French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is famous for helping us understand how economic elites reproduce their own wealth across generations. It takes money to make money, and that is certainly true. But as Bourdieu noticed, it wasn’t just money. Upper-class people had entire ways of living that excluded people without money and people who were newly rich. They knew the right people (and knew them in common), the right things (e.g., how to talk about yachts), and the right way to act (e.g., which fork to use first). Other people’s ignorance of these things exposes them to the elite as “not our kind of people.” Even when the elite aren’t biased towards their own on purpose, they’re still more likely to hire the guy who can chat about the most lauded vintage that year, and their children are more likely to marry the children of others who summered alongside them, and so on. All of these little things — mannerisms, interests, languages, sartorial choices — send messages that distinguish the elite from the non-elite, preserving the group as distinctly advantaged.
In other words, Countess Luann is right:
Thanks to RGR for linking to this video in our recent birthday post for Pierre! More Bourdieu-ian posts: taste, dumb vs. smart books, and the Evangelican habitus.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 11
Sam — August 13, 2010
Money also can't buy you singing chops.
rootlesscosmo — August 13, 2010
This important distinction--only one of many--should prompt a re-examination of why we regard "class" as an important variable. Marx asserts (in The Communist Manifesto, 1848) that capitalist society is becoming characterized by only two classes--the others are seen as disappearing or becoming irrelevant--which are defined by their relationship to the means of production: capitalists own them, workers own nothing but their labor-power which they must sell in order to live. We can disagree about whether this was true then, or is true now; what's pretty clear, I think, is that this social categorization was offered in support of a historical forecast made even earlier, and (I think) foundational in Marx and Marxism: "It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today." (The Holy Family, 1844. [emphasis added]
Whatever we may think of this prediction in 2010, it's clear that we need many more metrics to forecast political behavior and to understand political consciousness. "Race" matters, gender matters, sexual orientation matters; a social scientist who claimed to predict political opinions or voter preferences from Marx's simple class binary wouldn't have a much better record than a coin flip. And "class" itself, as in the song, can have different meanings: income, wealth (not the same thing), status, consumer habits etc. In fact we usually need the results of "class analysis" in order to assign people to a given "class," which makes it worse than useless as a predictive tool, since we can only it by using the evidence it's supposed to predict.
I'm a retired blue-collar worker, lifelong unionist, and former Marxist. I think Marx's class binary is founded on a wishful interpretation of history, past and future; the proletariat "will historically be compelled" to fulfill its mission in the Dialectic of History, and to hell with what it "regards as its aim" This is metaphysics, not social science; the word "class" still has powerful emotional resonance, but if we want to understand what creates 21st century political life, what use is it as a category?
rootlesscosmo — August 13, 2010
since we can only it by
should be
since we can only apply it by
(Sorry for the typo.)
Jacob — August 13, 2010
Given a couple generations of private schooling, i'd think that wealth could lead to class for the grandkids of the nouveau riche... Maybe wealth alone can instigate and pay for the transition. Even if there's a lag between the two, the wealth has paid for it all.
al oof — August 14, 2010
it's a video version of an oxymoron. bizarre.
i still have trouble wrapping my head around things like 'sense and sensibility' where people are upper class but don't have any money? that is actually what made me think that class and money weren't directly correlated. that is much more confusing to me than people with money who are not part of the elite.
Sadie — August 14, 2010
It's sad to think that this woman (who, in my opinion, isn't terribly classy) felt the need to put out a song with really basic etiquette tips like not texting on a date, or greeting people properly and warmly. For an "advanced" society, we really are terribly crude (and rude)!
I wonder if kids/young adults will heed the message at all? It would be nice if they did some of these things, if only to appear more "classy."