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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
More options
Context Copy link