I think that there's a missing piece here, and that's social mobility. For social mobility to exist, it would have to be possible for working-class people to become ruling-class, and generally that involves a stint in the loathed middle. But as soon as a working-class person starts to move toward the middle, to see Obama's promise of higher education for their children as an opportunity rather than a threat, they become that dreaded middle class, disdained by both high and low, described here as self-promotion-obsessed and lacking in empathy.
So it's seen as a positive here that "the people I know that are actually from ruling-class backgrounds, they like working-class people because they're more real [than the middle class]". But couldn't you also also frame it as, "ruling-class people like working class people who know their place" (because if they don't they are, in this framework, middle class by definition). And couldn't this dynamic undermine social mobility?
"I never say that to working-class people. I say, “I'm a counselor.” So there's a leveling.
Not wanting another person to feel diminished.
Solidarity is a really powerful. The solidarity between us is way more important than any individual accomplishments."
This is a really positive framing of the exchange, and I'm not convinced. Is it necessarily kindness for the feelings of others on the part of the psychologist/counselor, or is it also fear of the attack that will come if she dares to acknowledge her job title? The same attack, perhaps, that she got for writing a $50 check. I don't know if I can see this as a system of mutual solidarity if it is enforced punitively. (Especially against women. I wonder if a male psychologist from a working-class background would feel the same degree of pressure to minimize his career.)
I so appreciate this distinction between ‘becoming’ and ‘belonging.’ It helps me understand my frustration with what seems like lack of ambition among working class family members and my oversupply of middle-class striver’s syndrome.
This interview resonated in all sorts of ways for me. If I might add a footnote to Barbara Jensen’s comment about the intelligence required for working-class jobs, it would be THE MIND AT WORK, by Mike Rose (Penguin, 2005). Mike was a professor of education from a working-class family who took a democratic joy in the intelligence of “regular” people. He wrote several fine books, but this one speaks directly to labor and a senses of self.
I was also struck by Barbara’s distinction between people who work with things and those who work with symbols. But I’m not sure that the world of work divides so simply. I’d like to add at least one more group of people who work with people: teachers, counselors, nurses, social workers, and all sorts of service workers. I bring this up because as someone who moved from a working-class family to a professional job (college writing teacher), it has been extremely important to me to see myself as not simply churning out books and articles (working wit symbols) but having an impact on students.
I think that there's a missing piece here, and that's social mobility. For social mobility to exist, it would have to be possible for working-class people to become ruling-class, and generally that involves a stint in the loathed middle. But as soon as a working-class person starts to move toward the middle, to see Obama's promise of higher education for their children as an opportunity rather than a threat, they become that dreaded middle class, disdained by both high and low, described here as self-promotion-obsessed and lacking in empathy.
So it's seen as a positive here that "the people I know that are actually from ruling-class backgrounds, they like working-class people because they're more real [than the middle class]". But couldn't you also also frame it as, "ruling-class people like working class people who know their place" (because if they don't they are, in this framework, middle class by definition). And couldn't this dynamic undermine social mobility?
"I never say that to working-class people. I say, “I'm a counselor.” So there's a leveling.
Not wanting another person to feel diminished.
Solidarity is a really powerful. The solidarity between us is way more important than any individual accomplishments."
This is a really positive framing of the exchange, and I'm not convinced. Is it necessarily kindness for the feelings of others on the part of the psychologist/counselor, or is it also fear of the attack that will come if she dares to acknowledge her job title? The same attack, perhaps, that she got for writing a $50 check. I don't know if I can see this as a system of mutual solidarity if it is enforced punitively. (Especially against women. I wonder if a male psychologist from a working-class background would feel the same degree of pressure to minimize his career.)
So great and thought-provoking. Thanks!
I so appreciate this distinction between ‘becoming’ and ‘belonging.’ It helps me understand my frustration with what seems like lack of ambition among working class family members and my oversupply of middle-class striver’s syndrome.
This interview resonated in all sorts of ways for me. If I might add a footnote to Barbara Jensen’s comment about the intelligence required for working-class jobs, it would be THE MIND AT WORK, by Mike Rose (Penguin, 2005). Mike was a professor of education from a working-class family who took a democratic joy in the intelligence of “regular” people. He wrote several fine books, but this one speaks directly to labor and a senses of self.
I was also struck by Barbara’s distinction between people who work with things and those who work with symbols. But I’m not sure that the world of work divides so simply. I’d like to add at least one more group of people who work with people: teachers, counselors, nurses, social workers, and all sorts of service workers. I bring this up because as someone who moved from a working-class family to a professional job (college writing teacher), it has been extremely important to me to see myself as not simply churning out books and articles (working wit symbols) but having an impact on students.
Sure, why not?
So much of this rings true to me, as a "class traitor." Thanks for having the conversation!
Somewhat related and quite entertaining - https://danco.substack.com/p/the-michael-scott-theory-of-social - "The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class"
That one in turn references Michael Church's three ladder social class system, but all the links I can find to that one are broken :(