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

[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.

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

You forgot about me :sob:

;o)

Acting as if differences--whether they be real or socially constructed--don't exist isn't a radical methodology, but a (neo)liberal one;

Oh the popular people's front.

From where I stand the theory may be different but the only action I've seen radicals engage in seems to me to be very similar to that which the liberals advocate - a sort of extreme form of political correctness. But I'll take your word for it that there's a difference. I think the question still applies to both groups though - how to deal with inequalities caused by actual biological differences that no amount of social management can alter.

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.

Yes, but it doesn't pay to get too hung up on the extremes of the curve. The disparities after all are not there because of the people on the edges not being acknowledged. Not acknowledging unusual people can be a problem in its own right but it really isn't relevant to the lives of the majority. Besides, societies are often very good at making space for marginal people. To take the example of gender, most societies that I know anything about have always had a place for ambiguously-gendered people. There are roles for them, and ways for the society to acknowledge and thus to some extent overcome its fear of the different, normally involving a form of 'marking' by codes of dress or behaviour. None of which makes a blind bit of difference to the relations between most women and most men.


it doesn't even make sense to ask it about class...it'd be absurd to say that poor people are shorter than rich people even when divorced from an economic system

Yes, because class is a social and economic construct. There are biological differences but they are very diffuse because class does not persist for many generations. So take away the economic and social factors and you won't be able to identify class. I'm not sure if you could say that it wasn't 'real' though, I suppose it depends on what value you are giving to 'real'.

Oddly enough there was an article in this morning's paper that gave a classic example of some people failing to acknowledge the difference between statistics and individuals. I suppose it is good news that at least some of the commenters have acknowledged the difference. Sadly journalists tend to be amongst those who are very bad at understanding statistics.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Yes, but it doesn't pay to get too hung up on the extremes of the curve. The disparities after all are not there because of the people on the edges not being acknowledged.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It is, of course, the extremes of the curve which drives the perception of sexual difference--if the beginning and ends of the graph were cut off, so that the strongest man was no stronger than the strongest woman and the weakest woman no weaker than the weakest man, a difference (although, still, a difference between two groups which are not natural categories, because my metaphysics does not permit any such thing as a natural category) might still be statistically demonstrable, but I doubt it'd feel as real.

I'm not sure if you could say that it wasn't 'real' though, I suppose it depends on what value you are giving to 'real'.

Well, I suppose the key is that my metaphysics has no place for anything being any more "real" than that value of "real"--except for the unspeakably mystical, which is "really real," but of course we can't talk about that.

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

It is, of course, the extremes of the curve which drives the perception of sexual difference

I disagree with that. If you have a plot of 'body strength' against 'frequency' and draw curves for 'men' and 'women' there will be overlap at the edges, where 'abnormal' people feature, but the basic curves won't overlap much. I would say the gender differences are very real and exist because the summits of the two curves are separated by some distance. The most obvious difference is reproduction equipment, and most of our historical gender differences seem traceable back to that. But simple daily observation tells me that most men are starting from a position of greater body strength than most women. It probably isn't apparent to people who work in offices but out in my daily life it is a hugely significant and dominant factor. Men are stronger - it's just a fact.

And let's face it, gender inequality didn't come about because of some huge conspiracy of men that women were too stupid to prevent, it came about because men are stronger and not rendered relatively immobile by pregnancy and young children. Those differences still exist and are still relevant in today's society.