In a capitalist society, money is power and the culture classes are based on financial earnings. High culture, or capital “C” culture “forces on what we usually think of as high-end creative production” (O’Brien, Szeman 4). When asked in tutorial what is the stereotype of ‘high culture’ vs. ‘low culture,’ it was established that the mind automatically goes to such activities as: going to the opera or a theatre production, holding memberships and habitually attending country clubs and the social aspects that are included, watching equestrian races, drinking wine, and watching National Geographic. On the other hand, the vision of low culture is: naïve, ‘redneck,’ close minded, working class (blue collar) citizens who find leisure in such things as watching “Family Guy,” attending pubs and bars, drinking, watching soap operas, and falling under the spell of reality television. Throughout the ages there has been a partition between the working class and the higher classes. Divisions caused by the privileged causing a blockade between lower classes in order to continue the elite groups ...
Year’s ago, mention of this widening gap between the privileged and the struggling was considered “Marxist”, but now the facts are too evident to be blamed on a belief. The richer continue to get richer and the poorer get poorer; due to the fact that, the wealthy pay the labor working majority unfair wages. Ironically, this “supreme” group makes their fortune because of these under paid people. For example, Walmart a low paying corporation owned by the wealthiest family in America. As previously stated, the success of the upper class is at the expense of the lower class and we see this in more ways then one: late fees and rates are collected by the rich, Realestate is bought up by them, and they have control of politics. The solution seen most fit by Ehrenreich and Lowenstein would be to remove the classes and have an egalitarian
The class system has been in place within humanity since the very birth of economic trade. It is a fact of life that others will seek self-betterment and gain power to provide for those that they love and their own personal interest. Throughout the years the implementation of a social class system has helped to differentiate the types of economic situations as nation and serve as a system to work toward the betterment of the society as a whole. However, as the world became more productive and the gaps between the higher classes and lower classes increased the efficiency of the social class system and the decisions made from the individuals within it has been called into question. Kalen Ockerman opened the channel to question if the class system is the helpful institution that benefits of all its citizens or if the lower classes are not getting the support and attention they deem necessary.
It goes on to show how gradually the old feudal division of classes has disappeared, and how modern society is divided simply into two classes, that of the capitalists or bourgeois class, and that of the proletariat; of the expropriators and expropriated; of the bourgeois class possessing wealth and power and producing nothing, of the labor-class that produces wealth but possesses nothing. The bourgeoisie, after using the proletariat to fight its political battles against feudalism, has used the power thus acquired to enslave the proletariat. (Ormerod, 2-3)
In Highbrow, Lowbrow, Levine argues that a distinction between high and low culture that did not exist in the first half of the 19th century emerged by the turn of the century and solidified during the 20th century, and that despite a move in the last few decades toward a more ecumenical interpretation of “culture,” the distinction between high art and popular entertainment and the revering of a canon of sacred, inalterable cultural works persists. In the prologue Levine states that one of his central arguments is that concepts of cultural boundaries have changed over the period he treats. Throughout Highbrow, Lowbrow, Levine defines culture as a process rather than a fixed entity, and as a product of interactions between the past and the present.
Having only recently permeated the public and political lexicon, there are few debates that evoke such passion as that of the underclass. Karl Marx tabled the idea of the lumpen proletariat, yet in the modern era, the concept did not take hold in Britain until 1989. Today, the debate focuses on whether frictional forces create a continuum of inequality, or whether a defined underclass does exist. The question asks if 'poor people' belong in a separate underclass, which is a vague definition. There will always be 'poor people', but whether or not this automatically qualifies them as a separate underclass is tenuous at best. Even the most radical proponents for the existence of the underclass stop short of declaring all those below the poverty line as 'the underclass'. This essay will analyse the arguments from either side of the debate, looking at definitional issues, the undeserving and deserving poor and structure versus agency. Overall, it will be argued that Murray’s classification does not hold for the majority and that frictional forces mean the poor are part of a continuum of inequality.
They were able to take advantage of the growing technology and exploration to advance out of the middle class and become extremely rich. Through their wealth, the bourgeois were able to gain an enormous amount of influence in society. For example, they have “exclusive political sway” (Marx 18). In other words, the state exists entirely to serve the needs of the bourgeois. However, even more importantly so, their existence is bringing about a gradual disintegration of sentiment and true relations. People are now measured by the amount of material goods they own. Therefore, doctors, lawyers, and other originally honest occupations have become based entirely on wages and familial relationships no longer exist. They have instead been replaced by purely money relations. The bourgeois are also constantly exploiting the lower classes, otherwise known as the proletarians. (Marx
Clark and Lipset (1991) explain that looking at class theories that has been a lot of change in class and it has altered the concept of class toward the fragmentation of stratification. Clark and Lipset (1991) further explains that changes have occurred since Marx and Weber write their view on social stratification and it went into high gear since 1970s. Clark and Lipset (1991) acknowledge a change for the theories of stratification is that traditional hierarchies is declining and economic and family hierarchies is less than generation or two ago. Clark and Lipset (1991) explains that class conflict declines, there would be less conflict or organized lines, for instance gender. However, not all hierarchies are generating counter-reactions and there is an acceptance of democratic process to allow the opposition to surface. According Clark and Lipset (1991), “the key trends could be described as one of fragmentation of stratification: the weakening of class stratification, especially as shown in distinct class-differentiated lifestyle, the decline of economic determinism, and the increased importance of social and cultural factors, politics is less organized by class and more by other loyalties, the slimming of the family and social mobility is less family-determined, more ability and education
...for the poor into the public realm. The decline of a middle class is affecting the structure of society because cities and public venues were once designed to serve the middle class. However, without such a class, cities are now being designed to service an elite class and it is this class that has the power and control over public life. With the widening division between classes, services to the non-elite members of society will continue to diminish.
Divisions within the social stratum is a characteristic of societies in various cultures and has been present throughout history. During the middle ages, the medieval feudal system prevailed, characterized by kings and queens reigning over the peasantry. Similarly, in today’s society, corporate feudalism, otherwise known as Capitalism, consists of wealthy elites dominating over the working poor. Class divisions became most evident during America’s Gilded Age and Progressive era, a period in time in which the rich became richer via exploitation of the fruits of labor that the poor persistently toiled to earn. As a result, many Americans grew compelled to ask the question on everyone’s mind: what do the rich owe the poor? According to wealthy
America’s upper class has been getting richer since the past three decades, and we have still not found a way to stop this. We have been unable to find a way to distribute America’s wealth equally, so we can have a decent lower class and a good middle class. Inequality has caused many people to struggle in various ways, but their is alway another side to the story.
If you have ever read the book 1984 by George Orwell, then an interesting topic may have crossed your mind. The way the classes of people break down can be quite similar, and very different at times. In the United States, we have classes like the lower class, the working class, and the middle class. In 1984, there were such classes as the Proles, the Outer Party, and the Inner Party. The way the classes are broken down in 1984 reminds me a little bit of my old history class. When I studied medieval times and the classes back then were broken down into the nobles, the bourgeois, and the serfs.
Whilst in comparison the middle class, who were the indirect architects of the problem, continue to widen the gap between the two classes, a theme which is encapsulated by Marx as he writes ‘[the proletariat] are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself.’
Culture is one of the most difficult concepts in the human and social science (Hall, 1997). There has been a lot of controversy on the definitions of culture among cultural scholars for the past years. More traditionally, culture is said be the sum of great ideas, as represented in the classic works of literature, painting, music and philosophy – the “high culture”. In a more modern approach, culture is seen as the widely distributed forms of popular music, publishing, art, design and literature, or the activities of leisure time and entertainment describing the daily life activities of a majority of people, which is named the “mass culture” or “popular culture”. Soraya and Saeed (2012) define the term “culture” as the common system of knowledge of a group of people. It includes a variety of components such as values, beliefs, attitudes, notions of appropriate behavior, statuses, role expectations, and worldview (notions of time, space, and cosmology). It also includes material objects and knowledge about the...
Determined by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities of income. In the mode of distribution the lower class are property less and can only offer labor and their products just to maintain. It favors the owners of workshops and warehouses on the other hand giving them a monopoly to acquire those same goods. Their power in terms of price struggle increases and gives them chances to share directly or indirectly in returns on capital. Semanu states “The real divisions are between the powerful and the powerless, with gradations in between the powerful and the powerless, with gradations in between (Semanu: p
Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.