Chapter 2 The first sensitive topic

Although the vast majority of Americans feel that they do live in an extremely complex social hierarchy, they even suspect that it is the various concerns about social status that control the speech and behavior of people in it.So far, however, the topic of social class has remained ambiguous and often overly sensitive.To this day, even the slightest mention of the subject of social class can greatly irritate people.This situation is like a century ago, when sitting in the social salon of gentlemen drinking tea, once someone talked about sexual issues too openly, the whole room would suddenly become silent.

When someone asked me what I was writing recently, I replied, "A book about social class in America." At this time, people always tighten their ties first, and then sneak a glance at the cuffs to see the frayed degree.After a few minutes, they quietly stand up and walk away.It wasn't just that they suspected me of being a caste spy, but it was as if what I had just said was: "I'm writing a book to encourage people to beat whale calves with the carcasses of seal pups until they die".Before automatically handwriting this book, I had experienced several times a terrible truth that R. H. Tony had observed.In Equality (1931), he wrote: "The word 'rank' suggests all sorts of unpleasant associations. So a lingering moment on the subject is interpreted as psychopathy, jealousy and symptoms of prejudice."

Especially in America, the idea of ​​hierarchy is quite embarrassing.Sociologist Paul Bloomberg, in his book Inequality in a Declining Age (1980), simply refers to social class as "a forbidden idea in America." And it's true.Often, even when the topic is touched, people start to get restless.When two interviewers asked a woman if she thought there were different social classes in this country, she replied, "That's the dirtiest word I've ever heard!" When another man was asked When asked the same question, he became a little annoyed. "Social hierarchy should be wiped out!" he blurted out.

In fact, when faced with this problem, people just reveal their sensitivity to social hierarchy: the more annoyed and angry they feel, the more it shows the reality and harshness of hierarchy.If anyone is prone to getting very anxious, this tendency suggests that you are a middle class person who is very worried about slipping a rung or two.The upper classes, on the other hand, love to talk about it, because the more attention they devote to the matter, the more privileged they appear to be.The poorer classes usually don't mind discussing this topic, because they know that they can do little to change their social status.So, to them, the whole question of class is almost a joke—the empty aristocratic pretentiousness of the upper classes is nothing but stupidity and self-importance;

In fact, it is the middle class who are highly sensitive to social class, and sometimes even frightened to death by the question.In a certain library volume of The Fashion Avant-Garde (1954) by Russell Rings, a representative of the middle class leaves his mark.A section of the book condescends to the unreliable decorative tastes of the middle classes, and then cynically compares them with the more advanced and refined artistic practices of other classes.Next to the text, the irate reader wrote in all caps: "Shit!" In my experience, this must be a hopelessly middle-class man (maybe a woman) ?).

Just as your outrage over class issues reveals exactly who you are, so does the way you explain the thing that pissed you off.People at the bottom like to believe that rank is based on how much wealth a person owns as a standard.People who live in the middle recognize that money has something to do with class differences, but a person's education and the type of work they hold are just as important.Those closer to the top consider taste, values, lifestyle, and behavior to be integral to class identity, with no regard for money, career, or education. Starz Tucker interviewed a woman for America: Separation Street (1967).Not only did she panic about the question of rank, but she also instinctively regarded occupation as the main criterion for classifying her class, a reaction that unmistakably suggested her middle-class status. "On this street, there are people of almost every class," she said, "but I shouldn't mention the word class," she went on, "because we don't live in a country of classes ’” Then came the professional standards. "But in this street there is a janitor, a doctor, a merchant and an accountant." It is common for sociologists to repeatedly state that there is no social hierarchy in the area where they live difference. Leonard Roesman, author of Hierarchy in American Life (1959), wrote: "Almost invariably, the first sentence recorded by investigators is always: 'Our city has no Hierarchy'. Once the phrase comes out, it speaks of the hierarchies that exist in the region, for it is followed by an astonishing unanimity of agreement among the good citizens of the same community." Novelist John O'Hara has painstakingly explored this deeply sensitive subject.His sensitivity to the subject is simply astonishing.As a child, he began to pay attention to the small Pennsylvania town where he was born and raised. "Older people don't treat other people equally."

Class distinctions in the United States are so complex and subtle that visitors from abroad often miss the nuances, or sometimes don't even realize the hierarchy exists.As Frances Taulop described it when she toured the United States in 1932, “the myth of equality is all-powerful.” Governments are embarrassed by this problem—hundreds of hierarchies emerge from government agencies, And there is no official recognition of social class—so the unwary visitor from abroad can easily miss the way the class system works in this country.The experience of the British novelist and literary critic Walter Allan is a good example.In the 1950s, before he came to teach at a university in the United States, he imagined: "There is almost no hierarchy in the United States. Even if there is, it may be just to make some distinctions between different ethnic groups or the continuous flow of immigrants." But , after living in Grand Rapids, Mass., for a while, he finally sobered up.There, he encountered New England snobbery and its long-held deference to the moral and cultural authority of ancient families.

Some Americans look at the failure of the seventies TV series "Beacon Hill" with glee.This is a work about high society, based on the British drama "Upstairs, Downstairs".The viewer consoled himself with the conviction that the work failed miserably because there was no hierarchy in America, which meant that there was no way anyone would be interested in the artistry of the subject matter.Actually they were wrong. The reason "Beacon Hill" failed to appeal to American audiences was because it focused on the segment that was perhaps least interesting to natives — the quasi-aristocratic upper class.If the story takes place at a point of conflict that everyone will focus on, say: either upper class versus middle class.And resist the latter's attempts to intrude upward; or the middle class will fight the lower class with the same enemy, then the effect of this dramatization will be much better.

If foreigners often take the U.S. government's propaganda about social equality as real, local citizens are more than happy to find out, even if they feel somewhat uncomfortable talking about it.A perceptive Southern Negro asserted to an ambitious friend of his: "Joy can't possibly rank among the big men." That makes us think that's the reality.As one carpenter put it, "I hate to say that there are hierarchies in life, it's just that people are more comfortable with people from similar backgrounds." His way of using "similar backgrounds" to classify certain classes of people, although the science he says is uncertain, is almost indistinguishable from any other attempt to distinguish one class from another.Whether you're discussing the Rams or the '49ers with another person, or whether you're discussing recreational vehicles.Big House (i.e., Christ Church, Oxford), Aunt Leonis, Big Board of the New York Stock Exchange, Vineyards, or China, if you don't feel the need to elaborate on the implications of your words, or have no intention of explaining you at all meaning, you are probably talking to someone who shares your rank and status.This is absolutely true.

In this book, my theory will focus primarily on visible and visible symbols of social class, but I will focus primarily on symbols that reflect one's behavioral choices, which means that I will not consider race , and even, except occasionally, religious or political considerations are not taken into account.The difference between races is obvious, but you can't help yourself to choose.Religious and political views are often chosen by people, but people's expressions are generally hidden except occasionally limited to a front yard shrine or a small sticker on a car's bumper.You can't usually tell if a person is "Roman Catholic" or "Liberal."You see "hand-painted ties" or "poor polyester shirts" and you hear "qualifying factors" or "insofar as."

To make sense of signals as varied as these, I have been relying on my senses and intuition rather than anything that could be called "scientifically sound."As Arthur, author of "High Level: Image and Reality" (1980).As Marwick said, I am convinced that "hierarchy ..., just because it is a topic too big to be left to the social scientists." Rank in particular should be a serious American topic.Because here we do not have a hereditary title, the system of status and honor can be analysed, and each generation has to redefine the hierarchy.This society is changing faster than any other society in the world.And, almost uniquely, Americans are perplexed by the question of where to fit in this society.All the things that gave people class in the thirties—the white linen leggings for golf, the chrome cocktail shaker, the white piping waistcoat—are, to put it mildly, out of date today. Worked.In a society of rapid change rather than tradition, Americans find it more difficult than most Europeans to "know where they stand."And another imminent thing, "to act", is particularly important. "What should I do?" New York Mayor Corker once asked loudly.Most of his audience felt sympathetically that he had just rightly asked a typically American question. It is no accident, as the British philosopher Anthony Quinton puts it, that "the modern form of literature on etiquette is chiefly an American product. These "great" names are Emily Post, or Emmy Vanderbilt.” That’s because the United States is the number one gathering place for first-timers.These people especially need to put themselves in a favorable position, and then develop rapidly."Some of the first-timers are immigrants, geographically; some are new rich, economically; and some are young people, growing up," Quinton said. One exception faces the problem of how to be closely related to the functioning of a social group." Comedian Rodney Dangerfield, who complained that he was getting nothing, was one of the nationals studied by John Adams.Adams said as early as 1805, "The reward...in life is the respect and admiration of others. Ignoring and belittling is your punishment...The desire for respect is as real as the natural hunger , while the neglect and contempt of the world cause pains like gout or gallstones..." About the same time, the Irish poet Thomas More felt that, with the establishment of the United States Constitution for the equality of all people, a special kind of Dilemma has befallen American life.He portrayed the citizens of Washington, D.C., as some sort of "born slaves who struggle to become masters."Thirty years later, in Democracy in America, Tocqueville touched precisely on the particular problem of this land: the thirst for hierarchy.“Nowhere else,” he writes, “citizens appear so insignificant as in this democracy.” As a result, “here are the people who pay the greatest pains and efforts in the world to acquire—I am afraid that is not the right word— -status". Still in the nineteenth century, Walt Whitman wrote in "Visions of Democracy" (1871) that the structure of American government created a condition (or at least the illusion) of equality among Social acceptance, the establishment of one's self-esteem, will be a protracted struggle with some unspeakable anxiety that if everyone is a character, everyone will be a character, as in a recent poll chaired by Lewis Harris In the quiz, 76% of the respondents believed that what they need most is "respect from others."In a recently seen ad, an ad writer offered potential buyers of a certain coffee table a seductive American look: "Create a rich, warm, sensual coffee table for your good taste." Suggestion! The kind of suggestion that will enable you to call respect and attention in any imaginable situation." In America, where the social class flows so smoothly, there seems to be a reward for everyone lucky.And the special dangers that accompany this situation are: disappointment, and envy after it.This myth gives the impression that you can always "earn" your way up the ladder.However, once a person finds himself trapped in a system of hierarchical distinctions and doubts the necessity of this system, the disillusionment and inner pain are especially strong at this time.Some people find in their early middle-class life that apparently irrelevant factors such as genetic traits, early background, parental or older social status, or More or less restricted their development.They thus become somewhat hopeless, not without destructiveness, though they generally keep it secret.Tocqueville was keenly aware of these psychological crises.He admits that "the joy is stronger in a democratic age than in an aristocratic age, and there are a great many people to share in the joy." But he adds that in an atmosphere of equality, "people's hopes and desires are more often ruled by others." Destroyed, the soul is more tormented and troubled, so take better care of yourself." After hopes were dashed, envy came.Never underestimate the power of sheer class envy and disillusionment with the myth of officially proclaimed class equality behind the egregious and even criminal behavior of this country.Anyone who parks his attractive car on a metropolitan street and returns only to find the windows shattered and the radio antenna snapped off in the middle will understand what I mean.Congressman Joseph McCarthy's speech in West Virginia in 1950 made it all too obvious what he really meant when he lashed out at the upper-middle and upper classes not because they were tainted with "Communism" but because Obviously out of jealousy."It wasn't those who were less wealthy or members of a few minority groups who betrayed this country, but those who had all the advantages, the best families, the best college education..." The humorist Roger Price, in The Great Ruburt Revolution (1970), even understood rank envy as revenge for egalitarianism.He distinguishes between egalitarianism and democracy this way: "Democracy requires that all its citizens are born equal, while egalitarianism insists that all citizens should die equal." L. R. Hartley once wrote in the novel "Appearance of Justice" (1960) It satirizes a future society that is somewhat similar to ours today.People there hold a "prejudice for beautiful appearance".And government cosmetic surgeons correct the inequalities in everyone's appearance.Here, the scalpel is never used to make people beautiful—it is used to make everyone plain. Despite our open embrace of political and legal equality, in terms of personal perception and understanding - much of which is rarely revealed - we categorize things vertically and insist that differences in values ​​matter, No matter what we say about equality, I think everyone, at some point, is coming to appreciate what Oscar Wilde once said: "The equality and fraternity of human beings is not a mere poet's dream; it is a very depressing and deeply humiliating reality.” It seems that what we need from the bottom of our hearts is difference, not togetherness.We are intrigued by difference and separation, and we are bored by fusion. Although the federal government is reluctant to name a social hierarchy, it seems to recognize that it divides its civil servants if, in law, we are all equal, but in other respects of real life, the opposite is true. There are eighteen grades: from the bottom first class (mail carrier), second class (postal clerk), up to fifth class (secretary), ninth class (pharmacist), fourteenth class (judicial personnel), to the top sixteenth.Sixteenth and eighteenth grades (senior government executives).There is also a hierarchy of different jobs in the construction industry.The lowest level is "earth work", that is, foundation excavation work; the middle position is the laying and construction of sewers, roads, and tunnels; the top level is the building itself (as the height of the building rises, the higher the status ).People who sell "boss desks" and related office equipment know that there will be a strict "hierarchy" between them and their customers.The oak table is the lowest, the walnut table next, and then the mahogany, if you like it, belongs to the "upper middle" category, until the ultimate: teak.In various ladies' social situations in the military, pouring coffee is a privilege that belongs to the wives of higher ranking officers.Every woman there knows that coffee is a step up from tea. Ratings can be found almost everywhere.Just take musical instruments as an example.Traditionally, symphony orchestras have arranged groups of instruments according to the subtlety of sound and difficulty of playing different kinds of instruments.Stringed instruments occupy a high position, followed by woodwind instruments, followed by brass instruments, and percussion instruments are ranked last. According to the difficulty of playing, the accordion is almost the lowest, and the violin is close to the highest position.Another way of arranging instruments according to some notion of "social class" is to take into account the prestige of the instrument group that usually plays the instrument.It's like the composer Edward Cohn said: "If you play the violin, you can play in a string quartet or a symphony orchestra, but not in a jazz band, much less in a marching band." Among the wind instruments, the flute and the oboe are mainly the instruments of the symphony orchestra. The clarinet is not as good as them, because the symphony orchestra, jazz band and military band all have its share. As for the brass instruments, the French horn has the highest position, because so far It's also not used to play jazz, and for the same reason, timpani is the highest ranked percussionist. The lower the pitch an instrument can produce, the lower its rating is in general. Because bass instruments are generally considered easy to play (Except the bassoon). So, the sosa is lower than the trumpet, the double bass is lower than the viola. And so on.” If someone says to you, "My kid is taking trombone lessons," the smile on your face will be harder to control than when someone says, "My kid is taking flute lessons." It shows a kind of contempt of relief, which is usually the cultural response of Europeans and Americans. A translator's note).On the other hand, hearing someone say, "My child is learning the old cello," gives you a strong signal of class, which correlates strongly with an interest in classical culture, museums, galleries, or "educational" work. .The guitar (unless it is being used to play classical—that is, ancient-style—music) is inherently inferior, which explains why young people in the 1960s and 1970s were so fond of using it to represent the downgrading of internationalism.Guitars are always associated with gypsies, nomads, or other people who have neither inheritance nor fixed income and live in a fixed place.So, for those young people who escaped from the upper middle class or the middle class, the guitar is the most perfect symbol of their identity. William Barrett, a former socialist and editor of the Partisan Review, concluded when he reflected on the social changes of the past two decades: "The 'classless society' is increasingly looking like a utopian illusion. Socialist countries develop created their own hierarchical structure,” although the hierarchy there was largely based on bureaucracy and flattery. "Since there must be hierarchy anyway, why don't we let it exist in a more organic, heterogeneous, and diverse form" inherent in the West?" So, since there is hierarchy in our society, why don't we To learn as much as possible about it?The topic may be overly sensitive, but it doesn't have to be left permanently ambiguous.