From dmeadows@idirect.com Sun Dec 31 09:21:45 2000 Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id JAA15316 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:21:44 -0800 Received: from ares.idirect.com (ares.idirect.com [207.136.80.180]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id JAA27588 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:21:43 -0800 Received: from hk9k801.idirect.com (on-ham-a53-03-15.look.ca [216.154.52.143]) by ares.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01889 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:19:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20001231120915.00a0fec0@idirect.com> X-Sender: dmeadows@idirect.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:21:39 -0500 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: David Meadows Subject: Re: Classics and the Working Class In-Reply-To: <001701c0734a$00fe16c0$5d509318@ne.mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:52 AM 31/12/2000 -0500, you wrote: >If Steve and David do not like the term "working class" because they don't >agree with socialist theory or because they feel that it denigrates the >labor of the mind, then I ask them to consider, being confronted with the >terms "middle class" and "upper class," what my idiomatic choices were in >extending the question beyond the middle and upper classes? I would suggest that what is necessary is to call that thing with which one digs a spade and simply use the term "lower income" and then try to define what qualifies as "lower income" from a standpoint that is appropriate for the discussion. There's a whole lot of baggage attached to the notion of "class" which really isn't useful in the present discussion (and really doesn't jibe with reality, near as I can tell). And I ask them, too, (neither has ever >struck me as an elitist who would turn his nose up at the sweat of the brow) >whether they would prefer to be a steelworker or a teacher, even if the >steelworker's salary were higher? Which is precisely why I was offended by the term and the baggage which it carries ... there's an implication that 'working class' efforts are somehow more 'honest' and/or honorable way to acquire money (which is interesting, since it's the exact reverse of what guys like Cicero would think). I personally do not begrudge anyone who earns an honest living and I have just as much respect for the folks who are friends of my wife's family (almost all immigrant labourers who made a pile of money and now are retired comfortably because they worked for it) as I do for someone like Bill Gates (even if I don't like his products). I could never be a steelworker, by the way ... it's too darned hot (and I live in Steeltown!). dm (who, when he was teaching grownups, thought it rather interesting at how many a) engineers and b) part-time students of various genders, economic backgrounds, and ages preferred to take Classics courses whenever they could) .