. For example, you state that you can not move from upper-middle class to top class due to establishment of money and family names. I wonder if that holds true for Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, the Walton family and others that made money for themselves.

CarlM

Daniel has a penchant for making arguments that can easily be demonstrated as false. The assertion that those in the upper-middle class “Can never enter the upper classes because their money (and family) is not well-established enough” is a perfect example. Thanks for joining me in the fight to cure him of using absolute statements.

Daniel, STOP USING ABSOLUTES.

http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

Carl, you are speaking on a subject you don’t know anything about. That isn’t my statement. It comes from the book, an it’s pretty well accepted among those who discuss such things. You’d agree if you’d read the same thing I had.

CarlM

It’s a false statement. kenotic gave a set of examples that definitively PROVES it false. It doesn’t matter what the origin of the statement is. You included it in your summary page. This is the sort of statement that you need to look at with a more skeptical eye.

I’m using the US definition of upper class (as given for example on Wikipedia): In the United States the upper class, also referred to simply as the rich, is often considered to consist of those with great influence and wealth. In this respect the US differs from countries such as the UK where membership of the ‘upper class’ is also dependent on other factors.

You may of course be using a different definition of upper class (in which case, this is simply a silly semantic argument).

http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

I’m using the definition from the book, which is discussed AT LENGTH in the same summary. The notion that new money can never match old money in terms of class is well accepted.

Yes, it is semantic, but I provided the definition I used, which was much of the point of the entire book.

Again, you would understand if you read the book.

Cooperati

“Carl, you are speaking on a subject you don’t know anything about.”

Classic.

-=T=-

http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

Basically Fussell talks about the upper classes being separate from others in ways that don’t change easily, such as having decades-old trust funds, the family having attended the top schools for generations, the family never having had to work, etc.

People becoming billionaires based on genius or some other attribute does not give them access to this secluded world that Fussell talks about. That was the point.

As for general class mobility, it seems fairly easy to move up to some degree according to him, but not by great amounts.

Cooperati

i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/4/3/100443.jpg?v=1

If you’ve never used one, you are unqualified to respond. (But, then, I’m unqualified to write this comment.)

-=T=-

How I See Class

By Daniel Miessler on November 6th, 2011: Tagged as Culture | Philosophy | Science

Related Content

Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs