Letters to the Editor
-
I love you Heather, but this column is bullshit.
All in the Family was quite unique in depicting a real working class home (indeed, unless I'm mistaken the show was criticized by people in Queens for depicting a house that was frupier and more threadbare than the ones in which people were actually living). The Brady Bunch, The Donna Donna Reed Show, Father Knows Best, and Leave It to Beaver—note three decades of sitcoms in that list—and on and on routinely depicted people living affluent, upper middle class lives. That was nice living and not attainable for everyone Remember that Donna Stone's husband was a doctor?
Yes, the 70's gave us a couple of shows like Laverne and Shirley. But then, they were conveniently set in the fab 50's, where everything was wonderful no matter where you were, and a hardware store owner could have a very nice two story house and put kids through college almost effortlessly. Of course, sitcoms with black people where set in the ghetto, for, like, relevance or something. I think the real issue is that you grew up, as I did, in the 70's when a number of big hits took place in atypically realistic settings.
And the criticism of thirtysomething wasn't grounded in their economics. The question wasn't "How can these people with money whine so much?" It was, "How can these adults be so selfish and childish and demanding?" They acted like teens and they were parents. They weren't in any better economic condition than the familes headed by Robert Young or Dick Van Patten.
Maybe the reason people watch the rich incessantly is because they assume they ain't never gonna get it, and taking a peak at things is what they have to live on. Just like people in the Depression couldn't get enough of runaway heiresses and silly rich folks in the screwball comedies of the time.
Does this cause people to groan and desire and toss their meager salaries away to keep up with the imaginary Joneses? Maybe you're going through that. I don't own a flat screen t.v. Truth be told, I don't own a television. I don't own an iPod, and I haven't traded in my CD Walkman for even an MP3 player. It's just cheaper to use what I have. Wouldn't mind having pots of cash, but until I do, I certainly won't spend money that doesn't exist.
What's got you down? Salon force you to take a salary cut or something?
-
Class in America
It seems like a decent amount of the discussion here has revolved around definitions of class - what constitutes middle, working, etc. It seems as though the old class terminology isn't working very well anymore. Does anyone know of any decent updates on class theory/terminology since, say, 1995?
-
you're right emmers, class is in flux
the old class distinctions were coherent - the same people had the money, the connections and the influence both social and political. it's not so now. bill gates has the most money, but no social influence, little political influence and few connections. civil rights, a monumental social change had nothing to do with the old distinctions of money, politics, and race. the various rights groups that it spawned also weren't class based. the internet adds a new wrinkle, i can truthfully say never have so many people listened to what i had to say. influence? if you call widespread annoyance, influence, yes. as class is narrowing, it is also breaking. interesting.
-
I suspect Gates has enormous political influence.
His ability to contribute so hugely to any politician he choose guarantees that. He may not have much sway with the average voter, but who he backs probably has a tremendous influecne on American politics.
And though Oprah doesn't come from privelage and is hardly a member of uppercrust society, she has an enormous influence on both our (don't laugh to hard) culture and probably our politics. My guess is her big-time support for Obama will help him tremendously, not only in terms of her financial contribution, but the contributions her fans will make, and the votes they cast.
I think the old-time categories likely work very well. And anyone who reads Edith Wharton knows there was always a distiction between New Rich and Old Money, cash in the bank and societal standing. That's a pretty old chestnut, really. I suspect she'd take one glance at our world and say "Nothing's changed. The skirts are shorter."
-
of course you're right christopher, i meant in comparison with the money
gates has fifty billion! and he couldn't even stop the antitrust suit! oprah, with 1.3 billion has a LOT of cultural and social significance. but only to seduce, not confront. there's a limit to her power, not so with MLK. old money? you mean like the astors? well i suppose the duPonts have more influence than the waltons with the equivalent family sum, but hell! who even *knows* the likes of them? i was just, what would you call it? i suppose pretending i knew something when i don't, about covers it. i don't know who runs the world, or even if any do.
-
The show might be worth watching if the middle and working classes were to vanish
The show might be worth watching if it were to explore the consequences for the wealthy upper classes if the middle and working classes were to suddenly vanish. Or, even better, if the middle and working classes were to decide not to do business with the upper classes, and instead were to open their own businesses, own their own factories, and so on. This theme is unlikely to be explored on television.
What would be the likely consequence for the upper, more educated classes? Faced with the immediate possibility that they could only fill jobs in the executive suite, they might start breeding faster in the hope of producing the necessary underclasses, whose work would sustain the upper classes in the manner to which they have become accustomed--though they probably would be doomed from the start.
It seems that the middle and lower classes are needed in greater numbers to sustain a smaller fraction of individuals in the upper classes. So the more educated upper classes reproduce less, because current economic circumstances cannot sustain them in greater numbers.
This circumstance is often rationalized by individuals as a matter of personal choice, but it owes its genesis to biology. The rationalization any one person might give for having or not having children is likely to be an ex post facto rationalization for motivations beyond the conscious perception and control of the individual.
But if one were to calculate the rate of reproduction in each of the various economic classes, one would find that each of the reproduction rates correspond to that necessary to sustain a given class. This is so despite the appearance of reproductive choice in any individual case.
But television will not explore such issues; indeed, the medium has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.