alixtii | Classism and Realism

Entry tags:

Classism and Realism

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.

Threaded | Flat

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)

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.

"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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

thats for sure, guy

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

this may be unpopular but....

no subject

no subject

no subject

thanks much

Good page..