I started a little discussion on Class over at Oasis, and I'd like to see broader input, so I'm posting the link here.

Class Discussion Thread

If you don't feel like posting a reply on that site, then please, feel free to add your comments here, as I will be checking back here as well to review opinions.

Thanks and enjoy.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">I will say this, just because someone is of a higher class doesn't mean they have class.</font>

[ 01-19-2006, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Does it really? Well, that would only be the case if you defined class by money alone. So, I assume you'll be choosing choice (1) that class is primarily dictated by money and economic means.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">No, I will refrase.

Just because someone is of a higher class (richer)doesn't mean they have class (the way they act towards others).

I can think of many examples of this, for example there are retailers who refuse to deal with people of poor housing because, and only deal with those who buy mansions. While the retailer may be of high class his actions are not very classy because he treats the poor with a disregard.

There are many rich who snub there noses at the lesser people who are hard working but less fortunate. That rich may be catorigized as a higher class but they have no class themselves. </font>

[ 01-19-2006, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

I've posted at the thread at Oasis.

<font color = lightgreen>As I posted over there, money alone does not define class. One may quantify people by any standard such as education or profession. Are doctors really better than trash collectors? Are people with a master's degree necessarily better than non-college-educated folks, but not quite as high-class as those who earned a PhD? There are many, many ways to assign classes to people. One thing to note, though: the person doing the classifying generally classifies themself into the "highest" or "best" class available.

I honestly state that I generally stratify people into class by the overall cultural level, their manners, and/or their intelligence. Of course, this puts me into one of the highest categories, if not the highest one. Is classifying people thusly classy, in and of itself? No, but at least I'm honest about it. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Poor people suck, down with the proletariat, rah rah fat cats.

May all your stock portfolios take a nosedive. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I don't like any of the choices to vote for.I think the amount of class a person has is most associated with thier actions both public and private.A man who feeds the poor and gives 20% of his income to the church might still molest thier child and beat thier wife.The rich look down thier noses at each other on new money old money and some look down on people with less money then them regardless of the quaility of that person.Education and proffesion might put you in a position to contribute more to society but in and of themselves don't make you have more class.Taste, culture, and style can be very classy and swing all the other way to self centered snobbery.But maybe I've strayed if your just trying to classify people chop'em up any way you like I think you'll have trouble fitting most people into one box.To be truthfull I belive this a trick question as the definitions of the word are not much like the definitions people asscribe to it.

Social class is measured in economic and edjucational values I believe. Personal class has more to do with how you act and use what you have. George Bush may be of the so called upper class because of his money and edjucation but he one of the lowest class people from my public point of view. The question needs to be more defined. We can't just say how do we measure class because it is a moral value as well as a measureable value. So money puts you into one class where actions and behavior may put you in a different class.

This discussion is quite meaningless, over the centuries people all around the world *invented* tons and tons of classifying criteria - e.g. traditional Polynesian, the fatter the classier.

Class is a category for people who need to elevate themselves over other human beings. If you feel the urge to do so have a nice day while doing, at least it´s probably more amusing than the average TV program ...

Typical reaction of a pro to mid with a smattering of education and a bit too much liberal (U.S. meaning -- Leftist) angst. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 01-20-2006, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Absolutely nothing to do with money.

I've never done manual work but I am, and will always be, working class! And bloody proud of it as well.

Mmmmm - if it is money is Wayne Rooney upper class?

BTW - a warning would have been nice on that link, I'd forgotten what bollix some people post!

D

Typical reaction of a pro to mid with a smattering of education and a bit too much liberal (U.S. meaning -- Leftist) angst. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Ok - because you are the starter of this topic I couldn´t resist but use the above wording. I think you know what I mean ;) ...

In other words this discussion is meaningless for me because *class* has no value per se. It´s just a *tool* you can use to reach your goals etc. It´s not that hard to be classified differently depending on the social context you´re in at a given moment. Just do the appropriate social *tap dance* and voilá - you´re at least somewhat rich / intelligent / saintly / (please fill in your favourite class).

Btw - what´s a *pro to mid* ? Never heard of that - I´m just a moron from outer space :) ...

To me class is manners, phylosophy, culture and attitude, it's a way to behave and has nothing nothing to do with social status or standing. People of high social standing like to think they have class, but it's really unrelated, they can be ignorant and vulgar, or have an "holier than thou" attitude, which is not class.

I remember visiting one of my father's friend. The guy is a millionaire. All he did was talk about his house, his big screen tv, the wall mounted tvs he had in each rooms, the audio system connected every rooms, how much he paid for the land, then he procedded to get totally drunk to incoherence on his expensive alchool. He probably thought he had class, but he doesn't.

I think many people don't know what class his. They'll see someone with money, a big job an expensive suit etc. and they'll immediatly think he's better than them and will deferate to him. If they see someone wearing cheap clothing or with a small job they'll think he's less than them. I think that's ridicullous.

[ 01-20-2006, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

In my opinion you´re absolutely right !!!
But that´s the way most people are and so you have to adapt. Life is all about assumptions and the better you guess or make others guess what you want them to guess the better you fare.
So *class* is deceiving at best and a risky thing if you rely on it too much. The best use for *class* is the use as a *tool* as described above.

Ok, ok - I stop saving the world. I´m off now - have a weekend worth being classified as *really nice* ;) !!!

<font color = lightgreen>Now you are getting into the confusion between "character" and "class". The man who blows a lot of hot air about how much money he has, what possessions he bought, etc. has very little character but might actually be in the upper social class.

"Lower class" or "working class" people are generally worrying about living paycheck-to-paycheck and don't have time for such frivoloties as what social class they are.
"Upper class" folks are comfortable in their status, so they don't worry about whether or not they are upper class--they know they are.
"Middle class" people spend a lot of time worrying about class. While they are trying to make enough money so that other people think they are "upper class" they are worrying that the upper class people think of them as "lower class".</font>

Meaning "prolitariat" to "middle class". In other words, I was chidding you that your post ranting against class was in fact evidence of exactly what class you may fairly fit within. :D

Assuming you mean my link, you should just yank up the cohones to come out and actually insult the people you are talking about, because it's not like we don't know who they are. Besides, the introduction to the link should have given you plenty of forewarning as to what you could expect. ;)

You yourself said you qualify class by "cultural level, their manners, and/or their intelligence". What kind of culture and manner does an host have if all he does is show off about his wealth and then get wasted? It seem to me he acted the same way a poor alchoolic does, but replace the fancy gadgets with the poor guy's car or wathever he like to show off about.

That guy has social standing, he's rich. But he has no class.

You know, your first and second posts are totally different. In the first you describe class as "cultural level, their manners, and/or their intelligence." In the second, it's based on money...

[ 01-20-2006, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

<font color=8fbc8f>How about a two worder, one namer?
Paris Hilton!</font>

Total attention whore. She'd do anything for the spotlight. She has no class at all in my opinion.

Well, this is the way I see the class breakdown, or certainly in England.
Traditionally, the working class were people who lived off their manual labour (the majority of the country for most of its history).
The middle class were people who stilled lived off their labour, but not manual labour, in offices and so on, bank clerks etc.
The upper classes were people who did not live off their labour and inherited money or owned property that made its own money (always a minority.
These definitions however are mostly economical, and as Lansera said, these don't hold true. Therefore, people probably define themselves as the class they were born into and take pride in being of that class (particularly the working classes).
These definitions are probably a little dated, but I find it easier to define them historically rather than in the present.

Yep, that's the perfect example, a high class biatch. :D

*Browses CE for the first time in months*

Yeah...class is about how much you have to strain your back to prepare for retirement.

There are people who strain their back everyday, and still can't retire comfortably...

Then there are people who don't strain their back at work, but have to strain it occaisionally to perform tasks at home...and retire with a fair amount of comfort...

And then, there are people who only strain their backs when they want to, and they retire, and soon after, so do their children.

Yes, I'm from a proletariat family...and yes, I get preoccupied with a human-invented concept called "fairness," which makes me think to myself "wow...they don't have to lift heavy things to feed their family."

Class- one of the many ways we divvy people up and put them in nice little buckets, excepts them buckets often have holes in the bottom.

So many rich people with little or no class and so many poor people who are classy like angels.

I don't believe it labels. Sorry. [img]smile.gif[/img] People are people. *Dep Mode song* :D

Actually, she gets to define class, and is so upper class that she knows she doesn't have to care that she's not bright, nor what you think of her.

I think the whole issue of class, however goes a long way to answer the eternal question of why it should be that we sometimes get along so awfully. ;)

<font color = lightgreen>Quite right. Such a host has no class; he is, rather, simply a rich alcoholic who doesn't have to sleep in the street or a halfway house.

My first post is how I see class: a stratification/quantization of humanity based on their manners, cultural level (based on the culture in question), and intelligence (which, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with education level). The second post is the "generally accepted" view of "class" as they have come to be known over the years. </font>

I posted the answer on Oasis, and I'll repeat it here for your convenience. Thanks for all your comments.
__________________________________________
THE ANSWER

Is the third choice.

Lower class folks tend to pick number one as the answer, it's all about money. This is true for them, because money is the most important thing to get them out of their immediate class....

.... because it can buy No. 2, which is education and experience. Lots of middle class professionals pick No. 2 as the key element. They know enough to know that there is more to it than money. They have met intelligent worldly middle class folks, and they may have been in an experience or two where they knew that the thing keeping them relegated to a lower class was education and knowledge, not money. Education and knowledge are also what those in the middle class can use to climb out of their class. The educated and professionals among us, of any class, are more likely to see the theatre, appreciate cultural events, visit a museum, etc.

But, those in the highest classes know that the real answer is all about culture, taste, style. The lower classes can't see it until they get there, but if you got 2 millionaire Yale graduates sitting next to each other, what separates them into respective classes? One takes in the theatre, reads philosophy, speaks eloquently, skis and windsurfs. Obviously, a higher class. And, he just pisses off the poor folk. The other one has a penache for drinking bourbon and beer (or used to), has a drawl, thinks theatre is a mispelling of the movie house, hacks up trees on his back 40, and has a 50% chance to mispronounciate any word of more than 3 syllables. The people think, "he's 'bout as dumb as me, he gets my vote!" (Note that this is a solely fictional scenario.)

Anyway, so that's the answer to the question that I originally posed, taken from the author of the book I am reading (or was, it's back on hold again). I think it's pretty true, but I certainly don't think anything you guys said lacks merit. I think the important point is that, while No. 3 may be the ultimate distinguishing feature you can always apply to determine someone's class, No. 1 is the main thing lower classes need to climb up, and No. 2 is the main thing middle classes need to climb up.

It's rare to see someone get culture and style without having money or education first, though exceptions certainly do exist. Paris Hilton is a fine example. Little education, and the money is really all daddy's. But, she's certainly got class and style, evidenced by the fact that she is a top model for both and actually her own trendsetter for both. It's actually funny to watch her, because she knows all too well what matters for her station and class. People make fun of her for being dumb, and she's like "whatever," because she knows that doesn't matter one bit, and therefore doesn't care. Disgusting, really, that she's allowed to continue breathing if you ask me, but there it is. Now, Daddy Hilton is a higher class than Paris, he's actually pretty much "Top Out of Sight" class.

Down with the ruling class! Of course that class isn't about money, or affluence, or superficial style. It includes all of those, but what it is really about is power. Making it the most dangerous.

Of course if you live that individuality out-ranks class, it matters less. Not seeking the status of or over others is a path to a "class" of its own sort.

[ 01-23-2006, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

I disagree about her having class, for the simple reason that it doesn't come from her. Do you think she really has culture? Has she ever read a book? Do you think she's coming up with her style alone? She probably have a full team of hairdresser, stylist etc. Do you really think she go out in the street to study people and find out what will work this season?

She's superficial and probably shallow. She doesn't seem to have any more culture than some dumb teen hanging out at the mall to flirt with guys, with one exception. She isn't a teen anymore, and she's using her money to pretend she has class.

Her "class" doesn't come from her, she's paying people to teach her how to pretend. You can dress a monkey and teach it to behave, it still won't be anything else than a trained monkey in a suit.

She have probably read Vogue magazine. Or at least looked at the pictures. :D

Luvian's point reminds me of a saying: Mono in seda, mono se queda. -- A monkey in silk is still a monkey.

But, Luvian, dear man, you are quite mistaken regarding miss Hilton. She needn't have ever read a book. She grew up around culture and class, and is a top model and has been for some time. If you look to what you may think she lacks in culture, you may just find that what she lacks is modesty or tradition. And, those are the exact things she's not selling.

Culture, she makes culture. Reading a book? As if she cares. As I indicated, that matters not when you truly have class. And shallow? How could you even pretend to know? And superficial? Anyone who knows anything or is worth knowing at all is superficial these days -- haven't you heard? Did you not get the memo?

First of all, being a top model mean nothing except that she look physically pleasing to most people. You could take some crak addicted whore in the street, have the makeover team have a go at her, and you'd have a top model. This say nothing about class.

You said class was "Taste, culture, and style". Now I don't know how she act in her private life, but it can be assumed she picked up taste while growing up. That's easy. As for style, you seem to be assuming she's coming up with her look herself. I disagree. Like you said she's a top model. Do you think she pay for clothing? I'm certain she does not. People pay her so that she wear their brand of clothing. Even then, she's the kind of peson that has her own team of stylists and researchists. She doesn't start trend, she wear what people pay her to wear, or what she's told will work by her employes.

Yes she's shallow, no she doesn't have culture. She quit school after high school and spent her life attending parties and making as many scandals as possible. Her claim to fame are falling in a pool while in an evening gown, going topless, cuting in line to a washroom so that she could look at herself in a mirror, dancing on tables, wearing a "'Got Blow?" t-shirt, and her porn vid that "mysteriously" got leaked. If she wasn't a drama queen barbie wannabe she would have no fame.

Without the influence of her name, she'd probably be in a topless bar right now. She never accomplished anything by herself.

[ 01-27-2006, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

I think she's interesting to analyze, because she pushes the envelope of what class means, and she obviously pushes peoples buttons, like yours. ;)