demagogue on 3/9/2012 at 10:29

---

I've had the internet off for a few days so couldn't jump back in... Re: "class", I think it's pointing to a definite phenomenon of social behavior, like if you had any respectable theory of sociology and demography, you would want a category like it to explain certain tendencies...

But like always I'd want to get into the cognitive science of why people are attracted to certain ways of life over others that historically fell under the "class" rubric, and on that I think the more realistic answer is similar to the post-modern answer. That is, in the modern world, "class interests" are actually a tangled mess of cognitive strands, each of which apply to a greater or lesser degree to individuals based on individual motivations with no coherent rational cohesion to them (specific cognitive drives you can just point to directly). So you could account for the fact that most "new rich" Americans are entertained by very "low class" entertainment (cf. NASCAR, & look at the Rep party itself) and a lot of the "high class" entertainment is appreciated by "old money" rather poorer demographics now, and there is such an incoherent tangle of "class" strands, that the best theory in the end is just to look directly: "What kinds of are people attracted to NASCAR & slap-on-the-back agreements, & why? What kinds of people are attracted to opera, proper grammar, and "rational arguments" to solve arguments, and why?", and you're going to get a much more nuanced and constructive theory than anything "class" as a single concept is going to give you (e.g., looking cognitive drives directly: feeling a sense of community in a specific situation; or an orientation to interpersonal relations in specific cases... E.g., There are situations where I play up my interest in comics & video games, and other situations I play up my interest in jazz & philosophy; the situation & context is involved as much as "me" & my background).

Or to put it more briefly, the concept of "class" itself as a single coherent "thing" I think fractured apart into incoherent splinters decades ago. What's left I think are the splintered fragments of countless class-like strands that people mix and match in no coherent way that you have to look at individually, bottom-up (values my parents, peers, & teachers taught me that I want to reinforce or push down for different reasons; how I want to express or distance my feeling of membership to this social group in this situation to maximize some interest I have; etc) without any greater thing directing them from above, which I don't think exists (if it ever did), but particularly because of the radical social mixing that's happened in the modern era, and the ubiquity of mass media & universal (mixed) primary education, which means modern minds can't bind themselves to innately be "some group" anywhere approaching what they could and did in the past... although of course you get more strands than others depending on the situation (are we talking about suburban schools or inner-city schools? regions with high social mobility or low social mobility? Etc. You'll get more or less "class" strands depending on the context. But even the "strongest exhibiting" groups I think aren't "class based" in the way pre-modern people were.)

faetal on 3/9/2012 at 10:33

---

They could even have an outdoor bit and people could walk past their paddock and see them being fed.

Scots Taffer on 3/9/2012 at 10:43

---

dethy, I think you'll find he didn't.

june gloom on 3/9/2012 at 11:09

---

It's hard to tell with him sometimes, you know?

Shug on 3/9/2012 at 14:50

---

It's a touch depressing to think how many millions of people buy into the "land of the free, last great hope of mankind" kind of bullshit while they live a lower quality of life than the entirety of other OECD countries