Classism in our daily lives

[Magical Realist]

Classism from our Mouths
By Betsy Leondar-Wright

"We've all learned classist prejudices, and none of us has completely eradicated them from our minds, or from our speech.

Few middle-class people would say we have prejudices against working class or low-income people, of course. Our classism is often disguised in the form of disdain for southerners or midwesterners, religious people, patriotic people, employees of big corporations, fat or non-athletic people, straight people with conventional gender presentation (feminine women wearing make-up, tough burly guys), country music fans, or gun users.

And we all make mistakes. There's not a middle-class person alive who hasn't said dumb, insensitive things that step on working-class toes. Hiding our classist mistakes or defending ourselves ("I didn't mean it that way") doesn't do any good. The only thing for it is to 'fess up, apologize, laugh at ourselves, and commit to learning how do better in the future.

As we talk, working-class people notice how oblivious or how aware of class issues we seem, and make decisions about how much to collaborate with us based on those evaluations, among other factors. The goal of reducing the classism in our speech is not to keep ourselves out of trouble by avoiding angering working-class people, and it's not to reach some kind of perfect non-classist purity. The goal is to make ourselves more trustworthy and to alienate working-class people less, so that we can work together for economic justice and other common goals.

As I interviewed people about the classism they had seen in the movement, it began to seem like all the examples could be summed up in these two phrases: overlooking intelligence, and overlooking necessity. Here are some examples of each:

Overlooking intelligence

"As our [peace] group started growing, more college-educated men came in ... .I remember feeling that I was slowly becoming invisible. In a discussion about who should be the speakers in community churches ... I volunteered to speak ... Someone said, "Well, you know, I think Ken might be a better person to speak to this group because people will listen to a doctor more." I felt I wanted to crawl inside myself and disappear. Before this incident, I had been afraid to speak but I had thought I had a lot to contribute to the peace movement. Afterwards I thought I had nothing to say that anyone would want to hear."

—Linda Stout, Bridging the Class Divide

"Growing up, I attached 'stupid' to workers and 'smart' to executives. This didn't happen because of a weird personal quirk. It resulted from force-fed images and words of TV shows, newspapers, magazines, and movies. Any TV show with working-class characters, first The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy, the All in the Family, covertly and overtly highlighted the stupidity of bus drivers, factory workers, and plumbers. Movies, books, and comics followed suit. At school, middle-class kids called us stupid; we hurled back 'stuck up', but never 'stupid'.

—Joanna Kadi, Thinking Class"

http://www.classmatters.org/2004_11/from_our_mouths.php
===============================================================
Needful introspection is pressing also for internalized classism in which one has adopted the surrounding prejudice against your class or income level as a sense of shame and an avoidance of public situations. After so much innuendo and marginalization one internalizes the sense of one's perceived inferiority as part of who you are. You adopt submissive behaviors and a fatalist resignation to being stereotyped due to your dress, the kind of car you drive, your family, where you live, your accent, your political positions, your weight, or even the places you shop or dine at. Paranoia and social anxiety ensue as one navigates a society entrenched in superficial snap judgments and subliminally-sensed subtle devaluations of one's worth as a human being.

[Syne]

Few middle-class people would say we have prejudices against working class or low-income people, of course. Our classism is often disguised in the form of disdain for southerners or midwesterners, religious people, patriotic people, employees of big corporations, fat or non-athletic people, straight people with conventional gender presentation (feminine women wearing make-up, tough burly guys), country music fans, or gun users.

These descriptions are used as pejoratives by most leftists. People who imagine themselves the social betters of others without demonstrable merit. But then, humility doesn't seem to be a trait valued by the left, and identity politics their only strategy. Divide and conquer?

[Leigha]

What has been interesting to see with the Democrats after the election was won by Trump, is that they thought that the country was more concerned with identity politics, than with other issues.

[Carol]

economic justice - that should be a matter of math.

As for all the other concerns.

1. We respect everyone.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.

There can be one more- look for God in everyone. That might be easier coming from an eastern philosophy than from a western point of view.

---

What has been interesting to see with the Democrats after the election was won by Trump, is that they thought that the country was more concerned with identity politics, than with other issues.

I blame the media for this and education since the 1958 National Defense Education Act that replaced our liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology.  That is the same education that resulted in Hitler's election.  We have had reactive politics and power struggles that destroy democracy for many years, and unfortunately, a public that can not see what is wrong but is sure something is wrong, and is looking for a Lion King that will make everything right.

[Syne]

Anytime you add a qualifier to justice (social justice, economic justice, etc.) you are inherently creating injustice. You are saying that one specific form of justice takes precedent over justice in general, and that always leads to more means justified by the prioritized ends. Economics is simple, IF you can realize it's not a zero-sum game. The second you think it's a zero-sum game, you start depriving industrious people in favor of the less industrious...which is an injustice that ultimately leads to no one being industrious.

So Democrats are naive enough to believe the media because education failed them? I would at least agree that education is sorely lacking in critical thinking skills. And I agree that a lack of critical thinking leads to fascism. Control of the media for propaganda and gun control agendas are symptomatic of fascism. And if the US were a pure democracy, we'd definitely be in trouble.

[Syne]

This seems relevant to this thread too.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Rxqb6zXDYkA

[Magical Realist]

Anytime you add a qualifier to justice (social justice, economic justice, etc.) you are inherently creating injustice. You are saying that one specific form of justice takes precedent over justice in general, and that always leads to more means justified by the prioritized ends.

And that's complete bullshit. There are many subcategories of the general domain of justice, and the fact that they are qualified doesn't mean they have priority over justice in general. Criminal justice, civic justice, corporate justice, military justice, environmental justice, international justice. All these are simply specialized applications of the general principle of justice or fairness just as social and economic justice are. There is no assertion of their priority or value over any other application nor of justice itself. Just as there are many subcategories of Medicine which do not in any way exclude or demote in priority the general field of Medicine.

[Syne]

Anytime you add a qualifier to justice (social justice, economic justice, etc.) you are inherently creating injustice. You are saying that one specific form of justice takes precedent over justice in general, and that always leads to more means justified by the prioritized ends.

And that's complete bullshit. There are many subcategories of the general domain of justice, and the fact that they are qualified doesn't mean they have priority over justice in general. Criminal justice, civic justice, corporate justice, military justice, environmental justice, international justice. All these are simply specialized applications of the general principle of justice or fairness just as social and economic justice are. There is no assertion of their priority or value over any other application nor of justice itself. Just as there are many subcategories of Medicine which do not in any way exclude or demote in priority the general field of Medicine.

I have no idea what "civic justice" may be. Maybe you mean civil justice or civic responsibility? But you are right. "Anytime you add a qualifier" is far too broad a statement. Good catch. But the sentiment holds for the category of qualifier for which I gave examples, which include social, economic, organizational, corporate (corporate social responsibility), and environmental justice. These are all forms of distributive theories of justice, but we'll come back to that.

Criminal, civil, military, and international justice are not theories but established methods and institutions for dealing with harm and infractions within specific domains. Those distributive theories are just that, theories and principles that seek to focus justice on solely distributive concerns, which necessarily prioritizes distributive justice over the individual justice. Distributive justice always entails some degree of individual injustice.

Most important of all, justice is individualistic: since the deserts of individuals differ from one another, so should their rewards and punishments differ from one another. That is why Aristotle said that justice consists of “treating equals equally, and unequals unequally.” If five persons have committed no crime and five other persons have committed crimes with a one-year sentence attached, it would be unjust to average out all their records and condemn all ten to six months in jail. The innocent do not deserve the sentence, and the guilty do. Justice is not a matter of averaging; it is a matter of assigning to each individual his or her proper desert.

The example just given illustrates the opposite of justice, namely collectivism: that is, not considering a person’s individual deserts but considering his behavior solely as a member of some group. Suppose someone in tribe A has killed a man in tribe B, and in retaliation the members of tribe B conduct a massacre of the entire tribe A. Only one of the members of tribe A was guilty of murder, but all his fellow tribesmen are killed, not because they were involved in the killing but simply because they were members of the same tribe as the killer. Such tribal retaliations, though common in primitive societies, are gross injustices because they involve the punishment of those who do not deserve it. (A variant of this occurs when the members of tribe B select a member of tribe A at random and kill him, even though the person killed was not the person who was guilty; he was selected not because he was guilty, but simply because he happened to belong to the same tribe as someone who was.)

Racism is a particularly pernicious form of collectivism. Persons who cast racial slurs on others are not considering the individual merits or demerits of the person slurred; they may not know the individual at all, except that he is a member of some racial group (Jews, blacks, Ital ians, etc.). Though the person’s individual qualities may be quite different from many other members of the group, all this is ignored: all they know or care is that he is a member of that group. “A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin. It is hard to say which is the more outrageous injustice: the claim of Southern racists that a Negro genius should be treated as inferior because his race has ‘produced’ some brutes, or the claim of a Nazi brute to the status of a superior because his race has ‘produced’ Goethe, Schiller, and Brahms.” - https://fee.org/articles/justice-versus-social-justice/

Similarly, distributive justice theories, like social justice, seeks to elevate some groups over others based solely on superficial distinctions instead of individual merit. That, itself, is racism/sexism/classism based solely on ethnicity/gender/economics, where individuals are unjustly penalized/rewarded not in accord with their own actions. Distributive theories are thus a way to mask bigotry/injustice by hiding it in group identities. This is why the classist descriptions given in the OP originate primarily from the political left.

[Magical Realist]

Anytime you add a qualifier to justice (social justice, economic justice, etc.) you are inherently creating injustice. You are saying that one specific form of justice takes precedent over justice in general, and that always leads to more means justified by the prioritized ends.

And that's complete bullshit. There are many subcategories of the general domain of justice, and the fact that they are qualified doesn't mean they have priority over justice in general. Criminal justice, civic justice, corporate justice, military justice, environmental justice, international justice. All these are simply specialized applications of the general principle of justice or fairness just as social and economic justice are. There is no assertion of their priority or value over any other application nor of justice itself. Just as there are many subcategories of Medicine which do not in any way exclude or demote in priority the general field of Medicine.

I have no idea what "civic justice" may be. Maybe you mean civil justice or civic responsibility? But you are right. "Anytime you add a qualifier" is far too broad a statement. Good catch. But the sentiment holds for the category of qualifier for which I gave examples, which include social, economic, organizational, corporate (corporate social responsibility), and environmental justice. These are all forms of distributive theories of justice, but we'll come back to that.

Criminal, civil, military, and international justice are not theories but established methods and institutions for dealing with harm and infractions within specific domains. Those distributive theories are just that, theories and principles that seek to focus justice on solely distributive concerns, which necessarily prioritizes distributive justice over the individual justice. Distributive justice always entails some degree of individual injustice.

Most important of all, justice is individualistic: since the deserts of individuals differ from one another, so should their rewards and punishments differ from one another. That is why Aristotle said that justice consists of “treating equals equally, and unequals unequally.” If five persons have committed no crime and five other persons have committed crimes with a one-year sentence attached, it would be unjust to average out all their records and condemn all ten to six months in jail. The innocent do not deserve the sentence, and the guilty do. Justice is not a matter of averaging; it is a matter of assigning to each individual his or her proper desert.

The example just given illustrates the opposite of justice, namely collectivism: that is, not considering a person’s individual deserts but considering his behavior solely as a member of some group. Suppose someone in tribe A has killed a man in tribe B, and in retaliation the members of tribe B conduct a massacre of the entire tribe A. Only one of the members of tribe A was guilty of murder, but all his fellow tribesmen are killed, not because they were involved in the killing but simply because they were members of the same tribe as the killer. Such tribal retaliations, though common in primitive societies, are gross injustices because they involve the punishment of those who do not deserve it. (A variant of this occurs when the members of tribe B select a member of tribe A at random and kill him, even though the person killed was not the person who was guilty; he was selected not because he was guilty, but simply because he happened to belong to the same tribe as someone who was.)

Racism is a particularly pernicious form of collectivism. Persons who cast racial slurs on others are not considering the individual merits or demerits of the person slurred; they may not know the individual at all, except that he is a member of some racial group (Jews, blacks, Ital ians, etc.). Though the person’s individual qualities may be quite different from many other members of the group, all this is ignored: all they know or care is that he is a member of that group. “A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin. It is hard to say which is the more outrageous injustice: the claim of Southern racists that a Negro genius should be treated as inferior because his race has ‘produced’ some brutes, or the claim of a Nazi brute to the status of a superior because his race has ‘produced’ Goethe, Schiller, and Brahms.” - https://fee.org/articles/justice-versus-social-justice/

Similarly, distributive justice theories, like social justice, seeks to elevate some groups over others based solely on superficial distinctions instead of individual merit. That, itself, is racism/sexism/classism based solely on ethnicity/gender/economics, where individuals are unjustly penalized/rewarded not in accord with their own actions. Distributive theories are thus a way to mask bigotry/injustice by hiding it in group identities. This is why the classist descriptions given in the OP originate primarily from the political left.

Good,.So your absurd claim that any time justice is used with a qualifier means it is injustice is wrong. They're simply subcategoiries of the principle of justice. Thanks for confirming that. Oh and I meant civil justice.

[Syne]

But the sentiment holds for the category of qualifier for which I gave examples, which include social, economic, organizational, corporate (corporate social responsibility), and environmental justice. These are all forms of distributive theories of justice, but we'll come back to that.

Similarly, distributive justice theories, like social justice, seeks to elevate some groups over others based solely on superficial distinctions instead of individual merit. That, itself, is racism/sexism/classism based solely on ethnicity/gender/economics, where individuals are unjustly penalized/rewarded not in accord with their own actions. Distributive theories are thus a way to mask bigotry/injustice by hiding it in group identities. This is why the classist descriptions given in the OP originate primarily from the political left.

Good,.So your absurd claim that any time justice is used with a qualifier means it is injustice is wrong. They're simply subcategoiries of the principle of justice. Thanks for confirming that. Oh and I meant civil justice.

They are theories of justice (not subcategories)...theories that prioritize collective justice and promote individual injustice. So my point stands. And they are not the same as methods and institutions that administer justice.


It's funny how you start an OP examining the classism prevalent of the left, but then can't stand to hear about the fundamental causes for that classism...e.g. collectivist theories of justice.