No One Ever Got Rich Over Estimating What The American Public Wants To Taste!

(I decided to post early because there is five blogs you all will have to comment on and it may be more convenient time wise for you:)

The movie Working Girl can be related to what we have already been discussing about this past week on social class. This movie provides great representation of what we have seen in People Like Us and read in Fussell’s book about the differences between social classes.
I believe Tess makes up the lower middle class of Staten Island. She lives in a small apartment with her boyfriend, rides the Staten Island Ferry to work, uses taxis, or walks to where she wants to go. Like most females in her office, Tess works a typical lower ranking job, as a secretary for two male managers that hardly have time to see her or care about what she says. Tess is educated, friendly, and well known at work but she cant seem to get into the Entrée Program. In the movie her managers think it is because she is “up against Harvard and Morgan grads” and her five years of night schooling, honors degree, secretarial time, and Christian Lyons Test don’t measure up to get her the job she wants. Here it is evident that Tess may have been over looked possibly because they employer has pinpointed her into a certain class and does not like how or where she has obtained her higher education from.
Katherine Parker is an upper middle class woman who is at the top of her department, mergers and acquisitions, at the firm Petty Marsh. When she arrives the office grows silent, the workers scramble to get back to their desks, and sit down to look like they are working. Katherine seems to have her head on straight, enjoys spending her money, boss’s people around, establishes ground rules, enjoys looking attractive, and likes impressing her other male colleagues.
Tess lands a new secretarial job for Katherine and discovers how different it is than what she is used to. This is the first time Tess has worked for a woman, been encouraged to share her thoughts, and viewed a manager as a possible mentor. Katherine never asks Tess about her educational background or about other secretarial experiences but instead expects Tess to do her job well, and live up to the standards she expects. Katherine believes Tess should be, “ tough when it’s wanted, accommodating when you can be, accurate, punctual, and never make a promise you cant keep.” She views Tess as “Her link to the outside world” suggesting Tess must handle the little people and make Katherine look good while doing it. Katherine persuades Tess to accept the same views she has on life by saying things like, “watch me Tess, learn from me,” and “ You don’t get anywhere in this world by waiting for what you want to come too you, you make it happen!” The way Katherine talks to Tess reminds me of the lady in People Like Us-How to Marry the Rich and how she was telling the other women how to dress, act,stand ect.
After Katherine’s skiing accident Tess soon learns how an upper middle class woman often lives. In the movie Tess walks around Katherine’s house admiring her possessions such as her artwork, make up, exercise bike, jewelry, and clothing. Her friend Cyn equally becomes mesmerized by the house the big chandelier, and how much one of the dresses costs. Tess moves into the house and begins living her life as if she is in a higher class, which allows other people to view her differently- just like people in Fussell's book. Mick even tells her she looks “different and classy” when he sees her at the engagement party. She wears Katherine’s expensive clothing, says things that Katherine typically would, and even goes to two events Katherine is invited to. She even uses what she has learned from Katherine to attract a handsome investment broker and says things like, “I have a head for business and a body for sin.” She doesn't think twice about going to see Mr. Trask at his daughters wedding reception, just so she can get her foot in the door. Showing up to the Union Club and being in the presence of Owen Trask seems to overwhelm her.
At the end of the movie Tess learns that her true job as Katherine’s secretary may not have even allowed her to present her idea. Katherine makes a big deal by storming into their meeting and stating “She is my secretary!” This alone shocks everyone and Mr. Trask is embarrassed because a secretary has tricked him.
Tess identifies her class and low ranking job by telling Jack “ If he knew she was a secretary he would have never booked a meeting with her.” She even tells Owen Trask, “ Well no one was going to listen, not to me. I mean you can bend the rules plenty when you get upstairs, but not while your trying to get there, and if your someone like me, you cant get there without bending the rules.”
This movie gives pure examples of the different individuals that make up the hierarchy of business and of social class. One newly recent reality show, Undercover Boss, is the complete opposite of the overall just of this movie. High Executives of a particular company are disguised and are put to work in the companies lower ranking jobs. These executives learn how the employees are treated and how dangerous, and hard these jobs are for individuals. At the end of the show they often reveal the true identity of these executives and they make changes to their company that benefit the little people that make things happen.If you haven't seen this show I would recommend it.-Sunday night's on CBS (channel 12) @ 9p.m.

Social Class..Can't be Avoided

"Class: A Guide through the American Status System" is about the many different levels of class in the American society. The book is about what really makes up class characteristics. This book was very amusing; I had a hard time reading it because it seemed to frustrate me mostly. Paul Fussell talks about how class is exposed everyday by what we do, say, and own. He thoroughly describes the customs and symbols of the American class system through nine classes in which you can clearly identify which one you belong too. In his description of the nine social classes the one that I found most interesting was the "Top out of Sight" class. These are the Billionaires and Millionaires who are so wealthy they can have enough money to buy their own privacy. We never see them because they seclude themselves from the world. They live in the houses where you can't see from the streets. I would never want to be apart of this class system, because these specific people don't want to be apart of the outside world. There are so few of them in that specific class system that they do not fit in with the inner society, and the inner society doesn't accept them because they feel like there better than everyone, wouldn't have anything in common with the people, and have different values and morals.

He argues that class has nothing to do with money and is more about how one is raised and how one perceives them self. In his book, Fussell states how each social class portrays themselves even though economically there are only two classes, the rich and the poor. He says that people of lower social class tend to believe that class is defined by the amount of money you have. The middle class believe that money has something to do with it, but they believe that education and the type of job you have is equally important as well. Then there is the upper class, who believe that the necessary criteria for such social class is the taste they perceive, their values, the clothes they wear, and the behavior in which they act. To the upper class, the amount of money they are making and the education they received isn’t as important as the necessary criteria the author stated. I think that when it comes to defining what social class you belong too, that it can't just be about how much money you have, because no one knows for certain how much money you make, and that’s personal. It is very difficult to escape, culturally from the class into which you were born. It's hard to be someone your not, and to act "rich" just to fit in.
Fussell compares the life of two different families and the two different families are completely different, but are making the exact same income. The income they are making is equivalent to that of a garage mechanic. The difference between the families is that one family lives their life like an upper middle class family. There living room is full of bookshelves; they drink fancy drinks daily and shop in the city, but the only reason they are living their life like this is because they want to be seen as rich. It was so important for that family to come off as wealthier than they really are, because they want everyone to view them as "rich" rather than just "average". It proves that families with the same income can have nothing in common and live life completely different. Just as the example that I just stated, Fussell discusses living within a certain social class because of preference.
It makes you wonder why people choose to live their life as if they are rich. The part that frustrated me the most was when he described the difference between social classes by the way they sit and stand. "Upper -middle class tend to have controlled precise movements. The way they use their arms and where their feet fall is dramatically different from lower-middle class people, who tend to swing their arms out rather than hold them closer to their bodies". Are we stereotyping someone because of the way they sit and move their arms? Does that mean if you don't have controlled arm movements you're not living in an upper-middle class society? Fussell goes into great depth about the social class system in the American society. He goes into great detail about the middle class and provides examples about the differences between the middle class compared to the upper class. I never realized how our society operates and interconnects with each other.

Everyone has an Opinion, Everyone Counts...

When reading the book Class: A Guide Through The American Status System, I would have to agree with Bridget, I would be lying if I sat here and blogged about how wonderful this book was. I had a hard time reading it, but the author Fussel, did make some interesting points. One of my favorite points he made in the book is when he said "Actually, you reveal a great deal about your social class by the amount of annoyance or fury you feel when the subject is brought up." I never even thought about it that way. It would have never crossed my mind that peoples actions and the way they respond to the matter can detect what social class you are from. For example, in the book, he said that the upper class people love talking about it, they love the attention that they receive. It makes complete sense to me, that some upper class people present themselves in a way, so that you know they are upper class, nothing less. Whereas the lower class people are upset and furious when talking about social status. I just really thought this was interesting and I'm wondering now that I'm aware of this, If I will notice peoples reactions.

Of course money is a way to define what social class you are. I think we all know this and we are all aware of the way some people present themselves when they have a lot of money. It is sad to think that our society is solely based on money, especially when our economy is struggling. Fussel also states that "in the middle, people grant that money has something to do with it, but think education and the kind of work you do almost equally important".I would have to agree with this statement, maybe because I would classify myself in the middle class. I am lucky enough that my parents could afford to send me to college and pay for my education, so I can be successful and make a living for myself and one day my family. I have heard the saying: "just get the piece of paper ( a degree) and you'll be fine". Is this really true considering todays economy? How many college graduates are graduated and still don't have a job?

Another thing I want to comment on is when a Boston blue collar man is talking about when he thinks of a really rich man he thinks about the estates and the house that you can't see from the road. Fussel calls this " the class in hiding". They like to be the house away from the street or on the islands. In a way, how can you fault them? I can see why this can be considered as " the class in hiding" but in a way, they seem to be minding their own business. How can you fault them? Who are we to judge if they have worked hard and have deserved there estates?

I'm sure each of us think of social class in different ways and probably interpreted this book in many ways. I think we think that we understand social class because of how were we were raised and what social class we were born into. Will we ever truly understand each meaning of each social class? Probably not and I think that is OK. A quote I want to leave you with is another one by our Author, Fussel: ..." It is very difficult to escape, culturally, from the class into which you have been born" What do you think?

Class: Background Noise or Elephant in the Room?

This entry is in response to the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System by Paul Fussell. I would be lying if I said I enjoyed this book but I would be wrong to leave out some of the pertinent and interesting material covered by the author. I spent much of the reading fighting off annoyance and disgust and yet searching for something to validate what I was reading to be of value. 'Know thy enemy as thyself' isn't just a cliche but also an approach to the study of social class in America, according to the author's assertion that though we are bound to social inequalities it doesn't mean that we can't study them. It is with this notion I strongly agree. Yet our modern world is changing rapidly and the common theme of social class distinction, as a political torch to be carried, is inspiring mob mentality with each side wildly bashing the other and eager to join in on the beating. So I find the issue of social class much like the author does, a touchy one. Yet the author fails to discuss this. Is the study purely academic or is there a hidden cost behind these revelations? I think there is a cost we are not prepared to pay.


The author states, "...we lack a convenient system of inherited titles, ranks and honors, and each generation has to define the hierarchies all over again." I cant think of a more appealing way to deal with social class than this. Each generation or few generations have the opportunity to do things differently. We are not bound by the constructs of titles, royalty and rank in the same way other societies are bound. We can start anew, constantly reworking the system ideally to achieve optimal social identities. It is this very system of which I am so proud to be a part of. I simply can't imagine being born without the possibility or dream of improving my own or my family's lot in life. I can't imagine the rigidity of inherited titles and royalty with no hope of aspiring to anything different than your father's occupation. Yet in this country there is that possibility. But this author would have you believe it is an unachievable dream to which we are all victims of belief. I suppose one could agree if the goal to achieve was to belong to the upper echelon of old money, but it is greater aspirations we should have in mind. Why should we think it would be any easier to infiltrate a group of old money socialites or a tight knit group of cerebral physicists? Sometimes you simply can't have everything your way even if you are beautiful, rich, powerful or famous. Life in any form does not permit you all of your heart's desires. A socialite may thrive in her own environment yet she must convince herself that it is beneath her to socialize with a chemist or a mountain climber because she can't compete. The same can be said if she is trying to fit in with a group of men, there are always going to be things that separate each of us from another and yet we can still find common bonds to tie many of us together. Still we would be silly to imagine that our efforts would ever rid us of class or inequalities. That is a Utopian dream and a socialist's impossibility. It is far more logical to deal in realities.


The realities are that we are flawed and are unable to produce anything that is not flawed. That doesn't mean we should give up and go home but there is a certain amount of humility that comes with knowing our own limitations. No one prospers through blind ignorance. It is just that each of us wants to belong somewhere and our nature has favored our preservation through exclusion. As the author pointed out repeatedly and in far too great detail, there are distinctions we make between ourselves and others. These distinction consider hair, weight, speech, clothing, skin, jewelry, shoes, money, job, family name, car, parents, breed of dog, neighbors, the way we walk, where we vacation and so many more. I do find these distinctions frivolous but none of use can consider ourselves immune to them all. I accept that life does not guarantee me all that I wish for and I know that this applies to everyone regardless of class. Life is what you make of it and money doesn't buy happiness are just cliches but real life wisdom. It wouldn't hurt us to remember the lessons of those before us. Are we so arrogant to think we have all the answers?