[Potemkin]

This is treading into unpopular water which Millie will surely regard as ignorant, but I largely agree with you Potemkin. Inequality per se does not seem to be source of social disorder, aside from standard pack animal behavior in striving for dominance. Inequality within the context of a capitalist society which embraces blank slate mythology, however, creates very power status anxiety. Until fairly recently hereditarian ideas about ability were dominant in both the scientific establishment (e.g. social darwinism, scientific racism) and the popular mind (phrases like "good breeding"). It was believed that people were born with a given range of abilities, and thus failing to achieve was not considered a sign of oppression or personal failure per se, but simply a fact of one's own abilities. Thus in earlier labor movements we simply saw a class striving for power, not disordered people lashing out.

I will stress, however, that this status anxiety alone is in no way responsible and must be viewed within the context of general social breakdown. My impression is that in Europe families and societies remain more in tact than here, despite much degeneration.

Again, I think you're on the right track, but I cannot agree with some of the details of your analysis. You seem to be assuming (you're an American, so this is perhaps understandable) that a person's social status is determined by their abilities. Historically, this is untrue. A rigid, hereditary class hierarchy leads to a society in which intelligence is spread out across all social classes more or less equally (education is not, of course, which is why the ruling class often seem to be more intelligent). In Britain, the upper classes are notorious for their stupidity - witness, for example, the Monty Python sketch about the 'Upper-class Twit of the Year'. The lower classes have traditionally ridiculed the upper classes for their stupidity. It is this perception that one's position in the social hierarchy is essentially unrelated to one's personal abilities which makes status anxiety much less of a problem in Britain than in America. The belief in social darwinism &c was merely a means for the ruling class to morally justify their hereditary class privileges by constructing a false ideology. It was merely a means to make the ruling class feel better about themselves. The present-day ruling class have adopted liberalism in place of the old discredited racialist and pseudo-darwinian ideology as their means of feeling better about themselves, but it is an equally false ideology.

[millie_(A)TCK]

it is psychologically easier to be poor in Europe than to be poor in America

Interesting...

Which is not relevant to this discussion, though if you'd like I'd be happy to pursue a discussion about the broad effects of multiculturalism on American economic might.

It was relevant because the author of the study postulated that in time multi-cultural communities in America would become cohesive and in the meantime multi-culturalism aids the economy.

[Dave]

Again, I think you're on the right track, but I cannot agree with some of the details of your analysis. You seem to be assuming (you're an American, so this is perhaps understandable) that a person's social status is determined by their abilities.

No, this is not what I said. I stated that it was once taken for granted that a person's level of success was partly determined by his hereditary abilities. Based on the data I do think that a person's social status in America is to a significant degree determined by his hereditary ability, but that is actually not relevant here.

Historically, this is untrue. A rigid, hereditary class hierarchy leads to a society in which intelligence is spread out across all social classes more or less equally (education is not, of course, which is why the ruling class often seem to be more intelligent).

This doesn't follow at all, unless the hereditary classes were randomly formed.

In Britain, the upper classes are notorious for their stupidity - witness, for example, the Monty Python sketch about the 'Upper-class Twit of the Year'. The lower classes have traditionally ridiculed the upper classes for their stupidity. It is this perception that one's position in the social hierarchy is essentially unrelated to one's personal abilities which makes status anxiety much less of a problem in Britain than in America.

I don't disagree with this at all, although most of my experiences with English aristocrats have been positive. I've never seen any data on the matter in any case.

The belief in social darwinism &c was merely a means for the ruling class to morally justify their hereditary class privileges by constructing a false ideology. It was merely a means to make the ruling class feel better about themselves. The present-day ruling class have adopted liberalism in place of the old discredited racialist and pseudo-darwinian ideology as their means of feeling better about themselves, but it is an equally false ideology.

In the first place neither were ever discredited, and in the second place their veracity is irrelevant to the discussion. My point was that hereditarian, Darwinist beliefs being widespread within the context of a capitalist society reduced the prevalence of status anxiety by causing people to believe that they more or less deserved their social station and were not victims of either oppression or personal failure. I do agree with you that both Darwinist and liberal beliefs about human heredity are (especially the latter) ideological constructions of the elite, though they have different functions. The former served to legitimize their position in material-scientific terms, the latter is a form of status signaling which is supposed to justify elite status via superior morality. At any rate we are now treading into a separate discussion, so to focus my original point, do you agree that:

[1]Hereditarian beliefs within capitalism legitimize one's social status
[2]Liberal creationist (ie blank slate) beliefs lend themselves to the belief that lower status is the result of personal failure or oppression
[3]Those beliefs in turn produce stress and anxiety, ie status anxiety

It was relevant because the author of the study postulated that in time multi-cultural communities in America would become cohesive and in the meantime multi-culturalism aids the economy.

That is very relevant to a discussion of Putnam's study, but for the time being the study supports the idea that multiculturalism contributes to social breakdown. If Putnam's optimism about the future of multiculturalism is correct, then perhaps we can look forward to a decline in mass shootings?

[millie_(A)TCK]

If Putnam's optimism about the future of multiculturalism is correct, then perhaps we can look forward to a decline in mass shootings?

If diversity was the biggest reason for the social breakdown, yes, but it's not.

[Dave]

If diversity was the biggest reason for the social breakdown, yes, but it's not.

Not necessarily. If it is the biggest reason, then we would see a significant decline assuming Putnam's optimism is correct. If it is a contributing reason, then we would expect a minor decline.

[millie_(A)TCK]

That's basically what I just said.

[Potemkin]

My point was that hereditarian, Darwinist beliefs being widespread within the context of a capitalist society reduced the prevalence of status anxiety by causing people to believe that they more or less deserved their social station and were not victims of either oppression or personal failure.

This is incorrect. Pseudo-Darwinian beliefs were never shared by the lower classes, nor were they meant to be - it was an ideology formulated by and for the ruling class, to justify to themselves their hereditary class privileges. Liberalism is the same - it is an ideology created by and for the (primarily American) ruling class, to justify to themselves their own hereditary class privileges, this time through superior morality rather than superior heredity.

I do agree with you that both Darwinist and liberal beliefs about human heredity are (especially the latter) ideological constructions of the elite, though they have different functions. The former served to legitimize their position in material-scientific terms, the latter is a form of status signaling which is supposed to justify elite status via superior morality.

Agreed.

At any rate we are now treading into a separate discussion, so to focus my original point, do you agree that:

[1]Hereditarian beliefs within capitalism legitimize one's social status

Hereditarian beliefs legitimise(d) the ruling class' social status to itself, but not to anyone else. The lower classes never accepted the hereditarian ideology.

[2]Liberal creationist (ie blank slate) beliefs lend themselves to the belief that lower status is the result of personal failure or oppression

Agreed.

[3]Those beliefs in turn produce stress and anxiety, ie status anxiety

Agreed.

[Figlio di Moros]

Hereditarian beliefs legitimise(d) the ruling class' social status to itself, but not to anyone else. The lower classes never accepted the hereditarian ideology.

Are you sure you could verify that? Even if they didn't feel the need to legitimise among the lumpen, the middle-classes would've seen benefit from their position above beggars.

[Dave]

This is incorrect. Pseudo-Darwinian beliefs were never shared by the lower classes, nor were they meant to be - it was an ideology formulated by and for the ruling class, to justify to themselves their hereditary class privileges. Liberalism is the same - it is an ideology created by and for the (primarily American) ruling class, to justify to themselves their own hereditary class privileges, this time through superior morality rather than superior heredity.

This may be true in Britain, but certainly not in the United States (nor for that matter Germany). There is a reason Britain never adopted eugenic laws, whereas the United States was the world's first country to do so. The ethnic lower classes certainly did not accept hereditarian beliefs (largely because they were proclaimed inferior), but working and middle class Americans most certainly did. Stoddard and Grant had no problem selling millions of books to Middle America.

Hereditarian beliefs legitimise(d) the ruling class' social status to itself, but not to anyone else. The lower classes never accepted the hereditarian ideology.

In which case we're back to square one, but I contend that it was accepted by indigenous lower classes in America. The ethnic lower classes, whether black (epitomized by W.E.B. DuBois and his "talented tenth" argument) or foreign did not accept it, but then they weren't Americans (yet). It was once quite common for farmers for instance, when marriage for their children was afoot, to inquire about the family background of potential suitors for their children. Does this not speak to implicit acceptance of hereditarian ideas?

Are you sure you could verify that?

The various eugenic conferences convened by men like Dalton and Fisher never had any working class representation in Britain, which is Potemkin's frame of reference. In America eugenics was very popular in the working and middle classes, in large part because they had a strong nativist, nationalist aspect to them unlike in Britain where the lens was classist. This thread of course concerns American mass shootings, and thus Potemkin's frame of reference does not apply though is useful in examining transatlantic differences in status anxiety.

[Potemkin]

[youtube]TSqkdcT25ss[/youtube]

[Potemkin]

This may be true in Britain, but certainly not in the United States (nor for that matter Germany). There is a reason Britain never adopted eugenic laws, whereas the United States was the world's first country to do so. The ethnic lower classes certainly did not accept hereditarian beliefs (largely because they were proclaimed inferior), but working and middle class Americans most certainly did. Stoddard and Grant had no problem selling millions of books to Middle America.

From a British perspective, that simply means that the American working class and petty-bourgeois classes were merely dupes of the ruling elite for accepting an alien ideology which was hostile to their own class interests. Fortunately, the British workers did not allow themselves to be duped in this way.

It was once quite common for farmers for instance, when marriage for their children was afoot, to inquire about the family background of potential suitors for their children. Does this not speak to implicit acceptance of hereditarian ideas?

Farmers and peasants tend to be petty-bourgeois in their ideology, as Marx pointed out, so this is hardly surprising.

The various eugenic conferences convened by men like Dalton and Fisher never had any working class representation in Britain, which is Potemkin's frame of reference. In America eugenics was very popular in the working and middle classes, in large part because they had a strong nativist, nationalist aspect to them unlike in Britain where the lens was classist. This thread of course concerns American mass shootings, and thus Potemkin's frame of reference does not apply though is useful in examining transatlantic differences in status anxiety.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

[Dave]

From a British perspective, that simply means that the American working class and petty-bourgeois classes were merely dupes of the ruling elite for accepting an alien ideology which was hostile to their own class interests. Fortunately, the British workers did not allow themselves to be duped in this way.

Except it was not hostile to their class interests in the United States--it in fact worked out very well for American workers by removing competition from below and moderating oppression from above. This is not, however, how it would've worked out in Britain, where a better deal for the working class required working class aggression against the established order. The kind of syncretic class collaboration that emerged in America (inasmuch one could even speak of class here) in defense of the body national could never have taken root in Britain.

Farmers and peasants tend to be petty-bourgeois in their ideology, as Marx pointed out, so this is hardly surprising.

A century ago 30% of the American workforce was in agriculture, and it was not particularly different for middle class industrial workers either. A lack of concern about hereditary characteristics was confined to foreigners and lumpen.

[Suska]

There is a reason Britain never adopted eugenic laws, whereas the United States was the world's first country to do so.

The case as I understand it was that Britain didn't sterilize but incarcerate. In fact sterilization of imbeciles was common in England back to the 1820s (so they wouldn't masturbate, but enormous numbers of people were being incarcerated on insanity grounds while America was sterilizing, the famous case of Cary Grant's mother for instance. I'm having trouble researching this because my ISP is run by cocksuckers, but I did this research a while back - its somewhere here on PoFo... Anyways, check your facts.

[Potemkin]

Except it was not hostile to their class interests in the United States--it in fact worked out very well for American workers by removing competition from below and moderating oppression from above. This is not, however, how it would've worked out in Britain, where a better deal for the working class required working class aggression against the established order. The kind of syncretic class collaboration that emerged in America (inasmuch one could even speak of class here) in defense of the body national could never have taken root in Britain.

Agreed. This is why the Irish nationalist leadership in the late 19th century threatened to withdraw recognition of being Irishmen from the American Irish, who at that time were in the process of being accepted as 'white' by the American ruling class and who therefore had begun to accept the racialist and hereditarian ideology of the ruling class. The Irish nationalist leaders were outraged by what they regarded as this 'betrayal'.

A century ago 30% of the American workforce was in agriculture, and it was not particularly different for middle class industrial workers either. A lack of concern about hereditary characteristics was confined to foreigners and lumpen.

Your use of the phrase which I have put in bold type tells me that we occupy different ideological worlds. To me, it is an oxymoron, whereas to you it is almost a tautology.