NYTimes on Class #1

Donna wonders why few are blogging "Class Matters," the NYTimes series on social class in the U.S. I think she's right in suggesting the series' lack of revelations explains the lack of reaction in the blogosphere.

The entire series is probably a bit too self-congratulatory. We're the Times putting our imprimatur on a cutting edge issue. We acknowledge that class matters. As if acknowledgment is the end in and of itself. The series also eschews commentary on the political import of class, instead focusing on (indeed, fetishizing) the individual. Narrative takes precedence here, precisely because that's what makes for "good"--i.e., enjoyable--journalism. The introduction to the series reviews statistical data mostly centering on the extent to which economic mobility is in decline. In short, fewer families are moving to higher quintiles (as Donna pointed out, nothing new here). But the series merely uses this set-up as context for the narratives that follow, rarely returning to the statistics and trends or putting the case studies in dialectic with the broader themes. Class exists. There's less mobility than most folks believe. Now, here are some stories about rich and poor people.

If the individual is fetishized, so too is U.S. society. Little mention of globalization, free trade, outsourcing, worldwide union busting, corporate monopolizing, or resistance to any of the aforementioned. From the introductory essay: "The economic forces that caused jobs to migrate to low-wage countries are still active." That's it. Jeesh, talk about under-developed.

The notion of class-as-culture receives similar short shrift. The series, especially that introduction, implicitly define class as the convergence of the overlapping categories of income, education, occupation, and wealth. By focusing on mobility, the piece sets up a familiar trope of class-as-economics. The series becomes pro-con first-year composition/debate team scenario: There are limitations on our ability to get ahead...agree or disagree? Back up your argument with an interesting story or two. Where's a broader discussion of popular culture, food and drink, leisure-time pursuits, concepts like taste and subjectivity and cultural capital? How about a piece on how the texts and artifacts from everyday civic life (like the NYTimes forgoodnesssake) are classed?

One more missed opportunity from the introduction.

[Amherst University President] Anthony W. Marx, explained: "If economic mobility continues to shut down, not only will we be losing the talent and leadership we need, but we will face a risk of a society of alienation and unhappiness. Even the most privileged among us will suffer the consequences of people not believing in the American dream."

The article lets those words sit there unchallenged. My response to Marx's sentiment is that maybe we ought to think about broad responses to inequality instead of stopgap measures for preventing the unhappiness that stems from inequality. He sounds more concerned with creating the illusion of equality. Would have been nice to represent such a point-of-view and put those perspectives into some kind of critical dialogue.

I'll say more about the series soon. In the meantime, for those interested in class, I'd suggest prining out copies of the articles before the Times moves the articles to its pay section.