charmingbillie ([info]charmingbillie) wrote,
@ 2008-05-26 09:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:life, wiscon, work

The Working Classes and Wiscon
Did you ever see that scene in 'School of Rock' where Jack Black's character is talking about what they're going to be learning and the kids say, what about math? Not important, Black's character says. History? Not important!

That's some of what I felt when I attended the 'working class' panel at Wiscon. Karl Mark's definition of working class vs whatever is not important when you're talking about writing working class people, when you're talking about actual flesh and blood people.

Also, do not tell me that everyone who works for someone else in this country is 'working class' because that's torturing the traditional definition into something that it's not. Not that that isn't worthy of discussion--the fact that most of us have no control over the means of production even when we're paid fairly fantastic amounts of money.

ETA from the LJcut tag: (And what I'm going to say will be 'wrong' or 'not important' to some people, but here's what I know)

How to be working class--

a) Work
b) accept that disabling injury is an everyday part of your job
c) understand that you are all you have. There's no backup. There's no net.
d) Know that if you can't fix it you have to stand it (Read Brokeback Mountain if you don't get this.  Because Brokeback Mountain is all about being working class.  It is.)
e) tell people who say you are risk-averse and rule bound to spend a day combining grain, mining coal or running one of the guillotines in the factory (and yet, risk-averse and rule bound are not 'wrong' exactly--but they're definitely not 'all')
f) tell people who say you can't 'have adventures' until you run away from the working class life to STFU and stop talking about you
g) Work is life. Not that you work all the time, but that your work can go away and when it does you don't have anything. The mines close--you're not a miner anymore. But if the university gets rid of your position--you find another university. The steel mills close--you're not a steelworker. And you have failed in some deep terrible way. But if your company closes--you find another company. You lose the family farm--you are a big, fat loser who loses.

Lots of smart, creative people get out and never look back. Me, I never did. I still have and don't have working class values and a working class mindset and I'm not working class. I don't belong there anymore. And I don't really belong where I am.

And I have to remember that my experience was atypical in some ways (rural, agricultural, educated, and filled with books), but guess what--I've also met lots of people whose class background was a lot like mine--though many of them are my age and not younger and quite a few of them are not white.

So, how do you write working class people? The same way you write everyone else--as people.

And if you don't know any mechanics or small-time hog farmers or convenience store workers or nurse's aides, then, don't cry about it--get a life. Because you shouldn't actually consider being a writer if you don't know something about people who aren't you.

Robert Kaplan (who I disagree with profoundly on a lot of things) wrote this about today's Army in An Empire Wilderness:

Officers at Leavenworth read 'The Economist' and 'Foreign Affairs' and watch 'The News Hour with Jim Lehrer,' but that doesn't mean they interpret the information the way civilian policy makers and people in the media do. However sophisticated the reading lists, the people doing the reading here often come from rural, blue-collar America. As soldiers, they live in materially poor conditions, especially compared to people who spend their lives in affluent Washington suburbs. The fact that so many military bases are, like Leavenworth, in the Midwest or the South further isolates American soldiers from the sensibilities of coastal metropolitan elites. "It matters less what you read than where you live and where you come from, because that determines how you interpret knowledge," explained Major Susan P. Kellett-Forsyth, one of the first female graduates of West Point.

Kaplan, I think, wants you to think that all 'rural, blue-collar' Americans are politically conservative, but I haven't found that to be the case. Many of them have a far better understanding of what government is, what we get from government and what community means than people who have grown up financially, intellectually advantaged. Because for one thing they understand as many people I know who grew up in suburbs do not, what it means to have no fall-back. Money can mitigate circumstance. And it's easier to be conservative, to believe that everyone makes it on their own dime when you have always had dimes to call upon when you need them.


This doesn't make the sense I wish it did and doesn't say what I wish it says. And it doesn't really acknowledge that I'm not criticizing the people on the working class panel (ok, a couple of them) or what they were trying to say. Because talking about class is really really difficult (especially in America where a lot of people want desperately to be middle class no matter how convoluted the justification--I saw a conversation online once where a guy was claiming that if you made 2 million dollars and spend 1.99 million dollars you were poor.) And some people grew up poor but seem to have forgotten everything about being poor when they became educated and rich. And some people grew up rich and are now joyously overeducated working class slobs (some people play at this and some are this--part of what makes it difficult). Some people think they 'get' things when they're just being assholes.

[I will try to write more about Wiscon, which was both good--especially meeting people I've known online--and stressy--as all people gatherings are--later]



(Post a new comment)


[info]sartorias
2008-05-26 06:08 pm UTC (link)
Interesting stuff--look forward to more of your impressions when you can.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-05-27 02:49 am UTC (link)
Thanks! Now we'll see if I can get more impressions written up before the reset of the world catches up to me again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stillnotbored
2008-05-26 07:07 pm UTC (link)
I still have and don't have working class values and a working class mindset and I'm not working class. I don't belong there anymore. And I don't really belong where I am.

Yes. Yes to all of this.

And even though I'd gotten out in the sense of economics, divorce put me right back in the working class trap.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-05-27 02:50 am UTC (link)
After I posted this I thought of several other things that aren't in here. And divorce is a big one, especially for women, isn't it? And it's so invisible to people sometimes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rachel_swirsky
2008-05-27 01:31 am UTC (link)
This is great.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-05-27 02:50 am UTC (link)
Thanks!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kellysarah
2008-05-27 03:14 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the synopsis on an interesting topic. I'd love to hear more about the panel and your take on it, either by blog or when we meet!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-03 04:00 pm UTC (link)
It is an interesting topic! At least to me. Looking forward to finally meeting you in...wow, just a few days from now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]wldhrsjen3
2008-06-03 03:18 pm UTC (link)
::Waves:: It was a pleasure to meet you at WisCon and I hope you don't mind if I add you to my friends list!

And I just have to add: Well said!! This post is *great.* As a child of the suburbs and a daughter of a nuclear engineer, my understanding of "class" was limited to white-collar upper-middle class. But meeting my husband and moving to a small, rural town has opened my eyes in so many ways.

What you write about risk is spot-on. My husband and his father used to raise hogs. For 33 years there were hogs on this farm, and then the market collapsed at the same time environmental regulations tightened and they had to sell out. They are no longer hog farmers. Now we raise corn and soybeans and the only safety net is crop insurance - which is expensive and only covers a fraction of the cost of inputs. And crop insurance REQUIRES that crops be planted by a certain date. Guess what? That date is three days away and most of our neighbors haven't gotten their fields planted because it's been too wet.

And the thing about farming (or mining or anything) that still strikes me is that you can work and work and work and do everything right, and STILL not have anything to show for it. Last year our corn fields started out as a perfect stand of corn. Two months later drought had burned them white and we harvested less than 60 bushels an acre. That sense of things being out of your control is hard for someone like me to swallow, but it's an integral part of this sort of work.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-03 03:59 pm UTC (link)
It was great to meet you too! Looking forward to next year.

When I was really young (so, lots of years ago now) my father's concrete, upright silo split when they were putting up silage. So, it was fall (obviously) and he basically had no feed for the cattle for winter. He sold all the cattle and he and my mother and my brother and I all went to Florida for the winter. Then he came back in the spring and bought cattle again and started all over.

And, to me, that's the mindset that makes a farmer--to look at disaster and say, okay, this is a disaster, no use crying much about it, what do we do now? And if you're a farmer, sooner or later there's going to be a disaster.

[BTW, no one can get in the fields here either. And it doesn't look like that's going to change very soon :-(]

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]heavenscalyx
2008-06-03 07:02 pm UTC (link)
Here via [info]coffeeandink.

e) tell people who say you are risk-averse and rule bound to spend a day combining grain, mining coal or running one of the guillotines in the factory (and yet, risk-averse and rule bound are not 'wrong' exactly--but they're definitely not 'all')


OMG. I've never, ever connected my risk-aversion in terms of major financial outlays or job changes to my class background -- my parents are pretty solidly middle-class, but my grandparents were, for the most part, working class boosting their kids into middle class, and this ethic is STILL all over the family. And it makes so much sense. (Also, I'm sure, the fact that my parents were Depression Babies has a lot to do with it, but still.)

Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-03 07:52 pm UTC (link)
I certainly have that same issue.

I'd definitely recommend Lambrano's book Limbo. I think you'd find it interesting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mecurtin
2008-06-03 07:21 pm UTC (link)
b) accept that disabling injury is an everyday part of your job

This criterion automatically eliminates slants your definition of "working class" away from "women's work". Indeed, I think part of the American inchoate definition of "working class" *is* that the work women do is not real working class work.

g) Work is life.

This criterion also slants the definition away from women's work. Working-class women have lots of disadvantages, but one advantage is that losing their paid work never makes them into a "big, fat loser who loses".

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-03 07:58 pm UTC (link)
This post is absolutely not a comprehensive look at working class people and experiences. It's my immediate response to the panel and speaks from my personal experience.

But I disagree that disabling injury is *not* a large part of many working class women's lives. Women in factories live with it all the time and when I talked about working guillotines in paper factories--those were women and that's a really dangerous job (those things scared me to death though they have lots of built in safety features).

Men *and* women do farm work and it's just a vast well of potential disabling injuries.

So, yeah, I haven't talked about everything. In a post this length it's not possible. And in a post that's a specific response to a panel at a conference it's not likely. Thanks for pointing that out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mecurtin
2008-06-04 07:47 pm UTC (link)
It's certainly true that a lot of working-class-women's work is dangerous and always has been. But in the US part of the mystique of the working class is that it is made up of Real Men, men who do dangerous work requiring strength, i.e. that women don't do. And that gets into the whole IMHO fallacy of "men get paid more because they do riskier work".

It was hard for me to tell from your post how much was reporting on the panel discussion and how much is you talking about what the panel make you think about but which didn't get discussed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-04 08:07 pm UTC (link)
I think people who do riskier would should get paid well but I agree absolutely that this does not translate to 'men get paid more because...'

And, yeah, sometimes when I'm typing my thoughts up I think I'm far, far clearer about what's me and what's reporting than I turn out to be.

Also one thing I thought of after responding to you and a couple of others is that if you came here via coffeeandink you would have missed my LJcut tag, which read:

"And what I'm going to say will be 'wrong' or 'not important' to some people, but here's what I know:"

(I usually include that text after the cut as well, but this time I--seriously--thought, heck no one's going to read this that isn't on my friend's list or comes to my LJ anyway. Haha! I also should have said '...and I'll forget some things I know and I won't know some things that ought to be said.')

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mystickeeper
2008-06-03 07:30 pm UTC (link)
Hi! (Here via [Bad username: coffeeandink"])

I attended this panel and was also dissatisfied with it, but haven't had a chance to write it up yet. I like a lot of the things you have to say, and I hope it's okay to link to your post when I do my own write-up.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-03 08:00 pm UTC (link)
Sure, please do! I'll look forward to reading your writeup. I do think it's a difficult thing to write about or to do a 75 minute panel on. And as someone pointed out upstream even though 'working class' is probably shrinking, it's a diverse group of people and the work they do covers a really broad range.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]silk_noir
2008-06-03 10:46 pm UTC (link)
I was afraid of attending this panel. I see now I should've. I came from a long line of educated farmers and small town teachers in the glorious midwest. Oh, my, yes.

Because Brokeback Mountain is all about being working class. It is.

Honestly? From both the movie and the story--my take was that it was even more rooted in poverty than about homosexuality. Ang Lee nailed that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-04 03:10 am UTC (link)
Ah...educated farmers and small town teachers--that sounds very familiar (although we were definitely, at least for a long time, educated farmers with no money). And I wasn't from the Midwest, though it's really interesting how much rural/farming experience has in common even when the land is very different.

We met (very) briefly at Wiscon. I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to talk. Maybe next year!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]silk_noir
2008-06-04 11:57 am UTC (link)
We met? When?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-04 01:42 pm UTC (link)
It was one of those passing on the stairs, 'hi this is' sorts of things. I'd be shocked if you remembered (but I have a knack for remembering that kind of stuff and not remembering long conversations or events sometimes). SarahP introduced us and I think it was on the main stairs (though it might have been at the SH tea party).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kyuuketsukirui
2008-06-04 12:25 am UTC (link)
Here via [info]coffeeandink.

Interesting breakdown. I've never understood what divides various classes and no one ever seems to agree. Is your definition divorced from income level? If defined by the type of job, then you could be working class and poor, getting by, or well off, or you could be middle class (if middle class is defined as any job that doesn't rely on physical labor) and be poor, getting by, or well off.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-04 03:17 am UTC (link)
I'm not good with definitions, but I would agree with something Eleanor Arnason said at the panel which is that some of it at least is cultural. So that the boss of a small or medium-sized construction company who started as a construction worker still identifies, and often socializes, with his working class employees.

But I'm not sure you can be well-off and working class. I think you can be well off and not belong anywhere anymore because you're no longer working class and you're not culturally or socially upper class because there are things that people 'just know' that you don't. Some people manage to learn those things. Some people never do. And some people end up with enough money that it doesn't really matter.

And the lines between poor and working class and lower middle class are really really fluid and probably could be discussed endlessly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kyuuketsukirui
2008-06-04 03:46 am UTC (link)
Well, you can definitely be well-off in a blue-collar job and you can be poor working a white-collar job. A friend of mine works for Edison, the power company here, and now he has worked up to more of a desk job, but even when he was out working on the power lines, he was making $100,000 a year because they encourage overtime rather than hiring more people. To me that's rich, though I would bring it down to just "well off" in the overall scheme of things. He also has all the excellent benefits that go with a unionised job.

I don't know. To me it seems more that how much you earn determines a lot of the cultural things rather than just the type of job. (And also, I would say that often how much your parents earned when you were growing up determines even more than what you earn as an adult, in terms of "knowing stuff" and the experiences you've had, etc.)

It's all so confusing, though. >_< I find it much easier to talk about things in terms of income level.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-04 04:50 am UTC (link)
Well, I've got no problem with someone getting paid a good wage to do a dangerous job, like deal with power lines. And I do think there's a huge cultural and social element that means that working class and middle class definitely cross on income lines.

But my personal experience says that what you earn *doesn't always* determine the cultural things. And sometimes it does.

So, you can talk about things only in terms of income level. But you won't see the whole picture. And some things (like the values people hold and what they think is important) won't make a lot of sense.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kyuuketsukirui
2008-06-04 05:40 am UTC (link)
I have no problem with someone getting paid a good wage to do a dangerous job, either. It's definitely well-off, though, which is why I used it as an example.

It seems weird to me that someone who's making a huge amount of money like that would be considered of a lower class than someone who is making minimum wage as a receptionist.

I am trying to figure out what, exactly, is the difference between classes. As it stands, I try not to even use the words, because it's not something I understand at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-04 01:52 pm UTC (link)
You seem to be trying to make it binary and it's not. It's not solely about income (I, personally, wouldn't consider a receptionist who gets paid minimum wage a 'higher' class than a lineworker--and if they were getting minimum wage I'd consider them working poor, not working class). But it certainly is about income. It's not solely about culture, but it certainly is about culture. It's not solely social, but it's definitely social.

One critical (but not the only) piece for me is the Kaplan quote I've included above. If I'm rural and from a blue collar background and also well-educated and well-read, I'm going to be making my decisions differently than someone who's urban and from a white collar background and also well-educated and well-read. And the same goes for other combinations of factors. And I think this is an important thing to understand when writing characters or when looking at why people vote the way they do or get angry about what they get angry about or...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kyuuketsukirui
2008-06-04 09:53 pm UTC (link)
Well, I'm not necessarily trying to make it binary, I'm just trying to understand what you were saying in your post, especially since you seemed to make the divide between blue collar jobs and white collar jobs, even though there are a ton of white collar jobs that pay less and are in many cases much less secure than blue collar jobs because they're not unionised.

I understand about making different decisions and valuing different things based on background. My best friend and I both grew up poor, and even though we both have college educations (and she has an MA as well) and have white collar jobs, we still think poor, whereas our husbands both come from well-off families and have expectations that seem ridiculous to us. We've often said to each other that we never realised what a difference that made until we got married. My husband cannot adjust to having no money, whereas it's all I've ever known so while sure I'd love to have more, things like not having vacation or having to buy cheap food or not being able to fix non-vital car problems are not sacrifices to me. They're just how things are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-05 02:52 am UTC (link)
Yes, to your second paragraph I hear what you're saying. Definitely.

As to the first--I don't consider working class an overlay of 'blue collar' (and there are plenty of blue collar jobs that pay poorly and are not unionized) and I don't consider 'white collar' an overlay of 'middle class'. For one thing (and this isn't all and I'm sorry I'm not clearer or addressing everything that ought to be and should be addressed), blue collar and white collar are, to me, about the job. Whereas working class and middle class (and poor and rich as well) are about the values and the community and the culture and somewhat about the things you mention in your second paragraph.

And this is my take, completely, and it's absolutely incomplete and won't make sense to everyone and probably doesn't even really say what I wanted it to say.

Thanks for talking about it with me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]deadlychameleon
2008-06-04 09:02 pm UTC (link)
a) Work
b) accept that disabling injury is an everyday part of your job
c) understand that you are all you have. There's no backup. There's no net.


Yep. I went to college with a girl from a rural area who did a lot of cattle wrangling and such - manual labor farm jobs. She had trouble explaining to her middle class boyfriend that yes, her dad's job left him with back injuries that prevented him from getting out of bed some days, but that when he could, he still went out and did the job that injured him. That was just the way it was. And that she sometimes had back pain from a similar job - but she was still doing it, despite the risk.

Surprisingly, many of the lower-income kids I know actually had much better social nets than the middle-upper income kids, and clung to them more tightly (they were closer to extended families and family friends). Economically though, this was very true. If they didn't have the money, it didn't happen.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-05 03:06 am UTC (link)
Surprisingly, many of the lower-income kids I know actually had much better social nets than the middle-upper income kids, and clung to them more tightly (they were closer to extended families and family friends). Economically though, this was very true. If they didn't have the money, it didn't happen.

Yes, good point, I've seen this too. And yet, there's a place where this is true and, as I'm sitting here thinking about it right this minute, I'm not finding a good useful way to articulate what I'm thinking.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]se_parsons
2008-06-04 10:32 pm UTC (link)
Here from [info]coffeeandink.

Wasn't at Wiscon and didn't see this panel, but from what you are saying here, it sounds like a lot of things are being left out of the discussion and many more are assumed to be monolithic. Which is NOT being true to America or the working class experience, which is just as diverse as anything else.

The experience of being in a Union, for example. Which includes rural working class Americans as much as urban ones, says the granddaughter of the UMW organizer in rural Michigan. There were many Communists down the mines and many, many more Socialists. Where's "conservative" in that again?

Anybody who is a servant is also working class. As are food service workers, etc. Those people are found everywhere in rural and urban areas.

And people who fix things for a living. They might make more money and face less danger than the miner or the agricultural worker or the line worker at the plant, but they are still working class.

Those experiences are all diverse and the opinions and lives of those people are all different and reflective of their region, upbringing and access to resources as much as anything else, like you said here. Did the panel really NOT address any of that?

I understand people trying to chunk information to understand it better. But you just can't do that with people, especially if you're trying to write them from some place of honesty.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-05 03:07 am UTC (link)
You're conflating my thoughts with what the panel said (which is not your fault if you came via coffeeandink because you would have missed my LJcut tag which said basically--the rest of this is my thoughts which others may find wrong and incomplete). What I wrote is definitely incomplete because they were my immediate thoughts in response to things I felt the panel didn't 'get,' but aren't meant to be the 'whole' of anything. The things you mention above are--yes!--great additions.

The quote in my post is likewise not from the panel, but yes, again, I agree that I've known lots (and lots) of working class people and people who began working class who are not politically conservative.

The panel itself didn't really touch on any of this and that was a part of my frustration with it.

Thanks for stopping by!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]se_parsons
2008-06-05 03:20 am UTC (link)
I think I would have very much shared your frustration had I been there with you.

It is interesting to hear people actually attempting to talk about these things. Class issues are something Americans are largely still in denial about.

But it's sometimes hard to listen when the global assumptions are obviously only relevant to a certain - more familiar to the speaker segment - of the working class population or are so based from an academic "study of the working class" perspective as to glaringly display the speaker's privilage.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Tangent
[info]coffeeandink
2008-06-05 02:19 pm UTC (link)
Sorry -- didn't mean to be causing problems with my link. What I usually do if there's important or even unimportant information in the cut-tag, on my own LJ, is to copy the cut-tag text into the body of the text and bold it or italicize it as a header. This has the double benefit of retaining information and giving readers coming in through the cut-tag a quick visual cue of where to take up their reading.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Tangent
[info]charmingbillie
2008-06-05 02:25 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, that's what I usually do to. So I was laughing at myself (doesn't come across on the page, I know) because in this case I actually specifically thought--heck I don't need to do that because who would come in from somewhere else? (I don't know why I thought that, looking back now, but I did). Not your fault at all--just me and faulty logic :-)

I'll go in and edit, which I should have done when I realized (although, I didn't actually figure it out until a bunch of comments in).Thanks!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ainsley
2008-06-09 04:59 am UTC (link)
Thank you for writing this. It hits home in a lot of ways.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…