Everyone has preconceived notions that lead to confirmational biases. It's just that the elites in the media and elsewhere have the time and resources to hone their preconceived notions through the fine art of theorizing. If the data collected in elite circles do not match a theory, the data are rejected and the theory remains intact until a problem becomes unavoidable. However, problems by definition impact theorizers after they impact just about everyone else.
I like the (real) “problems affect theorizers after they affect everyone else.” I can see Socrates discussing ideas even while the powers that be, the Sophists, are bringing him his poison. Theorizing has a head-in-the-clouds NECESSITY to it. (Impossible to think and write while doing anything other than thinking/writing.) But that’s a paradox because first the thinker has to observe and BE in the world. Definitely a tension between writing about culture, say; and asking someone for a date (being “in” it).
Agree that a lot of the media sounds either out of touch, reductive, polarized, or something similar. But not sure about this:
"The adjacent figure can get a clear grasp of the varying absurdities that govern American life and how the chasm between the elite and the non-elite grows with every passing year."
Honestly, this potentially feels reductive in turn. We are all, to some extent, adjacent figures. No one can really be understood as, or reduced to, little or nothing more than just an "adjacent" or an "elite."
This may be especially true in America, one of the most ideologically, racially, ethnically, economically, and culturally diverse and tolerant large democracies in history. Everyone here, to a greater or lesser extent, encounters different worlds in their world. We are large, and we contain multitudes.
And this tendency to view our complexity through narrow lenses (race, class, or whatever) is one of the main issues I have with the Leftists, the Woke, the Identitarians, or whatever you want to call them. At present, they are obsessed with immutable traits that do not, in fact, define anyone (no matter how much the Leftists might insist otherwise).
Class also does not fully encompass anyone, though it may very well be an important factor for a given individual or community.
So, yes, there is and probably always will be some disconnection between different segments of our society. That problem may reflect in our media. And, indeed, some personality types may move more easily than others from one subculture to another. All that sounds good to me.
But the solution is not, in my opinion, reducible to "adjacents" just as the problem is not reducible to "elites." I think the story is more complex than that; it involves many more moving parts. And thank god for that. Imagine how boring life would be if it really was that simplistic.
As powerful as Marxism may SOUND as a diagnosis of society (I don’t know if you realize you just wrote a Marxist analysis of culture: “All history is the history of class struggles,” is the first line of Marx’s Communist Manifesto), “class” stopped having any meaning a while back now. We have people being called “elite” whose parents were drapers (small businessmen), or whose single mom was White while their father was a Black working man without wealth. They each would have been called marginalized fifty years ago, the former for being a woman (Secretary Clinton), the latter for being half Black with no father around (President Obama) There is no “class” distinction to which they belonged but (irrationally) they were hated beyond reason by _______ (varying groups from varying backgrounds). I say “beyond reason” literally for myself. I cannot figure out the reason. It certainly cannot be explained by “class.”
It MIGHT be explained by the OVERCOMING of class. The assertive woman and uppity man not knowing their place? They each achieved intellectual success beyond the ability of most of us through EDUCATION that allowed them entry to positions of power because they worked to become experts in their fields (eventually, law). Instead of class conflict, I think we’re seeing some kind of ‘subject matter expert’ conflict? A sudden anti-intellectualism INSIDE universities that is obviously insane (universities exist not to “train” people (that too), but to expand people’s minds). Are we seeing a closed-mindedness inherent in the non-readers out there (whatever their dollar income)? And since we live in a knowledge-economy, a hatred for those who (as you suggest) have the finances to go to college even without being all that smart? And who seem to learn in college a weird hatred for those who are? A new kind of Marxist calculus: All history is the history of those who think (and so, incidentally, participate in democracy thoughtfully) against those who prefer ignorance and being led (and “participate” in politics violently (violence is the opposite of politics)? …The Athenians had a word for those who did not show up to vote: id—i—o—tays. We derive our word idiot from this (not exactly the same meaning in modern usage). Still thinking this out—but I strongly disagree there ARE any classes any more: the reason so much of social interaction is disagreeable probably has nothing to do with code-switching or childhood money—it’s probably because all the women who used to make politeness a priority are doing other things. Maybe that should become a priority of our demos: socials and human parties. Maybe bringing back dances and cupcakes would smooth out our collective sense of alienation. (I’m only half kidding.) I feel certain Marxism is neither the right analysis nor does it now (and never did) have the right prescription. If you feel it is difficult being with rich people—I’ve read enough books to know it always was; and we’re at the point now that (statistically) no one you and I are meeting ARE wealthy. (Ten percent of our population owns ninety percent of the wealth.)
You are right: it is odd how many people have so much more than most people in history could have dreamed of, but do not recognize it.
I am wondering if this is the human condition (not to see what one has, only what one does not have). Not sure.
I had this peculiar experience of tutoring a Frenchwoman in English when I was a senior in university—she happened to be a billionaire. I’ve never met a more insecure person. Her relationships were so mucked up because she was always worried if people were going after her money. I had deep compassion for her predicament because it really was like any bad scene that one inherits, she didn’t create it. The money? At some point money seems irrelevant. Not sure what point, but who the hell needs an ostrich jacket? (Thinking Paul Manafort.) This woman was (relatively) frugal, but her addresses were expensive. I learned a lot about having money—-money really does not come close to buying peace of mind.
So, I guess there’s a sweet spot. Not enough money? No peace of mind either.
And we’re back at Kurt Vonnegut’s storied anecdote about having “enough.”
“Elite” is tough. Am I elite because my grandmother was my best friend and taught me to love books? OTOH my grandfather (on the other side) worked in the coal mines at nine and was not allowed to learn to read (Irish).
At one time one could say a wealthy person WAS elite because it meant he had class connections that were impenetrable. Today? Not so much.
Weird money making every which way one looks I think because the scientific age requires “connections” to ideas that are almost impossible to survive without: especially reading. I’m not talking great literature, but what Virginia Heffernan just posted about, WORDS. We’re on a kind of “word line” 24/7, even in our most intimate relationships, texting about…everything.
There does seem to be a growing hatred of the hand that feeds us, namely, scientists. WTH do people think would happen without them? These phone-thingummys do not design themselves. Transportation is one big thought experiment made real.
You get where I’m going. Hating “elites” is like hating your parents, a teenagy occupation, not a mature social development.
Interesting that that is Steve Bannon’s entire schtick: hating Davos. I honestly do not know who goes to Davos, but I’ll go look it up. My bet is that it’s the brainiacs who made a fast vaccine that just saved civilization, and other advanced thinkers who most of us cannot possibly appreciate (Dr. Fauci, what a weird person to hate in a pandemic!)
The term « elite » is overused and highly imprecise. Who exactly is included in this imaginary group? I think it’s all relative to the subject being discussed and those involved in the discussion. There is some element of financial wealth, although it is not difficult to think of people who are elite in their field or culturally elite, but have few financial resources. And there are some very rich people who might be considered far from « elite » in some circles. Education is generally considered a factor in assigning elite status, but again, it depends on what you’re talking about.
I don’t think « race » has much to do with it, frankly, as there are people of different skin tones, facial features, and other « racial » determinants (however vague they might be) across all social categories. To wit, the writers’ comments about Latinos/Hispanics ignores the fact that this group is a linguistic group, not defined by the physical aspects used for « race ». And the false category « people of color » is an absurdity invented recently as a political attempt to form a large group in opposition to « white » people (another vague, indefinable category).
I tend to suspect that neither « elite » nor « race » has any concrete meaning, but that both are attempts to categorize human beings in order to promote various suspect political ideas by both right and left.
Whether it's a business owner figuring out what their customers want, a teacher building rapport with a student, or a doctor building trust with a patient, the issue of building bridges between humans of differing socioeconomic, ethnic, cultural, gender, age (et al) cohorts begins with empathy, by which I mean the ability to see, hear, and understand the world from the other person's point of view.
The ideal situation is when a person, like the journalist, actually spent time in the other person's world. My dad was a great doctor and well-liked employer. He started life in poverty, and his first jobs were menial tasks in a funeral home and a laboratory. He "got" where his patients and employees were coming from and was that much more effective. My mom was an immigrant - her third language was English - and she was a success as an ESL teacher. Her students bonded with her because she knew what they were going through firsthand; the dean of the technical college where she taught was filled with praise for the results my mom's students achieved.
Another way to learn empathy is by building a network of friends, allies, and even foes to advise you. Many reporters I know had their go-to sources to help them understand people and events. I know that because my husband and I ran an information service–sort of a database of people–and our clients, including reporters, editors, publishers, authors, researchers, etc., used us for just that purpose.
"I'm doing a story on X, and I need to talk to at least three people on each side of the debate to explain to me, off the record, what I am missing."
One of our clients, an award-winning radio and television reporter, told me how she built her network of advisors. She had a friendly demeanor and was fearless regarding talking to anyone, including whoever was in the White House. She used our service frequently. She said that the problem with reporters is two-fold. One, they are under tremendous deadline pressure and often become careless, and two, like most humans, they tend to eat, drink, party, sleep with, and marry their own kind. She told me this in 1982. Not a new issue.
Finally, if someone didn't grow up the way their customer/client/reader did, and they don't have people to mentor them in the ways of the other person, being a terrific listener, with an open mind, can work. I have a friend who grew up in old money–private schools, Ivy League– and relates extremely well to people of all backgrounds, because he is an amazing listener. He loves hearing people's stories. And I have seen him connect with folks from all cohorts, with respect, treating them like peers.
By the way, I find using words like elite not very useful. Does not tell me much except that the writer has contempt for the person they are labeling. I try not to stereotype people I might consider my political or philosophical opponents. They are also worth a listen.
The reason class has not been adopted as a key sociological concept in the USA is because the college-educated classes like to play about with feminism, gay and black rights etc. The working class do not interest or indulge them in these parlour games. All that matters from them is their vote and that is now being wielded with unpredictable power. Let’s hope all working class people kick serious ass in November.
I guess the author is directing his criticism at journalists specifically because there are many who have tried to explain "the other side".
These are a few books, a number by scholars who "lived the life" of the lower class (aka poor). Are their explanations too theoretical?
Poverty, by America, New York: Crown, 2023 by Matthew Desmond
Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents Kindle Edition by Isabel Wilkerson
Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis Hardcover by J. D. Vance (Author)
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America Kindle Edition by Barbara Ehrenreich
Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Russell Hochschild
Everyone has preconceived notions that lead to confirmational biases. It's just that the elites in the media and elsewhere have the time and resources to hone their preconceived notions through the fine art of theorizing. If the data collected in elite circles do not match a theory, the data are rejected and the theory remains intact until a problem becomes unavoidable. However, problems by definition impact theorizers after they impact just about everyone else.
I like the (real) “problems affect theorizers after they affect everyone else.” I can see Socrates discussing ideas even while the powers that be, the Sophists, are bringing him his poison. Theorizing has a head-in-the-clouds NECESSITY to it. (Impossible to think and write while doing anything other than thinking/writing.) But that’s a paradox because first the thinker has to observe and BE in the world. Definitely a tension between writing about culture, say; and asking someone for a date (being “in” it).
Agree that a lot of the media sounds either out of touch, reductive, polarized, or something similar. But not sure about this:
"The adjacent figure can get a clear grasp of the varying absurdities that govern American life and how the chasm between the elite and the non-elite grows with every passing year."
Honestly, this potentially feels reductive in turn. We are all, to some extent, adjacent figures. No one can really be understood as, or reduced to, little or nothing more than just an "adjacent" or an "elite."
This may be especially true in America, one of the most ideologically, racially, ethnically, economically, and culturally diverse and tolerant large democracies in history. Everyone here, to a greater or lesser extent, encounters different worlds in their world. We are large, and we contain multitudes.
And this tendency to view our complexity through narrow lenses (race, class, or whatever) is one of the main issues I have with the Leftists, the Woke, the Identitarians, or whatever you want to call them. At present, they are obsessed with immutable traits that do not, in fact, define anyone (no matter how much the Leftists might insist otherwise).
Class also does not fully encompass anyone, though it may very well be an important factor for a given individual or community.
So, yes, there is and probably always will be some disconnection between different segments of our society. That problem may reflect in our media. And, indeed, some personality types may move more easily than others from one subculture to another. All that sounds good to me.
But the solution is not, in my opinion, reducible to "adjacents" just as the problem is not reducible to "elites." I think the story is more complex than that; it involves many more moving parts. And thank god for that. Imagine how boring life would be if it really was that simplistic.
This article read like: the answer is not this squishy unprovable theory. To which I agreed.
Unfortunately Alex then goes on to say the answer is his own squishy unprovable theory. 🤷🏽♂️ Cultural adjacency. Sure, maybe.
🤣
As powerful as Marxism may SOUND as a diagnosis of society (I don’t know if you realize you just wrote a Marxist analysis of culture: “All history is the history of class struggles,” is the first line of Marx’s Communist Manifesto), “class” stopped having any meaning a while back now. We have people being called “elite” whose parents were drapers (small businessmen), or whose single mom was White while their father was a Black working man without wealth. They each would have been called marginalized fifty years ago, the former for being a woman (Secretary Clinton), the latter for being half Black with no father around (President Obama) There is no “class” distinction to which they belonged but (irrationally) they were hated beyond reason by _______ (varying groups from varying backgrounds). I say “beyond reason” literally for myself. I cannot figure out the reason. It certainly cannot be explained by “class.”
It MIGHT be explained by the OVERCOMING of class. The assertive woman and uppity man not knowing their place? They each achieved intellectual success beyond the ability of most of us through EDUCATION that allowed them entry to positions of power because they worked to become experts in their fields (eventually, law). Instead of class conflict, I think we’re seeing some kind of ‘subject matter expert’ conflict? A sudden anti-intellectualism INSIDE universities that is obviously insane (universities exist not to “train” people (that too), but to expand people’s minds). Are we seeing a closed-mindedness inherent in the non-readers out there (whatever their dollar income)? And since we live in a knowledge-economy, a hatred for those who (as you suggest) have the finances to go to college even without being all that smart? And who seem to learn in college a weird hatred for those who are? A new kind of Marxist calculus: All history is the history of those who think (and so, incidentally, participate in democracy thoughtfully) against those who prefer ignorance and being led (and “participate” in politics violently (violence is the opposite of politics)? …The Athenians had a word for those who did not show up to vote: id—i—o—tays. We derive our word idiot from this (not exactly the same meaning in modern usage). Still thinking this out—but I strongly disagree there ARE any classes any more: the reason so much of social interaction is disagreeable probably has nothing to do with code-switching or childhood money—it’s probably because all the women who used to make politeness a priority are doing other things. Maybe that should become a priority of our demos: socials and human parties. Maybe bringing back dances and cupcakes would smooth out our collective sense of alienation. (I’m only half kidding.) I feel certain Marxism is neither the right analysis nor does it now (and never did) have the right prescription. If you feel it is difficult being with rich people—I’ve read enough books to know it always was; and we’re at the point now that (statistically) no one you and I are meeting ARE wealthy. (Ten percent of our population owns ninety percent of the wealth.)
Agree that class simplification does not explain the gaps politically.
One thing about your point at the end:
I'm constantly shocked by how many people don't feel wealthy. I remember getting my first job out of college at $16/hr and thinking I was rich.
And I was.
Maybe we need to flip the script on class: if you can feel wealthy even without it, that's elite.
I meant to address the “feeling” wealthy.
You are right: it is odd how many people have so much more than most people in history could have dreamed of, but do not recognize it.
I am wondering if this is the human condition (not to see what one has, only what one does not have). Not sure.
I had this peculiar experience of tutoring a Frenchwoman in English when I was a senior in university—she happened to be a billionaire. I’ve never met a more insecure person. Her relationships were so mucked up because she was always worried if people were going after her money. I had deep compassion for her predicament because it really was like any bad scene that one inherits, she didn’t create it. The money? At some point money seems irrelevant. Not sure what point, but who the hell needs an ostrich jacket? (Thinking Paul Manafort.) This woman was (relatively) frugal, but her addresses were expensive. I learned a lot about having money—-money really does not come close to buying peace of mind.
So, I guess there’s a sweet spot. Not enough money? No peace of mind either.
And we’re back at Kurt Vonnegut’s storied anecdote about having “enough.”
“Elite” is tough. Am I elite because my grandmother was my best friend and taught me to love books? OTOH my grandfather (on the other side) worked in the coal mines at nine and was not allowed to learn to read (Irish).
At one time one could say a wealthy person WAS elite because it meant he had class connections that were impenetrable. Today? Not so much.
Weird money making every which way one looks I think because the scientific age requires “connections” to ideas that are almost impossible to survive without: especially reading. I’m not talking great literature, but what Virginia Heffernan just posted about, WORDS. We’re on a kind of “word line” 24/7, even in our most intimate relationships, texting about…everything.
There does seem to be a growing hatred of the hand that feeds us, namely, scientists. WTH do people think would happen without them? These phone-thingummys do not design themselves. Transportation is one big thought experiment made real.
You get where I’m going. Hating “elites” is like hating your parents, a teenagy occupation, not a mature social development.
Interesting that that is Steve Bannon’s entire schtick: hating Davos. I honestly do not know who goes to Davos, but I’ll go look it up. My bet is that it’s the brainiacs who made a fast vaccine that just saved civilization, and other advanced thinkers who most of us cannot possibly appreciate (Dr. Fauci, what a weird person to hate in a pandemic!)
Thanatos? IDK.
The term « elite » is overused and highly imprecise. Who exactly is included in this imaginary group? I think it’s all relative to the subject being discussed and those involved in the discussion. There is some element of financial wealth, although it is not difficult to think of people who are elite in their field or culturally elite, but have few financial resources. And there are some very rich people who might be considered far from « elite » in some circles. Education is generally considered a factor in assigning elite status, but again, it depends on what you’re talking about.
I don’t think « race » has much to do with it, frankly, as there are people of different skin tones, facial features, and other « racial » determinants (however vague they might be) across all social categories. To wit, the writers’ comments about Latinos/Hispanics ignores the fact that this group is a linguistic group, not defined by the physical aspects used for « race ». And the false category « people of color » is an absurdity invented recently as a political attempt to form a large group in opposition to « white » people (another vague, indefinable category).
I tend to suspect that neither « elite » nor « race » has any concrete meaning, but that both are attempts to categorize human beings in order to promote various suspect political ideas by both right and left.
Whether it's a business owner figuring out what their customers want, a teacher building rapport with a student, or a doctor building trust with a patient, the issue of building bridges between humans of differing socioeconomic, ethnic, cultural, gender, age (et al) cohorts begins with empathy, by which I mean the ability to see, hear, and understand the world from the other person's point of view.
The ideal situation is when a person, like the journalist, actually spent time in the other person's world. My dad was a great doctor and well-liked employer. He started life in poverty, and his first jobs were menial tasks in a funeral home and a laboratory. He "got" where his patients and employees were coming from and was that much more effective. My mom was an immigrant - her third language was English - and she was a success as an ESL teacher. Her students bonded with her because she knew what they were going through firsthand; the dean of the technical college where she taught was filled with praise for the results my mom's students achieved.
Another way to learn empathy is by building a network of friends, allies, and even foes to advise you. Many reporters I know had their go-to sources to help them understand people and events. I know that because my husband and I ran an information service–sort of a database of people–and our clients, including reporters, editors, publishers, authors, researchers, etc., used us for just that purpose.
"I'm doing a story on X, and I need to talk to at least three people on each side of the debate to explain to me, off the record, what I am missing."
One of our clients, an award-winning radio and television reporter, told me how she built her network of advisors. She had a friendly demeanor and was fearless regarding talking to anyone, including whoever was in the White House. She used our service frequently. She said that the problem with reporters is two-fold. One, they are under tremendous deadline pressure and often become careless, and two, like most humans, they tend to eat, drink, party, sleep with, and marry their own kind. She told me this in 1982. Not a new issue.
Finally, if someone didn't grow up the way their customer/client/reader did, and they don't have people to mentor them in the ways of the other person, being a terrific listener, with an open mind, can work. I have a friend who grew up in old money–private schools, Ivy League– and relates extremely well to people of all backgrounds, because he is an amazing listener. He loves hearing people's stories. And I have seen him connect with folks from all cohorts, with respect, treating them like peers.
By the way, I find using words like elite not very useful. Does not tell me much except that the writer has contempt for the person they are labeling. I try not to stereotype people I might consider my political or philosophical opponents. They are also worth a listen.
The reason class has not been adopted as a key sociological concept in the USA is because the college-educated classes like to play about with feminism, gay and black rights etc. The working class do not interest or indulge them in these parlour games. All that matters from them is their vote and that is now being wielded with unpredictable power. Let’s hope all working class people kick serious ass in November.