
Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace - danw
http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html
======
Alex3917
"working class teens will reject hegemonic values because it's the only way to
continue to be a part of the community that they live in. In other words, if
you don't know that you will succeed if you make a run at jumping class, don't
bother - you'll lose all of your friends and community in the process."

This seems to apply to middle class entrepreneurs as well. Saying that you
don't need a boss often gets interpreted as a big fuck-you by everyone else.
(Same applies to not finishing college.)

------
Goladus
Is this an undergraduate project or something? It seems to be masquerading as
a paper that is more serious than it actually is.

All the anecdotal stuff, opinions, and ideas are cool. Where the author starts
trying to put labels on things is where this paper falls apart. Don't waste my
time trying to subdivide people into groups like "art fag" and "emo" unless
there is data and falsifiable definitions to support them.

~~~
far33d
She.

~~~
Goladus
Neutralized.

------
weel
I just posted a comment saying that if, like me, you are skeptical about
claims that "Wal-Mart Nation has destroyed many of the opportunities for
meaningful working class labor", you should squint a bit and read the article
anyway, because there is some truth to it.

Looking at it some more, I am still convinced that there is some truth to it,
but there really is also a lot of very, uh, fluid logic going on.

Identifying those who can "play into the dominant high school popularity
paradigm" with those who are expected to go to college, and later calling them
"hegemonic", is simplistic. An enumeration like 'Latino/Hispanic teens,
immigrant teens, "burnouts," "alternative kids," "art fags," punks, emos,
goths, gangstas, queer kids' lumps together categories that are closely
related to social class (Hispanic), categories that have nothing to do with it
(queer), and even some categories that may be associated with higher social
strata (when did you last meet a working class art fag?)

~~~
nostrademons
"Looking at it some more, I am still convinced that there is some truth to it,
but there really is also a lot of very, uh, fluid logic going on."

It's sociology, what do you expect? ;-) (I nearly majored in sociology in
college, taking 4 courses before I switched first back to physics and then to
computer science. This gave me both a basic fluency in the lingo and a healthy
disrespect for its conclusions or lack thereof.)

Anyway, you have to understand the particular school of thought she's coming
from. This article's steeped in the lingo of Gramsci and Spivak, who studied
primarily power relations within society, particularly the question of "Who
decides who can speak?" In sociology, there's the concept of a discourse,
which is basically "What can you talk about without getting odd looks?"
Certain discourses are legitimated: you can talk about Heroes or Desperate
Housewives or Paris Hilton or the Red Sox and everyone will find it socially
acceptable. Certain discourses are relegated to specialized niches, but still
socially acceptable: you can talk about monads or CSS or DNA replication and
people won't think you weird, but they may not listen either. And certain
discourses are fringe: if you talk about how 9/11 was an inside job or put on
eyeshadow and leather pants for a goth party, people will think you a little
nutty, unless you're on Reddit.

In this context, the article's list makes a little more sense. What's
considered socially acceptable discussion in high school? Pop music, the
latest movies, that party at the class bitch's house, homecoming, cheerleading
and school spirit, and apparently Facebook. What's not? Having to work to
support your family and put yourself through school. Slacking off and doing
lots of drugs. Weird art bands that nobody has heard of. Local music that
nobody has heard of. Wearing odd clothing or odd makeup. Being gay, unless you
live on the northern portion of either coast. And apparently MySpace.

Basically - ask yourself "Who would you want your daughter to date?" Unless
you're one of those enlightened parents that believes in letting their kids
make their own choices, you probably wouldn't want her going out with an art
fag. You wouldn't want her dating a stoner or a gansta. You'd look at her a
little weird if she brought home a goth or a punk.

This is different from the notion of social class that William Julius Wilson
or Barbara Ehrenreich writes about. That's much more (though not wholly)
economic and educational, and is closer to popular definitions of social
class. The Gramscian notions of hegemon/subaltern are much more about power
and people's unconscious reactions to cultural behavior.

~~~
Goladus
That's very interesting, I can swallow the whole subaltern/hegemonic thing
even if I think it's a bit pretentious, but I still don't know what "a goth"
really is. The last time I looked it up on Urban Dictionary there were roughly
40 million conflicting definitions. I think using terms like that in this
essay is unwise and confuses her points.

