How the luxury beliefs of an educated elite erode society
New book excerpt in The Times + other stuff
You can now read an exclusive excerpt of my new book (available now!) in the Times. Here’s a portion:
I came to Yale to major in psychology, but my curiosity soon overflowed the boundaries of my degree. In my attempt to understand class distinctions, I spent a lot of time thinking and reading about class divides and social hierarchies, and compared what I’d learnt with my experiences on campus. Gradually, I developed the concept of “luxury beliefs”, which are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class at very little cost, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes.
The upper class includes (but is not necessarily limited to) anyone who attends or graduates from an elite university and has at least one parent who is a university graduate. Research has found that parental educational attainment is the most important objective indicator of social class. Compared with parental income, parental education is a more powerful predictor of a child’s future lifestyle, tastes and opinions.
It is a vexed question whether first-generation graduates can truly enter the upper class. Paul Fussell, the social critic and author of Class, wrote that manners, tastes, opinions and conversational style are just as important for upper-class membership as money or credentials, and that to fulfil these requirements, you have to be immersed in affluence from birth. Likewise, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu stated that a “triadic structure” of schooling, language and taste was necessary to be accepted among the upper class. Bourdieu described the mastery of this triad as “ease”. When you grow up in a social class, you come to embody it. You represent its tastes and values so deeply that you exhibit ease within it.
[…]
Later, I would connect my observations to stories I read about tech tycoons, another affluent group, who encourage people to use addictive devices while simultaneously enforcing rigid rules at home about technology use. For example, Steve Jobs prohibited his children from using iPads. Parents in Silicon Valley reportedly tell their nannies to closely monitor how much their children use their smartphones. Don’t get high on your own supply, I guess. Many affluent people now promote lifestyles that are harmful to the less fortunate. Meanwhile, they are not only insulated from the fallout; they often profit from it.
[…]
White privilege is the luxury belief that took me the longest to understand, because I grew up around a lot of poor white people. Affluent white college graduates seem to be the most enthusiastic about the idea of white privilege, yet they are the least likely to incur any costs for promoting that belief. Rather, they raise their social standing by talking about their privilege. When policies are implemented to combat white privilege, it won’t be Yale graduates who are harmed. Poor white people will bear the brunt.
Read the whole thing here (ungated here).
Order your copy of Troubled:
Audible (I narrated the audiobook myself)
Over the past few weeks, several themes in my mind have started to coalesce. The picture that emerges could be titled "relationships are primary." In one corner of that picture, I would describe a tempting but false belief that "money can save you." And I am beginning to wonder to what extent this belief is very close to the root of the problem...? From reading your book, Rob, I am taking that no matter one's economic situation, so long as a human being is well integrated into a community of others (where I am still working out just "well off" that community needs to be), then money really does not do all that much to improve the "quality of life." Conversely, if a human being is isolated in their relationships, no amount of money can lift that person out of the pit of loneliness and insecurity that comes from that experience.
My hunch for the ever shriller "luxury beliefs" (which probably have existed since people cared about any kind of luxury as status symbols) is that the necessary experience of safety -- a place from which to venture into the world and feel courage to act -- has eroded over the past 50 or so years. The reason for this is an ever greater reliance on "individual strength" (encoded in financial/economic status, but also in educational credentials, and other status markers). However, none of these markers can "make up" for the loss in quality of genuine community and friendships. The lonelier people feel, the more desperate they become in finding *SOME* marker that tells them "I am safe here." On college campuses and in cultural elite households, one such marker is a feeling of "shared beliefs" that signal "we all belong together." That these beliefs are an incredibly poor substitute for the real thing (relationships in community and with friends) will become apparent once the house of cards of these beliefs comes crashing down. And similar to a hangover, the resulting pain will be excruciating...
Incredibly interested in the views on Marxism and happiness. As a psychotherapist who shares similar concerns with them, I found my time with Marxist thought tedious, depressing, and not at all inspiration. I will give them they have some decent critiques of power, but it’s coupled with the most naive anthropology about the working class in particular, and people more generally.