Classism and Realism

[alixtii]

There's some metafandom-ed posts about Supernatural and class, and at least one flocked post on my flist thinking about it in the abstract, and it's gotten me to revisit my thoughts, because class really does color the way I view fictional characters quite deeply. Well, maybe not class per se, since I've said things like that in the past and been forced to take them back, but classed markers certainly, even as I'm still not at all sure the distinction makes any sense. (Not gender per se but gendered markers? Not race but racialized markers? What are gender, race, and class except a set of markers? Is there such a thing as class essentialism?) Education, idiolect, certain values, cultural capital--things like that--with the archetypal example being high-school student Buffy Summer's ability to make topical allusions to Arthur Miller or Samuel Beckett. (So admittedly it is a very narrow set of classed--and raced and gendered, but especially classed and raced--markers that make me interested in a fictional character.)

Now, the thing I'm still struggling with is how problematic that fact is. It seems acceptable to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about working-class characters" in a way it would never be to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about women" or "I'm not interested in watching a show about characters of color." But as a person of immense privilege, the fact that it seems acceptable may be no more than an indicator of how far I still have to go--the way that replacing "white" and "black" for "men" and "women" in a certain situation can make it much clearer how problematic it is, as in this comment to a languagelog post:

In general, though, I would say there is clearly much more public tolerance in the US for prejudice against women and misogynistic speech than there is tolerance for racist speech. This was most clearly illustrated to me in a story a professor of mine in University told of an administrative meeting he attended where one of the speakers was discussing a vote that had taken place and in relation to that made a joke about how giving women the right to vote had been a mistake, and was met with genuine laughter. He noted, truthfully I think, that this would have been met with awkward incredulity if it were instead about African Americans or some other racial group.

Of course, the degree to which this works will depend on just how "real" one considers sexual difference to be, as evidenced by all the people who disagree with me on whether there will be gender-segregated bathrooms in the feminist utopia. (Of course, insofar as the point of gender-segregated bathrooms is to keep the other sex out, I'd argue there's something hugely heterosexist as well as sexist going on there.) (And if we look at the way racial difference went from seeming quite real to the idea being almost absurd, I don't see why the same process couldn't play out wrt gender.)

Still, it seems to be natural and unproblematic to say "it's better to be rich than to be poor" (even though what I'm really interested and invested in has nothing to do with income except insofar as hip-hop music has something to do with race or skirts have to do with gender) in a way one can't even say, say, "it's better to see than to be blind." (Not that I'd want to say the latter, mind you--I've learned better--but I think it's still intuitive for a lot of people.) And I can only doubt my privilege so much.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to the fact that while the "reality" of sexuality difference is more or less irrelevant to gender inequality (by which I mean that having a penis doesn't convey in itself any real power), and thus the semiotic power of gendered markers are able to function more or less independently of that reality, and the reality of racial difference (none at all chromosomally) is in some ways more and some ways less divorced from racial inequality, Not having a penis is only a lack once you've read Lacan. Similarly with not being white. Not having money, on the other hand--well, obviously this too is a lack which is in large part semiotic, since currency doesn't have any intrinsic value, as you can't eat or drink it--not having the stuff which money can buy to satisfy one's needs and wants, however, represents a real imbalance in power which is not present in the raced or gendered scenarios. And "classism" as a superstructural system of injustice where the rich think the poor are ignorant trash and the working-class think the upper class are pretentious twits sort of operates above this base.

Except that now I sound like some cross between a Lacanian, a classical Marxist, and a metaphysical realist (what is this "real" of which I speak?) and--perish the thought. And ultimately, this distinction does seem to be bogus. The phenomenology of women's lived experience under systemic injustice is that of a "real" lack, no more or less than the one that comes from not having money to spend. All the money in the world won't help you if your boyfriend won't let you out of the house to spend it.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Not having a penis is only a lack once you've read Lacan.

Actually for most people it is a lack the first time they are miles from the nearest loo, bursting for a pee, and there are bloody nettles everywhere.

I think that with all these things there are some statistical averages that are weighted in one direction or another - men on average have greater upper body strength, the middle classes on average are taller etc. - and it is important to know what those are and not go in a huddle of denial about them, but that it is also always irrelevant on the individual level because statistics are other people.

(edited because apparently my grammar goes out of the window on Wednesdays)

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Which brings up some interesting questions about the limits of the radical methodology. To what extent can one overcome real differences simply by acting as if they didn't exist? Is that a worthwhile effort or is it ultimately stacking up further problems along the line?

My instinct is to say that one should never base anything on something one knows to be untrue, but maybe occasionally by doing that you can get through to something new that would otherwise been impossible, and from there you can start to find a fairer outcome that is based on truth. Hmm. This would probably be more interesting if there were some real life examples but I don't have time to think of any.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I thought of the example of Torchwood - creating a pretend world where everyone is bisexual and thus allowing the exploration of all sorts of ideas beyond what is normally possible when portraying minority sexualities. However I think it is important that that is fiction. I suspect the pretence of equality where research is telling us there is no equality is best confined to fiction. That gives the best of both worlds - sticking with reality and the challenges it presents in the real world, whilst allowing fictional worlds to imagine the unrealistic and maybe find new solutions in the process.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I wrote this comment this morning and then my 'net gave out and then once I got it back I forgot to post it. oO

To what extent can one overcome real differences simply by acting as if they didn't exist?

Acting as if differences--whether they be real or socially constructed--don't exist isn't a radical methodology, but a (neo)liberal one; agree with your instint that "that one should never base anything on something one knows to be untrue." The radical methodology is to notice the differences which exist in our society, identify the sources of the difference--the superstructures of systemic injustice--and to remove them.

I don't think the radical theorist is necessarily committed to the claim that all types of difference must be a result of sociolinguistic factors; she must merely remain open at all times the possibility that they all might be, all the way down. And it's important to note that we're not looking at two naturally occurring groups, one of which gets to roll 2d6 for upper body strength and the other 2d6+1 (if you're not familiar with the notation, that would produce two bell curves one a negligible distance to the right from the other); instead, we separate people nature produces into two groups based on criteria that aren't as straight-forward as we act as if they are and then it turns out that there's a disparity between the two groups.

But while it seems whether people can have a real disagreement over whether there's a such thing as "real" sexual difference (although, again, it's real enough to the people experiencing it no matter what the source is), it doesn't even make sense to ask it about class; while we can have questions about what types of sexual and racial difference might be left once we've removed the cultural and linguistic factors, it seems self-evidently clear that it'd be absurd to say that poor people are shorter than rich people even when divorced from an economic system.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

that it is also always irrelevant on the individual level because statistics are other people.

Oh, that's a wonderful way of putting it!

I agree that not denying statistical trends, while still recognizing that trends are only just that and not necessarily intrinsic truths, is important. Although especially with things like "middle classes on average are taller," it's also important to ask why.

I started identifying as a feminist in college (after reading a whole lot of theory and agreeing with it but not seeing the need for the label) after one particular incident. One of the members of my social group freshman year (frosh always move in herds) recognized that are the female students in our group got salads with romaine lettuce and all the male students iceberg. I thought it was a very feminist thing to notice, but instead of taking it to the feminist conclusion and asking how we were differently socialized, she just began to essentialize and call the iceberg lettuce "man lettuce." This annoyed me to no end and put me so over the edge that I decided there was a pressing need for self-identified feminists after all.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Oh, that's a wonderful way of putting it!

Not mine, sadly. It comes from medical ethics where it is used when discussing the pros and cons of telling people their survival 'chances'. But it is a neat phrase because it encapsulates the thing people most often forget about statistics.



That is a brilliant story. I imagine few feminists have come to it through lettuce! (Hee, I even extend the observed pattern in the predicted way since I prefer mixed lettuce for best... what on earth is causing it?)

I think it is important for feminists to self-identify as such. It is also an important marker of success - belief in equality for the sexes is now a standard part of the Western mindset. So feminism means something extra and beyond that mindset, and it needs to be acknowledged firstly that there is something beyond that and then who does and does not agree with the associated beliefs and desires. One thing that bugs me is when feminists try to claim that all women should be feminist - no, for the sake of both parties, it is important to acknowledge the difference.

Although especially with things like "middle classes on average are taller," it's also important to ask why.
It is, there are layers and layers of stuff in "the middle classes on average are taller". I also was thinking after I posted about all the examples I couldn't even mention because speaking of them is taboo, and the very fact of which ones are taboo is interesting in itself as you were saying up above.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

I bet if you were able to ask Lacan, he would say that far from inventing anything, he was describing the way the psyche really functions.

Long ago, Lenny Bruce pointed out that there are lots of fag jokes and hardly any dyke jokes, because if you tell dyke jokes, they punch you in the mouth. I believe this says a lot about the differential acceptability of racist vs. sexist speech.

Every time there's a war + conscription, the authorities discover that poor people tend to be smaller, less physically fit, and more affected by chronic disease than richer people. This generally results in at least a short-term supply of better food for poor people, which in turn results in healthier and less-stunted poor people.

BTW, I like iceberg lettuce.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I don't think Lacan was inventing anything either, but neither do I think he can talk about the way something "really" functions using his definition of "real"--but he's a smart guy and I think it's fairly clear he already knew that, and it's not like the imaginary and symbolic are "unreal." The mysticism and negative theology there is actually really attractive.

I prefer romaine nowadays.

[elf]

"I'm not interested in watching a show about working-class characters" in a way it would never be to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about women" or "I'm not interested in watching a show about characters of color."

Class is not one of the tiny handful of legally-protected, no-discrimination-allowed categories of people in the U.S. Gender, race, and religion are. (After that, it gets blurry. It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, but commercials advertising "use our lotion and look years younger!" are accepted.)

Class isn't just about money. (Which I'm sure you know; I'm rambling to try to sort out my thoughts.) Education and access thereto (while kids from the ghettos *can* grow up to go to college, it's not automatically assumed that they will), professions they are encouraged to learn, neighborhoods and social groups accessible, medical care considered reasonable... a quick lesson in "class" is watching all the TV commercials advertising for the army, and note how many of them are aimed at well-educated college students, or children of celebrities or politicians. (Answer: none.) Then note how many are aimed at people of color or jocks.

Overall, I think there's been not enough consideration of how classism affects and enhances other kinds of discrimination, and it badly tangles the discussions. It's harder to identify--there are no nice clean lines signifying the differences between "classes"--and easy to drag into "oppression olympics," especially for those at the lower end of the "class" scale, who aren't afforded the full cluster of privileges normally associated with their race and gender.

Hmm. Is there a "class privilege" list? Is there even a consensus of what classes are, in the U.S.? (UK also has classes. I have no idea what they are; I do know that they're different, and a bit more distinct than here.)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Class is not one of the tiny handful of legally-protected, no-discrimination-allowed categories of people in the U.S. Gender, race, and religion are.

Well, depending on what U.S. state one lives in, sexual orientation may or may not be. Not to mention things like military experience are on the list. So the question is, I suppose, exactly what factors are at work?

Class is brought up more often when discussing university admissions than employment, it seems.

Is there even a consensus of what classes are, in the U.S.? (UK also has classes. I have no idea what they are; I do know that they're different, and a bit more distinct than here.)

These questions were discussed fairly in-depth both in my last post about classism and the recently metafandomed posts on classism and Supernatural.

[elf]

sexual orientation may or may not be

And there's a few others--national origin separate from race, disability, and so on. But race/gender/religion are the big three, and I believe they're universal; the others vary.

I looked at the other post.
Gah. Bunch of fandoms I don't know. Dr. Who is the only one I've actually seen. (I've watched I think two episode of Buffy. Same of Supernatural.)

It's meta I'm very interested in, but it's hard to chime in with agreement or counterpoints 'cos I don't know canon well enough. And much of the discussion talked about British class concepts... which was nicely informative, but not directly useful.

Part of me thinks that US classism parallels UK racism, and vice-versa... there's a big claim on the part of the privileged that "no such thing exists here, or if it does, it's little pockets of bigotry, not institutionalized prejudice." But I don't know enough about UK society to know if it's a reasonable comparison.

this may be unpopular but....

[hafren.livejournal.com]

It seems acceptable to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about working-class characters" in a way it would never be to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about women" or "I'm not interested in watching a show about characters of color."

I think all three are acceptable. Bizarre, perhaps, and limiting one's potential enjoyment, but perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is RL prejudice against those groups - saying you don't want to work with them or send your kids to school with them. But personal preferences in entertainment are something else. I freely admit to being less interested in female characters than in male ones, partly because I am a woman and know how they work already, partly because as a straight woman I can't fantasise about them. Many of my students won't read books or watch TV shows about old people, whom they find boring. They'll change, as time catches up with them, but right now their preference is understandable and their own affair.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I think you have a point here. Isn't "I don't really relate to the characters" really the biggest factor here?

I'm middle class and from the 'burbs. So the trails of blue collar life don't really ring true with me. But I don't think that my not watching "The King of Queens" makes me a snob. I think it makes me someone who can look at a show and go "I don't think this one is for me."

Also, what would really be the solution here? People watch a lot of TV shows that they don't want to and don't like just to be PC? Also, if minorities don't watch shows with white people in them aren't they guilty of the same thing? What about poor people who don't watch shows about well off folks? Is not liking the rich because they're rich in some way better than not liking the poor because they're poor?

Lastly, isn't the most important thing in ALL of TV the question of if the show is actually any good to start with?

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Looking at it from the other way 'round, someone who says, YES, I want to watch shows about women! I want to watch shows about working-class people! won't exactly be spoiled for choice.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[elf]

I don't know "King of Queens"--but I do know that a lot of TV about "blue collar life" (or whatever's below that; a blue collar job is a step or two up from where most of my friends are) is hideously inaccurate.

In "Dharma and Greg," Dharma and her family & friends are supposed to be outcast hippie-freaks in SF. Setting aside the notion of several outcast hippie-freaks having their own nifty apartments in neighborhoods where Greg's family isn't terrified to visit... none of them seem to be employed at supermarkets or record stores (or three different shops); none of them are wearing oversized, ugly secondhand clothes when they're just hanging around the house; their kitchen appliances all work... I thought there must be some kind of trust fund involved.

*tries to think of other "working class" tv shows; I don't watch much network tv*

Hell, what are the "working class" shows?

[franciskerst.livejournal.com]

I suppose I am a blatant example of such a "parti-pris". I wouldn't watch a show the main focus of which would be women, minorities or disabled persons, and generally speaking, anything bending towards political correctness. I run away as soon as I spot them, as fast and as far as I can. Because I hate the bleeting, self-righteous, sanctimonious preaching tone usually displayed in these sorts of works. Though I don't need excuses or explanations. I just do. Period. Of course I am a cynical European.

[triestine.livejournal.com]

Ah, I just posted a comment trying to explain this, but you said it better.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Since I don't believe there is such a thing as a text which performs an ideologically neutral fucntion in a given sociocultural context, I tend to be suspicious of disavowals of "political correct" messages as more often than not a justification of propaganda supporting the politically incorrect status quo.

[franciskerst.livejournal.com]

Since my favourite places and times as fiction backgrounds are Roman Republic, Victorian Great Britain and ancient Japan, it should be obvious that I'm not especially shy towards descriptions of social inequality!

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Interesting, and I think your prof's observations about misogyny and racism are spot-on, sadly.

Of course, classism is trickier because it's not easy to separate it from elitism -- and that's something not just built into but actively furthered in US society especially. (I personally think that while the elitism is far less pronounced, Germany's classism is stronger than that in the US, only that for decades the middle class was so large and dominant that this wasn't visible.)

[triestine.livejournal.com]

It seems acceptable to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about working-class characters" in a way it would never be to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about women" or "I'm not interested in watching a show about characters of color."

How are they not acceptable? I'm a woman, and I'm not interested in shows about women. In fact, any show with a cast consisting overwhelmingly of (group), be it women, immigrants, middle-aged white men, what have you, is likely to put me off because it is likely to focus on issues relevant to (group), and since I work on those IRL, what I want from my TV is entertainment. I really shouldn't have to feel ashamed because of this, or have it conflated with racism, sexism, or other discrimination.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

As usual, generalizations are always dangerous--it would be clearly wrong to say that someone who wasn't interested in X was motivated against intolerance against X (which I never said it, or would say it). At the same time, all things being equal (which they clearly are not in your specific case), it can function as a warning sign more or less along the same vein as "I'm not racist but..." (which doesn't logically need to be followed by a racist statement, even if it usually is). It's a square on a bingo card, something which may or may not be part of a larger pattern, something which may or may not be defensible on its own terms in a specific instance.

As to why it's a square on a bingo card, I don't think what we find interesting is ever innocent; they're product of our lives and our society and culture. Most people not interested in watching X's lack of interest doesn't stem from the fact that they are out fighting for justice on the part of X the rest of their lives, so I think we can legitimately ask what social forces are at work in creating such a disinterest (especially at a macro level, but on a personal level too). And I don't think the fact that it's intended to be entertaining is a get out of free card--our choice of entertainment is probably the strongest influence on who we are and who we are to become, and I think it needs to be asked why we find what we find to be entertaining entertaining.

[triestine.livejournal.com]

I think we can legitimately ask what social forces are at work in creating such a disinterest

Fair enough, but again it drags the argument back into tying disinterest with active disapproval or worse, and I find that a slippery slope. If someone says "I am not interested in (group)'s issues" I will privately label them as a jerk, but that's the end of what I can assume about them. I am having difficulty finding anything unnaceptable about such a stance; vexing, yes, irritating, yes, worrisome, yes, but not unacceptable.

thanks much

[(Anonymous)]

thats for sure, guy

Good page..

[(Anonymous)]

thats for sure, guy