site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26708 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You've understood some of it, but not the context. Saltburn is actually just the latest entry in the long tradition of English upper-class snobbery towards the upper-middle class.

Like Evelyn Waugh and Julian Fellowes (who write stories with similar messages, if less sexy in style), Emerald Fennell is from the bottom of the English upper class. Her father is a semi-famous jewelry designer who went to Eton, but who was born into a merely gentry army family in colonial Egypt. Her parents set her up with children of her father's higher profile clients as friends, and at Oxford:

Fennell was, writes journalist K.J. Yossman, "part of a rarefied...social set whose family names I recognized from gossip columns and history books… Balfour, Frost, von Bismarck, Guinness, Shaffer."

In essence, she was the least wealthy and least noble of the upper class set at the time. This always breeds the harshest resentment towards those in the class just below you (the actual upper-middle class, people with money but no name, no title and no estate, ie. arguably Emerald herself and certainly her children had her father had not done his best to elevate his daughter's station in life).

An earl or a duke, to say nothing of a member of the actual royal family, has no need to denigrate the upper middle class because their position is secure. A marquis, after all, can marry a prostitute and she's still lady so-and-so, marchioness whatever and her son is still the heir to the title. This is to some extent why neither Harry or William married their own kind; even their uncle's wife, the Countess Spencer, is a Canadian charity worker. But to someone on the precarious fringe of the peerage, someone who speaks the right way, runs in the right circles, went to the right schools but who lacks significant wealth, title or lineage, guarding one's privilege against the next rung down is critical.

Saltburn is about snobbery. Ollie hides that he's upper middle class not primarily because it will get him more sympathy in the American sense that the wealthy Felix will feel sorry for his poor friend. He hides that he's upper middle class because to be upper middle class is the worst possible thing you can be in the presence of 'old' money, because it's to be present in the same spaces as them as both an ignorant and uncouth annoyance and a reminder of a changing world. The English upper classes have a long history of liking the working class as relatively noble, deferential salt-of-the-earth type people (see downstairs in Downton Abbey), but disliking the middle as money-grubbing shysters. Ollie's betrayal is in claiming to the former while actually being the latter.

As this article says:

Only someone with a name like Emerald Fennell could make a film like Saltburn: a treatise on the horror and aesthetic depravity of the petite bourgeoisie. Saltburn might claim to satirise the frippery of the British aristocracy, but this is dishonest. The film’s brain says “eat the rich!” but its soul says “eww, the middle class.” It is a film that confidently demarcates the middle classes as the true villains of Great Britain: untrustworthy and covetous social climbers with none of the exotic intrigue of the poor, nor the blasé taste of the rich. In Saltburn’s universe there is no greater sin than bourgeois aspiration.

In Britain, the most important thing is to know one's place. Getting rich is fine, at least some of the time. But social climbing is never acceptable and a perennial source of mockery for anyone caught attempting it.

But social climbing is never acceptable

What about children who are born into the climb? Like John le Carré (David John Moore Cornwell), the writer whose father was a working class swindler who put John into a posh school and made sure he would have upper crust speech and mannerisms?

Well, of course it still happens. Everyone was an arriviste at some point. But I think the general thing is that you fake it convincingly for long enough that people stop doubting your children, at which point you made it. Le Carre was firmly middle class, his maternal uncle was an MP; his father was downwardly mobile, he and his siblings largely made it into the comfortable middle/upper middle class. None were upper, though.

From the same article:

And in this manicured, homogeneous neighbourhood sit the Dursleys: fat, tasteless, thick, judgemental and cruel. JK Rowling makes clear that the boorish Nimby patriarch and his curtain-twitching wife haven’t earned the right to their advanced snobbery. Their aesthetic sensibilities are simply too ghastly. For the Dursleys, like Oliver Quick, middle-classness is not incidental to their evil but the source of it.

I always felt sorry for the dursleys. Aside from their comically overdone mistreatment of Harry, they seem like average, even impressive* people whose God hates them and has cursed them to be ugly, stupid and humiliated on-camera.

*Vernon owns a drill company which seems to be doing well, Dudley wins boxing championships.

I agree, although in the Dursleys case it’s more Rowling’s resentment for her own class and the life she might have led had she not become poor by pursuing writing in London and instead become a suburban housewife.

You're taking it too seriously. It started off as a kid's book, with Harry being a retelling of Cinderella, in part. Of course the Dursleys are comic villains, they're the Stepmother and Ugly Stepsisters stand-in. Not just the Dursleys, think of their ghastly friends. When the books became A Phenomenon, then people started looking for Deeper Meaning (which I don't think was ever there) and J.K. did give a bit more depth to the characters (Dudley is growing out of being a bully, Petunia has genuine grievances as well as jealousy of her sister).

But looking for class critiques in the characters of the Wicked Stepfamily is like looking for the same in the pantomime versions (e.g. around the 9 minute mark here)

Everything in Britain is about class. You could try to write something that had nothing to do with it and it would still, inevitably in some sense, be about a particular class or its intersection with another. It would be like writing a story about modern China that had absolutely nothing to do with the CCP or Mao or the post-1948 makeup of Chinese society. You could try, but even in its absence it would be saying something. Everyone born in Britain exists within this system, everyone can clock everyone else, it is inescapable. There are things beyond it, but it still touches them.

You think? I can't see it myself. Obviously Rowling isn't upper class, but it's the Weasleys' life that's the obvious fantasy. Poor, shabby, but happy and with an old house out in the countryside. I suppose sour grapes are a possibility.

No, I’m not disagreeing with you at all; the Weasleys are the fantasy, the Dursleys are a suffocating hell.

Vernon owns a drill company

According to the wiki, he was only a director.

Ah, my mistake :)

In Britain, the most important thing is to know one's place. Getting rich is fine, at least some of the time. But social climbing is never acceptable and a perennial source of mockery for anyone caught attempting it.

This kind of mindset is so foreign to me that I genuinely can't understand it. What causes this kind of mindset?

In America, people who start out poor and then become so rich that they end up going to the same parties as Presidents and old money families are usually celebrated. The average person here doesn't think less highly of, say, Jay-Z just because he does not come from nobility or family wealth yet lives the same sort of lifestyle as people who do and does not give noble families any visible sort of deference.

Or am I misunderstanding the English conception of class and social climbing?

In America, people who start out poor and then become so rich that they end up going to the same parties as Presidents and old money families are usually celebrated.

Remember Trump and "ugh, he eats his steak over-done and with ketchup, so low-class"? There's class structure and class resentment in America as well, it's just not as formalised or set out in a hierarchy like "the royalty, the nobility, the gentry, the middle classes, the working class, the lower class". Think of the Gilded Age snobbery, the Boston Brahmins, there are still the old-money, old-established (for the USA) families and the new, often made their money in tech, billionaires. Bezos may be fantastically rich and perceived as upper-class but that's because he's the West coast elite, and he's still not got quite the cachet of the Gettys, for instance. Bezos is a lot richer than the remaining fortune of Gordon Getty, but it was the Getty grand-daughter who was able to reserve City Hall for her own personal use for her wedding, officated over by Nancy Pelosi, and with Governor Newsom in attendance as a close family friend.

Meanwhile, if I'm being unkind, Bezos' new inamorata is considered somewhat trashy. "Mob wife aesthetic"? Really?

I agree, but it’s different. In America, class is a two-tiered (arguably three-tiered, including the underclass) system. There’s the salt of the earth working class, and there’s the college-educated PMC. There are a few remaining “we’re 1640s, not 1880s darling” elderly WASPs in a handful of New England clubs, but they (and their Southern equivalents) are irrelevant. I grew up wealthy in NYC and I rarely encountered them, as almost all have intermarried with new money of the bourgeois PMC sort. People like Barack Obama and Bill Ackman are the American upper class. There is nobody above them socially. There is no hidden elite tier. Again, there are certainly people who think themselves above them, but they’re not in any real sense.

In America, there’s a clear delineation between old money and new. But that distinction is essentially one generation of wealth. Charles Kushner was a construction worker, son of immigrants. Jared Kushner is a member of the American upper class, his father paid his dues to Harvard, his son speaks and acts in the right way (his association with Trump aside). It is what it is. Trump is unique because Fred Trump only became super rich when Trump was already an adult or certainly a teenager, and because New York real estate in the outer boroughs was and arguably is a uniquely trashy and plebeian business dominated by people with minimal class status. So Trump could be the son of a rich man and go to Wharton and, perhaps almost uniquely, remain kind of a pleb.

But in general, that’s not how American society operates. Emerald Fennell, had she been born an American, would be a clear member of the American upper class. That she isn’t in Britain is the source of her angst, and perhaps of Saltburn.

People have a lot of respect for at least some self-made people here, especially the working class. The host of the British version of The Apprentice started off as a market seller and became a billionaire or something like that, and he was even made an actual Baron, but he’s still ‘working class’ in a way. Class and wealth don’t mean the same thing, even if they’re still correlated. So you can aspire to be rich and invited to dinners at Buckingham Palace for entrepreneurs or philanthropists or something, but you must never aspire to be the social class above yourself; it’s the latter, not the former, that’s a subject of great mockery - not primarily by people arguably ‘above’ you (although that happens, as in this case), but by your own class, who will mock you for your pretensions.

Of course, it still happens, and today’s snobs are as ever the arrivistes of a century ago.

The host of the British version of The Apprentice started off as a market seller and became a billionaire or something like that, and he was even made an actual Baron, but he’s still ‘working class’ in a way.

For example, his crest is a reference to the football club he supports, and some wordplay with his very unaristocratic second name (Sugar). That's probably the way of having heraldry that would get you least mockery in a Cockney pub.

There’s also the fact that visibly aspiring to be a different class requires you to adopt the mannerisms and life history of the class you’re aping. This almost always looks fake and is inherently kind of nasty because you’re implicitly throwing your family and original social milieu under the bus.

It should be noted that people pretending to be lower class also come in for mockery (see @2rafa’s comments*, anyone with a mockney accent, and all the communist aristos who smoked pipes and pretended to be working class). It’s not just protecting privilege.

*I.e. the bit about Ollie's betrayal being his pretence of working-classness. I don't mean her comments in general.

You've understood some of it, but not the context.

I understand the context, but my interpretation isn't ruled by it. The theme is universal. Saltburn is about the British class system at Oxford in the same way that Notes from Underground is about petty Russian bureaucrat life. It evokes themes that stretch back to Plato and Nietzsche and forward further. It calls to mind the death of Princess Diana, the life of Brittany Spears, the way we approach celebrities, we want to fuck them and we want to kill them and after they are gone all we can do is miss them.

RE: Emerald Fennell

A lot of the criticism I saw, in reading articles about the movie after watching it, was this exact species of ressentiment. The critics, the writers, her old classmates, they hate that Emerald Fennel made a movie and people like it. And they don't counter it by making a better piece of art, a more stirring story, they tear it down. She had no right to make it, and people must be told so. They hate her, at best, for getting lucky.

Saltburn is about snobbery. Ollie hides that he's upper middle class not primarily because it will get him more sympathy in the American sense that the wealthy Felix will feel sorry for his poor friend. He hides that he's upper middle class because to be upper middle class is the worst possible thing you can be in the presence of 'old' money, because it's to be present in the same spaces as them as both an ignorant and uncouth annoyance and a reminder of a changing world. The English upper classes have a long history of liking the working class as relatively noble, deferential salt-of-the-earth type people (see downstairs in Downton Abbey), but disliking the middle as money-grubbing shysters. Ollie's betrayal is in claiming to the former while actually being the latter.

This is good analysis. Ollie feels himself entitled to something better than what he has because he sees that other people have it. He blanches at a friendship with the student who screams at him to ask him a "fucking sum." He wants to be one of the beautiful and the good, not one of the normies.

But it can be extended to a range of relationships, it's a typology. It extends to race, to gender, to wealth, to class. The same dynamic appears over and over.

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