Skip to main content

View Diary: Examining social class in the US -- Church's 3-ladder system (9 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Most interesting (4+ / 0-)

    Yes, it's true we don't like to admit there are "classes" in American society.  I'm not sure where my husband and I would fall--we started as bricklayer and secretary, respectively, and ended up as combination inspector and marketing services manager.  We never made all that much money--I think our highest earning year was $100,000 between the two of us.

    In terms of intellectual pursuits, however, I'd say we were up there.  We like opera, I love reading, and we'd go to the theatre if we could afford it.  We've traveled quite extensively.

    But my father was a journalist with the AP and my mother was a secretary until she worked her way up to Program Manager with the government. We were working class, for certain, and we voted that way.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 04:45:08 AM PDT

    •  "Working class" but G-ladder (4+ / 0-)

      By the Church model, a working journeyman journalist nowadays would probably be closer to G3, with the top ones (more autonomy) G2 and top pundits (more cultural influence) G1.  But it's not quite pure "gentry", as there's real work involved, and often it requires interacting with a world that gentry don't like to see up close. So maybe an L2-G3 hybrid, or (in the 3D sense) a point between them. If we view the classes as stars in a constellation, there could be Lagrangian points between their gravitational fields.  (How's that for a stretched metaphor?)

      Church notes that L3s may well vote against their own economic interests because they see the L1 world as a realistic aspiration, and don't see L1s as bad people -- the E1s who are pulling the political strings are practically on a different planet, invisible to them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site