koganbot: (Default)
[personal profile] koganbot
Help me write my next column figure out what I mean by the phrase "social class"!

--What do people mean when they say "class"?
--What do I mean when I say "class"?
--What should I mean when I say "class"?

I do not necessarily mind that my own and other people's use of the term is vague and inconsistent and contrary, but I do think I should be more specific about the various different species that my inconsistency and contrariness suggest and my vagueness covers up.

--Mapping one way of classifying stuff (stuff?) onto another. E.g., mapping musical genre ("rock 'n' roll") onto a group of people ("teenagers" or "working-class" or, um, black people? white people? Southerners? urban dwellers? hicks?)
--Do people belong to classes, or are classes just roles they play? Or some mixture? "White person" is supposedly a role I play 24/7, whether I want to or not, but is this true? What about roles I was playing ten years ago: "technical editor"? "Support staff"? "Office temp"? Twenty years ago I'd divided punks up into two broad categories: "office-temp punks" and "bike-messenger punks" (obv. each was a synecdoche (??) (er, metaphor) for a bunch of similar ways of earning money).
--You know, power and stuff: people who pay wages and earn profits as opposed to people who are paid wages and are told what to do. But actual roles don't divide up so easily. Anyway, most people are in the latter category (the category "are told what to do"), but the Get-Tolders, being the vast majority of human beings, divide up into classes themselves.
--Etc.
--Do you know any good books or articles I should read on this subject - not just that discuss "class" but that notice that the term is problematic?

Date: 2007-07-17 02:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dubdobdee.livejournal.com
very vague loose handwavey version of marxist "explanation" of ww1: the economic system (viz free market capitalism) led to intense unstable conflict between bourgy and proles in industrialised nations as of the 1840s-50s; the solution was COLONIALISM -- the nations in question set up empires as smash-and-grab raids on the resources of the third world, thereby buying off and semi-co-opting the working classes in said nations, defusing the "contradition"; HOWEVER, by accident of geography and uneven development, these empires were not evenly spread among the various nations, and latecomers (mainly germany) had to seek THEIRS in territories great britain and france had earlier decided were HANDS-OFF (viz the balkans, belgium, russia, etc etc) --- the result was a catastrophic high-tech war BETWEEN the advanced nations, even though it wasn't apparently in anyone's interest (bourgy or prole) in those countries... except of course that the need for hugely intensifed technological war production (and the mass destruction) created vast and powerful new market opportunities

so the argument was that a nation could be in the grip of its markets and corporations -- and that these were pushing it into a situation where the interests of its PEOPLES (not just working class) were entirely secondary, which meant that the wars-as-they-occurred (between nations) occurred as an "expression" [the word i used above, which is not ideal at all] of the class conflict at the root of the story, yet appear to manifest in a way which (as you are saying) exactly FAILS to map onto conflicts of economic classes

Profile

koganbot: (Default)
Frank Kogan

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789 101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 11:07 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios