site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   2619 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 8, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Using Micheal O Church's model of social class with three ladders, labour, gentry and elite has anyone experienced the journey from G2 to E4? My family has been G2/G3 for several generations and most people I know are in that category. My mindset, my way of being and my values are very much gentry even though I am into dissident politics.

Do to ballsy moves and living on nothing for years my company is not at a stage where I am an E4. I have also started to interact with people at an E3/E2 level. I find them to be in an uncanny valley where they are in many ways similar to the gentry but still fundamentally different from me.

Do you have any advice for managing this transition?

This framework suffers from the same flaw as every theory about a professional-managerial class: it bends over backwards to get the outgroup in a particular spot. Usually, I see this from conservatives looking to complain about PMCs, but here, it’s the author trying to distance his own class from immoral Elites. Very 2012, but not a recipe for accuracy.

(Mind you, I looked at @lagrangian’s diagram first, which adds an editorial spin more familiar to the Motte. Where Church sorted the Gentry by access to institutions, it suggests they’re ranked by “detachment from reality.” Not the most charitable reading.)

I don’t think Church did a good job explaining why the Gentry and Elite ladders are distinct. Both access the most prestigious institutions, command moderate to high wealth, and network amongst the beautiful and clever. Moving between them is more about preferences than about ability. So why are they two separate ladders?

G1 doesn’t really exist. Church says it doesn’t include celebrities; that ought to rule out Jon Stewart, Malcolm Gladwell, Walter Cronkite, and Carl Sagan alike. It doesn’t include top politicians or policymakers, who either fall into G2 technocracy or low-E resource management.

No, the gap between gentry and elites is the same disdain which has been discussed since F. Scott Fitzgerald. The nouveau riche won’t clear that gap by cultural or capital accumulation. E4 and E3 and maybe E1 go on the upper rungs of the G ladder, and the traditional upper class stay in their Adirondack retreats. Welcome to America.

Where do hereditary military officers sit on the ladders?

Who do you have in mind?

In America, we’ve got elites from elite families who do some service. See W or Ted Kennedy. They’re on the elite ladder regardless.

I don’t think they dominate the careerist military, like the CSA or CMC, because there are a lot more proles. Nobodies from random Southern or Midwestern families would probably be classed as low-level gentry even as they reach the peak of military careers.

But there’s definitely an intersection with people like McCain. For all I know JFK might have continued to rank up if not for the medical discharge. Regardless, these officers are elites.

Frankly, I think the whole “gentry” ladder is the weakest part of the model, and is mostly an excuse to loathe blue-tribe cultural figures. So I wouldn’t take that part too seriously. You’ve got elites who may or may not take their military careers to a peak. And you’ve got a lot more proles who fill out most of the technocratic slots at the top. The former can transition to civilian political power, while the latter cannot. That’s more important than the specific ladders.

Thanks for linking this article, I hadn't seen it before and its strikes me as pretty accurate. My family has been G2/G3 for several generations and I'm now in the E3/E4 range as a partner at an elite law firm.

Your question is pretty open ended but I guess my advice would be to network with other elites as much as possible. Send out Christmas cards, host parties and invite them over, go golfing with them, do whatever you can to nurture those connections. Learn elite class hobbies and conversation topics like tennis, skiing, golf, wine collecting, international travel, etc. People at this tier have real money and power, and friendships with them have the potential to truly change your life in ways that aren't possible at the lower tiers.

Thanks for your comment. It does seem like they are more social and more into strategic networking than middle class people.

I am not sure whether they are more social and more into strategic networking, but certainly the benefits of socializing and networking are greater because elites have more resources and power at their disposal.

Image of ladders

Do not expect to ever become a true member of the new class you're spending time with. You're an immigrant and always will be. This isn't bad and one can be plenty accepted and appreciated as an immigrant but insisting on being perceived as something you're not is seen as obnoxious.

Class is something you grow up into and it's only your children or even grandchildren that will be real members of the new class.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats