Showing posts with label middle class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle class. Show all posts

Monday, April 10, 2017

THE MUDDLE CLASS

An East Hampton home

People talk about financial planning.  I just blundered along passively, never making enough money for savings, considering myself Class X — a person not defined by economics, vocations, and safeguards.  Almost by accident, I left guaranteed incomes, “followed my bliss”, and just trusted — as a friend of mine used to say, “trusted the art gods” who protect creative people in the context that’s now called “the gig economy.”  My main strategy was not having children and living close to the ground in substandard housing.  My main debits were being female, sometimes argumentative, and, well, “following my bliss.”

I confuse salespeople because some of them pick up on my education level and my only marriage which was to a man considered a wealthy success.  Others pick up on my old clothes, bad hair, and ancient pickup.  They depend upon class clues and none of mine are reliable.  It was fascinating to watch this video:


Neil Gabler is writing another book, but testing the waters with an essay in the Atlantic.  He has the chops and the contacts to use the remnants of traditional publishing to get another book out there.  He is effectively promoting it, probably hoping to ride on the media’s fascination with the subject of the shrinking middle class.  If you check out on a search engine what the response to this promotion has been, it’s negative, along the lines of “you ain’t suffered like I have.”  

It’s true enough of both Gabler and myself that we have active and effective thinking lives, which is a huge asset, but we are living in a time that is anti-intellectual — even incoherent.  Somehow the rules for what some call “the chattering classes” who shepherd books and politics have changed, so that to some of the people rationality and tradition are what count; to others it is justice and compassion; but to new third and fourth and fifth categories of people the whole understanding of the world has been recreated on a different set of facts, a different definition of what a fact is, a different set of principles of existence that only part of the culture even knows exists.  Not just the boundaries of nations have been challenged, but also the very cell-walls of our bodies, the nomenclature of planets.

Looking back at my own life, my first good fortune was the generation of dynamic women who went into teaching because WWI meant no marriage.  They were just retiring in the Fifties.  Second was my choice of dramatics instead of English, which gave me focus on exploration.  Then I applied only to one college, that of my dramatics teacher, Northwestern University.  If I had gone to Reed, wildly intellectual, or Portland State, steady and practical, in order to save money by living at home, my identity would have been quite different.  It was a scholarship and my mother’s new teaching job that gave me NU.

Next turning point was teaching in Browning, MT, the Blackfeet Rez.  Then getting deeply involved with Bob Scriver, who made it a point to never pay alimony though it was his wives that were much of his energy.  After that, the five-year animal control job was civil service and earned a little nugget of money that I could use for another go at the University of Chicago.  The bridge was Unitarianism, which suited me at that point and got me access to the U of C, but shifted out from under my feet by 1982, becoming political and psychological in what I now consider trivial and self-indulgent ways.  But ministry got me back to the prairie where I wanted to be.

A couple of years teaching in Heart Butte was followed by another civil service stint, this time as a clerical specialist for the City of Portland in the Bureau of Buildings.  Animal control and city planning/permitting are the bedrock of my understanding of democracy.

In 1999 a wave of gentrification made my mother’s house valuable enough for my third of it to buy this house in Valier, MT, for $30,000.  I had ignored many urgings, esp. in the Unitarian years, to build up equity in a house in order to retire.  It was lucky that I didn’t.  Buying a shabby house with cash was the result of reading my grandmothers’ books about former housing collapses and depressions.  I should have had a second $30,000 to renew the roof and individual infrastructure, but it would not have solved the problem of shared town infrastructure collapse and a shrinking and aging local population.

The time-line for white High-line communities is about a hundred years long, dependent on the industrial revolution reaching out along the railroad tracks and irrigation canals.  The building practices, streets, trees, aquifer developments, laws, and cultures have now reached their limits and even interfere with the next wave of technology based on data-collection, conservation, and energy shift.  World War I and II, divided by the Great Depression, provided a story about character overcoming all challenges and the safety of the familiar that has kept us from understanding that our children are nothing like us and that weather is planetary, including the ocean.  Now all people are voyagers again in a sea choked with plastic.  

My weakness has been never committing to one job nor tolerating any dominator, no matter how well-known and loved.  My strength has been the same thing.  It’s true enough that Neil Gabler is in a pinch.  As he says, to sell his house he would need about $100,000 to fix it up.  This is only assuming that he stays and that the new owner doesn’t just demolish it because the real value is in the land.  He’s actually trying to keep everything the same.  


I doubt that he’ll get an advance big enough to do the job.  Publishing no longer works that way, even for guys like Gabler who have had repeat best-sellers.  Now authors accept a share of the profits or accept some other inventive terms, hoping the publisher survives long enough to pay out.  But authors don’t make money; publishers make money.  They are venture capitalists of the purest kind.  The art gods don’t know their names, much less their addresses.  Yesterday’s sinecures are today’s eviction notices.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

PULLING DOWN THE TEMPLE

SAMPSON

This is a confused and scary time.  I mean, more than usual.  There are many theories flying around out there.  Following are the things I think about, often statements by various experts and pundits.

Trump IS the Third Party we keep trying to start.  He only used the Republican machinery as a platform, but doesn’t fit into either of our binary political philosophies because he represents a true paradigm shift, one that happened without us realizing, but which is entrenched and strong.  It is advertising/marketing based.  He simply sold us himself.  Now we have buyer’s remorse.  Especially the Republicans.

We have left the Enlightenment and entered the Marketing world.  

Trump is not a rich man.  His wealth is a fantasy based on selling his name, which is a major source of his income.  His investments depend upon wealth and leisure (casinos, luxury hotels, and golf courses) and admiration of their prestige, which somehow persists in spite of the failures of his individual businesses.  As he sinks deeper into his dementia, his name becomes more valueless.  Now we hear stories about people taking the name off buildings to avoid stigma and possibly physical attack as people become literally dis-illusioned.  He will die impoverished, because his wealth is all moonbeams.  Investigators who have penetrated his secrecy confirm this.

The core of the shift to Trumpish values is also the core of the middle class: shop-owners, importers, inventors, and manufacturers who managed to break the tyranny of those who “own” land and those who are employed to do the work of it, which is the feudal system.  Trump’s idea of how rich people live is laughably nouveau riche, unsophisticated, crass and ugly.  Victorian, African potentate, a child’s idea of palaces.

War is bad for trade.  War is avoided by making written rules, treaties, agreements, and so on.  This gives enormous importance to writing, which leads to lawyers and judges because so much writing is clumsy, impenetrable, or outmoded.  That includes our founding documents, which grew out of the founding documents of the British Empire.  Which came in part from the great importance attributed to the Holy Bible, as though it were written by a deity.  In fact, the Bible is a collection of ancient fragments, the "New" part of it curated in 325 AD by the Council of Nicaea, a committee of old men invested in institutions.  This means it is a masterpiece of ambiguity which can be used to suit the purposes of institutions.

One could say that the church led the way into mercantilism when it began to sell indulgences and flatter kings in order to acquire land.  The law preventing marriage was not about sex — it was to prevent clergy from using their power to create dynasties of descendants.  (Just as Trump is trying to do.)  The feudal system IMHO is biological, land-based, and rooted in human fertility.  (Which connects to the feverish protection of human embryos — not infants.)  It's a default.

So, to review, by moving to the middle class that thrives between national-dimension privileged power and persisting abject wage-slave peonage, we use writing to evade war because war is bad for business.  This means a lot of people need to learn to read and write, and then the majority of people need to honor documents.  (We are not meeting these needs.) When business becomes paralyzed by the kudzu of venture capitalism (interest rates, borrowing as the norm, criminalization of debts, stock market derivatives) then war of some kind becomes inevitable as a way of clearing the deck.  

The covert Third Party of the United States and most of the other European countries is simply Business.  What doesn’t sell, doesn’t matter.  All this scolding about tariffs is an attempt to restore what ecologies once provided: limits, boundaries, things that can be bought for little money in one place and then sold for a lot of money elsewhere.  All this sounds rational and sensible to most people.  If the leadership stays within the assumption, they can rule.  But demand shifts and so does supply.

The trouble with the Third Party of Mercantilism is that it is not facing the Malthusian fact that there are simply too many people.  Not just too many people in one country rather than another, which causes people to migrate, but a population beyond the carrying capacity of the planet.  It becomes a little more clear all the time that this explosion of humans is going to lead to devastation when pollution, infection, and famine of various kinds end fertility.  (It’s not just a matter of amounts of food but also foods that are loaded with molecules like sugar.)  Proportions within populations also matter.  The mass elimination of females in China means there are unmarried soldiers leaning against the wall, waiting for something to happen.  Becoming more willing to MAKE something happen.  This is not intentional but it is probably inevitable, a consequence almost mechanical.

When Steve Bannnon, Trump’s covert self, says he wants to destroy the standing order, he is saying he is willing to bring on the apocalypse because think of the spending!  Think of the money in rebuilding!  (A major part of the USA’s gross national product is always responding to catastrophes like New Orleans.)  Think of the chance to get on the Security Council and learn all the nation's vital secrets!


“Lenin,” he [Bannon] answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”  Sounds like Osama bin Laden to me.  Or maybe Sampson pulling down the temple.  No one pays attention.  Picture Bannon leaning on the counter by the light of neon advertising while the bartender considers whether he ought to cut him off.  It’s not hard.  We all know morose old men who feel passed by, who wear jeans to the Oval Office and don’t bother to shave — as though they were still in college.  

Most don’t find a power puppet to market.  Narcissism becomes relevant.  It’s only a concept, of course, and has somewhat drifted from the original Freudian/Greek myth of the beautiful boy who loves his water-reflected image so much that he falls in and drowns.  (That’s the state of the Democrats these days.)  When I was working on the concept in the early 2000’s, it was much simpler than it is now.  Building on the original idea of being self-centered, we’ve expanded to “grandiose narcissism”, “toxic narcissism,” “malevolent narcissism.”  I haven’t heard much about “benign narcissism”.  But there is now talk about “inverted narcissism” which is about people obsessed with having been damaged by narcissists.  Everyone is building sub-categories out of the original category named for one pretty boy.

But that’s another post.  


Tuesday, September 30, 2014

´EPATER LA BOURGEOISIE !

Julian Fellowes' book after "Downton Abbey"

The Middle Class has made a religion of books, but like the more recognized “church” religions, books are no longer what they thought they were.  Neither is the Middle Class.  As a townsman remarked to me recently,  “There is no middle class anymore.”  As my cousin noted, “We are told the Middle Class is endangered.”  He just retired after a lifetime of struggling to be what he thought was Middle Class, because that’s what that side of the family thought they were and should be.  That was the Scots side of the family.  (My father’s.)  

On the Irish side of the family the sense was not scrambling to go UP, but rather digging in one’s heels while sliding steadily DOWN.  The Scots were ultra-respectable: my grandmother objected to us saying, “Gee,” because it was short for “God” which is swearing.  The Irish were provocateurs: that grandfather loved to pick quarrels.  He had married above himself.  Both grandfathers were located in the transition from a farming world to an urban one.  On the Irish grandmother's side were profitable woolen mills and an artistic woman who married an architect and lived an upper-middle-class life in Pasadena.  I have one of her paintings, a still-life of a copper kettle with a geranium growing in it and a little covered dish made to look like a hen.  Domestic, tabletop, nurturing.  Middle Class.


When I went off to college at Northwestern University, my American lit teacher in Portland exclaimed,  “Oh, I’m so glad.  Now you’ll meet some rich people!”  She was a small bird-like woman, aging into ill-health, with huge glasses that I thought were because she was far-sighted but I now think compensated for cataract surgery.  Her heart was with Walt Whitman, who never thought about rich people, so I was puzzled.  

What she meant had mostly to do with the arts, that I would be exposed to good taste and refined living -- nothing to do with income really, except that rich people can help artistic people by accumulating their creations, even the experimental ones, or can become patrons.  She’s the teacher who taught us that it was fine to write in books, but we should do it neatly, meaningfully, and perhaps with a special pencil.  She encouraged us to get a leather-bound journal book and use it as a day book; that is, record thoughts and poems to keep.  I think that’s when I started using green ink.  Decades later someone at seminary stole my beautiful green leather journal.  

The Scots side had lots of books.  (My father went a bit over the top.)  They had been school teachers in the days when teachers kept order and supplied facts.  The Irish side -- at least the women -- weren’t much different than today’s female immersion-cravers.   These are novels that endorse Middle-Class ideas, esp. the burden of Middle Class women. (It’s not housework -- it’s carrying the culture.) I have a complete set of the works of Gene Stratton-Porter, partly inherited and partly bought.  (She had a career but it wasn’t writing romances, though she did that; it was bird photography.)  

Gene Stratton-Porter

Somewhere in the resulting surf, I search for the romance of ideas and find them everywhere, but often too cheap, too much aping others, too transient.  I thought religion would be different, but it wasn’t.  Still the same agenda: safety, repetition, replication, privileging the male but only so long as he brings in money.


Books are what you make them.  The Victorian bourgeois Middle Class women made them into strategies for rising in status (meaning making money and marrying well), escaping from rigid lives, and secretly enjoying sex.  (Imagine the Somali immigrant woman watching “Downton Abbey” for hints about how to order daily life.)  The novelistas of our times, who still believe in Victorian values but not Queen Victoria, a social category that includes the present and recent princesses, still also believe in the French kind of oppression, by which I mean “The Story of O,”  an account of dependent wickedness as a sign of distinction.  (Must I mention “Gray”?)  The middle classes are so fond of royalty and rich people because they have no actual idea of what those high-status lives are like, though they will buy many books about them.

I suppose that the “third” world, that is, the dark and marginal places where people yearn to get into the Middle Class, is no longer getting there with the help of books.  Rather they must be using their smart phones which are about information and where you are, a specialty of the part of the Middle-Class that developed from artisans and shop-keepers.  The novels that people read over and over as maps to rising (I certainly did) are now on video.  No longer do we watch the bourgeois tales favored by displaced Jewish entrepreneurs in Hollywood who didn’t have the chops to become psychoanalysts.   The indie and underground films are compelling but won’t always provide reliable maps.  On the other hand, who can map a world without a Middle Class that stays put as a point of reference while everything else shifts, empties, swarms with life that seems as foreign as the little monsters of the deep sea -- glowing, amorphous, predatory?  


These are personal essays, meaning that I make no pretense about writing about and through myself.  At first, given the chance to write what moving to Valier meant, I went straight to the Middle-Class immersive experience of partnering Bob Scriver.  It was hardly boring, and there was lots of sex, some wickedness, and always the landscape.   “Are you makin’ any money, Robert?” asked his dad every evening, puffing on his pipe as his mom served a little treat in her cushioned parlor.  He did; I didn't.  Irrelevant.

Not reading but writing changed me.  Refusing to be controlled by the Cowboy Art Cartel -- who wanted me to write something very different -- changed me.  Attending the Montana Festival of the Book, so Middle-Class that their heroes are all on NPR; writing accounts of other parts of my life: animal control, the UU ministry, this blog -- all changed me.  I was a revisionist visionary. Radicalized by realization.

Beware of writing honestly and intensely because it will change you more than reading any books.  One of the changes will be leaving paper for the glass screen.  Just as well, since avant garde exploratory books hardly exist anymore.  The progression has been:  novel (middle class), poetry (REAL poetry has no class), image (including all classes, rendering “class” irrelevant).  It has been a movement from immersion to submergence to emergence.

The necessarily final step will be nonexistence, death.  If a person can’t accept the reality of death and loss, but is always throwing up the safeguards, if a person can’t risk being stigmatized, violated, and possibly murdered, then the paralysis sets in.  If a person can’t risk creating for the sake of the thing itself in the moment instead of for the money, the status, the finger in an eye, then the paralysis sets in.  If a person can’t give up being simply a body in a social world with little relationship to whirling galaxies and swarming blood, then the paralysis sets in.
Gene Stratton-Porter, naturalist and novelist

If you follow Middle-Class ideas about success (prizes, money, speaking engagements, household recognition), you will be paralyzed.  But if you don’t, if you go soaring and spelunking, you’ll be changed and your mother will not recognize your success. 


I first read Gene Stratton-Porter’s romantic fiction on my aunt’s sheep farm where I found “Keeper of the Bees” on the screened second story sleeping porch that was necessary before there was AC. Stratton-Porter was a red-headed reckless woman who tried to save the great furniture-quality hardwood trees of the Limberlost marshy forest.  She mostly failed but she was certainly not paralyzed.  Whether she was Middle-Class or not is open to discussion.  Her novels were about struggling for prosperity and security.  She’s not forgotten.   Yet.  Because she was an ornithologist.   

Still, not so modern as a black swan.  The Middle-Class has learned to love the dark side.  A marker for horror instead of culture.  Now, why is that?