Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?

[chilango]

I mean the idea that in their manoeuvring for position members of the elite will deploy their cultural capital to gain status isn't wrong. But it's also true in other class strata too.

The thing that I'm strongly suspicious about is this assertion that museum curators, academics, artists, writers etc. are a significant cohesive class block able to take on entrenched elites.

 

[chilango]

I thought you liked your Bourdieu? The idea of symbolic capital and the role it plays in reproducing dominance within fields is hardly new!

I do. "Within fields" is important here. The idea that museum curators are turning reluctant proles woke in order to gain status is nonsense though.

 

[kabbes]

I do. "Within fields" is important here. The idea that museum curators are turning reluctant proles woke in order to gain status is nonsense though.

I don’t think that’s the claim, though. The claim seems to be just the well-trodden notion of the interplay between symbolic and cultural capital, combined with another well-trodden path of considering the role of the professional-managerial class in managing capitalism

 

[chilango]

I don’t think that’s the claim, though. The claim seems to be just the well-trodden notion of the interplay between symbolic and cultural capital, combined with another well-trodden path of considering the role of the professional-managerial class in managing capitalism

TBF I haven't read Malik's piece. I'm thinking more of the Goodwinesque takes I've seen bandied about.

 

[brogdale]

Which all reminds me of the (outwardly) simplistic point that Gilbert was making yesterday, in the wake of the US election, that it is the "symbolic capitalists" against which the populist right defines itself.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I thought you liked your Bourdieu? The idea of symbolic capital and the role it plays in reproducing dominance within fields is hardly new!

Yes, exactly. This type of analysis of the PMC isn’t a new one. The books does seem to take as its starting point Bourdieu and Ehrenreich’s work.

Where this book, and Malik article, seems to add value and context is to examine how symbolic capitalists intervene in the current juncture and how that a) this group uses its perceived higher virtues to reproduce itself and enhance its position and b) elides genuine struggles for economic justice and possible fights against inequality.

Instead, the symbolic capitalists perceives those at the bottom as ‘undeserving’ because they do not share or publicly advocate or signal for the same virtues as it does. The bottom 80% are ‘the other’ and its demands can therefore be dismissed or rejected as natavist/reactionary etc

I’m not convinced the book does argue that the symbolic capitalists are an organised class and instead understands it as class that operates through codes, symbols, signifiers and through cultural tastes and preferences.

 

[chilango]

From the book blurb:
"...the rise of a new elite—the symbolic capitalists. In education, media, nonprofits, and beyond, members of this elite work primarily with words, ideas, images, and data, and are very likely to identify as allies of antiracist, feminist, LGBTQ, and other progressive causes. Their dominant ideology is “wokeness” and, while their commitment to equality is sincere, they actively benefit from and perpetuate the inequalities they decry."

I have some time for most of the hypothesis...except - crucially - it's starting point of these jobs forming a "new elite".

Most people working with "symbolic capital" are nowhere near being elite, and the minority who are not new entrants to that class.

...and there's nothing new or novel in this.

 

[ignatious]

It's certainly not inaccurate to say that these 'symbolic capitalists' (the well meaning and well paid woke 'elite') are a lot quieter when it comes to talking about economic inequality and wealth redistribution that would in many (not all, obvs) cases materially impact on them.

Also not remotely controversial to suggest that by dominating the academic space with their agendas they detract from other projects of the left while giving themselves a certain status with the sphere.

So not a particularly useful analysis unless the plan was to summarise what is blindingly obvious to everybody, but to do so in the sort of florid language that makes it inpenetrable to most people. Which is ironic considering it seems to be an attempt to find ways to push back against the populist right.

A good starting point would be to use the same plain language. But then, status...

 

[lazythursday]

I'd like a clearer picture of who the 'well meaning and well paid woke elite' actually are, as, for example, the majority of people working in academia are pretty poorly paid, with terrible job security, and certainly materially worse off than many skilled manual workers.

I do think it's true that there are plenty of knowledge workers who are a mass of contradictions when it comes to their professed values and actions, I see it in my colleagues all the time, some of whom will spout endlessly about degrowth or inclusion but won't even join the fucking union.

 

[brogdale]

...and there's nothing new or novel in this.

Yes, I'd agree with that. The language and (some of the classification) remind me of Robert Reich's reformulation of occupational classification that formed part of his 1991 Work of Nations. For any that aren't familiar he proposed a new classification of economic activity to replace the age-old notions of Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and, more latterly Quaternary jobs. Instead he offered the 3 categories of work that he styled routine production services, in-person services and symbolic analysts. The first 2 attracting low pay as routine production was vulnerable to global capital's off-shoring to low-wage economies and in-person services, though less vulnerable to off-shoring, saw wages depressed by constant labour flows from former. However the symbolic analysts, including "engineers, attorneys, scientists, professors, executives, journalists, consultants and other 'mind workers'" were said to engage in processing information and symbols for a living and occupy a privileged position in that they can sell their services in the global economy.

Thinking about this old attempt to sketch out the context of employment in the, then, newly globalising economy does bring me back to Gilbert's point that I posted in #1655. The neoliberal technocrats, be that Dems or our LP, that presume to govern us are increasingly drawn from and sent back to their symbolic analyst (capitalist) roles through the 'revolving door' between financialised capital and representative politics. For me, this kind of definition makes more sense than "symbolic capital" when considering the how "left projects" are blocked or sabotaged.

 

[chilango]

I'd also argue that there aren't really any left projects, and especially not ones being blocked or sabotaged by museum curators and writers.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I'd also argue that there aren't really any left projects, and especially not ones being blocked or sabotaged by museum curators and writers.

The author seems to have antipaated your response….



I’ll post up the essay in due course. Not to counter your argument but because I think the points you raise (particularly the first one) are important and where the focus should be.

 

[redsquirrel]

TBF I haven't read Malik's piece. I'm thinking more of the Goodwinesque takes I've seen bandied about.

Have to say I don't think it is the best piece by Malik. Probably the limited word count makes it hard to get over the complexities - or maybe not, I've not read the book - but there are some bits in it that raised an eyebrow

 

[emanymton]

From the book blurb:
"...the rise of a new elite—the symbolic capitalists. In education, media, nonprofits, and beyond, members of this elite work primarily with words, ideas, images, and data, and are very likely to identify as allies of antiracist, feminist, LGBTQ, and other progressive causes. Their dominant ideology is “wokeness” and, while their commitment to equality is sincere, they actively benefit from and perpetuate the inequalities they decry."

I have some time for most of the hypothesis...except - crucially - it's starting point of these jobs forming a "new elite".

Most people working with "symbolic capital" are nowhere near being elite, and the minority who are not new entrants to that class.

...and there's nothing new or novel in this.

It's just a book analysing a right wing fantasy.

 

[steeplejack]

There's no such thing as "woke" and I don't think we're well served by discussing it as though it's something that exists.

The idea that museum curators are turning reluctant proles woke in order to gain status is nonsense though.

I love this idea. Radio 5 Live giving a late night opinion piece slot to Maria Balshaw for a nuanced discussion on the Rainbow Laces campaign. A guest slot for "Professor" Callinicos on Talk Radio. "Audrey from Cromer has some thoughts to share on Kronstadt, morning Audrey you're live on Hot to Trot here on Talk Radio!"

People last paid attention to the ramblings of "curators" around the time of Sir John Rothenstein, seventy years ago. And even then in a much less fragmented and much more hierarchical / academically focused model of curatorship, it was marginal stuff.

 

[kabbes]

There's no such thing as "woke" and I don't think we're well served by discussing it as though it's something that exists.

The thing that exists is the idea of woke. And that idea has consequences in the world. Ideas don't just describe reality, they also make reality. The fact that some people think it exists creates effects. Those effects can be discussed.

 

[pbsmooth]

yes, and the effect is videos of Trump voters saying the Republican party has the right "social values" that they are aligned with. because they've been brainwashed by stupid accounts like LibsOfTikTok into thinking Democrats want to force all children to be transgender or some other nonsense.

 

[emanymton]

The thing that exists is the idea of woke. And that idea has consequences in the world. Ideas don't just describe reality, they also make reality. The fact that some people think it exists creates effects. Those effects can be discussed.

I only found out recently that woke has it's origins in African-American English and dates back ro the 1960s.

 

[ignatious]

People last paid attention to the ramblings of "curators" around the time of Sir John Rothenstein, seventy years ago. And even then in a much less fragmented and much more hierarchical / academically focused model of curatorship, it was marginal stuff.

Most museums and galleries seem to have an exhibition, a wing or something sponsored by a big corporate. They are quite happy to sponsor works around social issues that don't disrupt and in many cases improve the productivity of the work place, but they will draw a line at subjects that are openly critical of their role. Curators must be aware of this, even if only subconsciously.

 

[krtek a houby]

I only found out recently that woke has it's origins in African-American English and dates back ro the 1960s.

Further than that.

Leadbelly had a song in the 30s, that advised Black men to stay woke in the deep south, to be wary of those who would seek to harm them.

 

[steeplejack]

The thing that exists is the idea of woke. And that idea has consequences in the world. Ideas don't just describe reality, they also make reality. The fact that some people think it exists creates effects. Those effects can be discussed.

I often press a close relative to explain what he means when he fulminates about "woke" ideas.

He flounders about for a definition, but it's a lightning rod for - basically- whatever he doesn't like.

Most museums and galleries seem to have an exhibition, a wing or something sponsored by a big corporate. They are quite happy to sponsor works around social issues that don't disrupt and in many cases improve the productivity of the work place, but they will draw a line at subjects that are openly critical of their role. Curators must be aware of this, even if only subconsciously.

Contemporary art and culture has always postured around "radical" ideas but will not need to be pushed too hard to confrom with the orthodoxies of late capitalism / neoliberalism, at least on an instituional level. Instituional functionaries whose wages are paid in part by the state will of course not be too critical of their paymaster. There's always been a chasm between the rhetoric of some contemporary artists / art workers and their actions.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

The thing that exists is the idea of woke. And that idea has consequences in the world. Ideas don't just describe reality, they also make reality. The fact that some people think it exists creates effects. Those effects can be discussed.

Yes. Lofty dismissals of 'woke' as a idea render those possessing that view as more irrelevent than the idea itself.

I'd also add that describing people as 'low information' or as bigots for expressing concerns about 'woke' ideas is, in this context, precisely one of the charges raised against the symbolic capitalists.

Rejecting the idea that a group exists that is highly visible and which is publicly committed to ideas and values that could be described as 'woke' - whilst simultaneously performatively subscribing to a set of shared virtues, symbols, values and codes that are widely perceived to be woke - is one of motifs of al-Gharbi's book.

 

[chilango]

Don't get me wrong the processes of how cultural capital is deployed and it's role (and thus the role of those dastardly museum curators etc) in shaping "legitimate culture" is all true.

What isn't true is that this is some organised elite woke assault on working class values and self-organisation.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Don't get me wrong the processes of how cultural capital is deployed and it's role (and thus the role of those dastardly museum curators etc) in shaping "legitimate culture" is all true.

What isn't true is that this is some organised elite woke assault on working class values and self-organisation.

I think that's right. But I do think that there is an organised elite a) that deploys 'woke' terminology and ideas to quash dissent from those at the bottom of society and to create legitimancy and support for its economic programme and b) which is engaged in a culture war with another wing of the elite which defines itself through oppositon to the terminology in a battle to impose its own economic programme.

 

[steeplejack]

I think that's right. But I do think that there is an organised elite a) that deploys 'woke' terminology and ideas to quash dissent from those at the bottom of society and to create legitimancy and support for its economic programme and b) which is engaged in a culture war with another wing of the elite which defines itself through oppositon to the terminology in a battle to impose its own economic programme.

Last word on "dastardly curators"...they will be snivellingly grateful to whoever provides reliable money, whether from state or private funds, on a reasonably long term basis, whatever their "economic programme".

 

[chilango]

I think that's right. But I do think that there is an organised elite a) that deploys 'woke' terminology and ideas to quash dissent from those at the bottom of society and to create legitimancy and support for its economic programme and b) which is engaged in a culture war with another wing of the elite which defines itself through oppositon to the terminology in a battle to impose its own economic programme.

I think what we're seeing is a prolonged campaign to shift dissent onto terrain favourable to the right, i.e. social conservatism.

 

[MickiQ]

The thing that exists is the idea of woke. And that idea has consequences in the world. Ideas don't just describe reality, they also make reality. The fact that some people think it exists creates effects. Those effects can be discussed.

You've pretty much just described religion.

 

[lazythursday]

I think that's right. But I do think that there is an organised elite a) that deploys 'woke' terminology and ideas to quash dissent from those at the bottom of society and to create legitimancy and support for its economic programme and b) which is engaged in a culture war with another wing of the elite which defines itself through oppositon to the terminology in a battle to impose its own economic programme.

Surely there are two things being mixed up here. One is that there is a broad class of people - knowledge workers, symbolic analysts or whatever, who tend to share the same liberal-ish values, which includes being pro racial equality, LGBTQ rights etc. Then there is a portion of the elite who sometimes use these ideas in ways in which entrench neoliberalism and economic inequality. That second statement doesn't mean that this class as a whole is only expressing 'wokeness' as a tool to beat the working class in some way.

 

[smokedout]

Have to say I don't think it is the best piece by Malik. Probably the limited word count makes it hard to get over the complexities - or maybe not, I've not read the book - but there are some bits in it that raised an eyebrow

@Musa_alGharbi

Asst. Professor
@SBUjournalism
. Author.

I think this might represent internal conflict amongst the professional middle class in some sectors (which includes the author and Malik) and they are giving it more importance than it merits. Certainly woke or social justice ideals may be prevalent in some sectors, namely contemporary arts, parts of academia, some elements of the media etc, and are no doubt used by the ambitious to benefit them in the scramble to the top. But this is a very small part of the economy overall even if it may be a big part of their lives. I doubt woke ideology counts for much in finance, arms, big oil, construction and other major industries in which the real elite are embedded.

 

[hitmouse]

On the question of whether or not "woke" is a thing, I always think that Freddie deBoer's article is a pretty decent starting point:

Of Course You Know What "Woke" Means

I'd rather use any other term at this point, but can we get real please?

web.archive.org

As I have said many times, I don’t like using the term “woke” myself, not without qualification or quotation marks. It’s too much of a culture war pinball and now deemed too pejorative to be useful. I much, much prefer the term “social justice politics” to refer to the school of politics that is typically referred to as woke, out of a desire to be neutral in terminology. However: there is such a school of politics, it’s absurd that so many people pretend not to know what woke means, and the problem could be easily solved if people who support woke politics would adopt a name for others to use. No to woke, no to identity politics, no to political correctness, fine: PICK SOMETHING. The fact that they steadfastly refuse to do so is a function of their feeling that they shouldn’t have to do politics like everyone else. But they do. And their resistance to doing politics is why, three years after a supposed “reckoning,” nothing has really changed. (If there’s no such thing as the social justice politics movement, who made the protests and unrest of 2020 happen? The fucking Democrats?)

The conceit is that “woke” has even shaggier or vaguer boundaries than “liberal,” “fascist,” “conservative,” or “moderate.” And I just don’t think that’s true.

“Woke” or “wokeness” refers to a school of social and cultural liberalism that has become the dominant discourse in left-of-center spaces in American intellectual life. It reflects trends and fashions that emerged over time from left activist and academic spaces and became mainstream, indeed hegemonic, among American progressives in the 2010s. “Wokeness” centers “the personal is political” at the heart of all politics and treats political action as inherently a matter of personal moral hygiene - woke isn’t something you do, it’s something you are. Correspondingly all of politics can be decomposed down to the right thoughts and right utterances of enlightened people. Persuasion and compromise are contrary to this vision of moral hygiene and thus are deprecated. Correct thoughts are enforced through a system of mutual surveillance, one which takes advantage of the affordances of internet technology to surveil and then punish. Since politics is not a matter of arriving at the least-bad alternative through an adversarial process but rather a matter of understanding and inhabiting an elevated moral station, there are no crises of conscience or necessary evils.

I think deBoer is often annoyingly wrong and at least 15% more social democratic than he should be, and you can see him being a bit wrong about 2020 in that bit I quoted, but I think he does hit on something there. Much more in the full piece.