I grew up in Kentucky, and also pronounce the “r” in “warsh.” This led to a lot of good natured kidding during my time at the finest university in Cambridge, MA. (The one Will Hunting went to.) It was especially bad when I was dorm treasurer and had to talk about income from the “warshing” machines.
I think you are disastrously right and are speaking out loud the thing the no one really wants to talk about, except in terms of sarcasm and resentment. Another aspect of this is the “crabs in a barrel,” “don’t get above your raising” mindset that seeks to impede superbly competent kids from moving up in the world. Some families don’t want to lose the kid. Some families resent the kid. It’s isolate and kind of inevitable.
This brings up another question: is it necessary to try to rise in the world? You say it’s in our DNA. At the same time, maybe the lifestyles of the off the grid and happy (loudly) or the limited expectations but under stressed need to be examined too.
I went from limited expectations to ferocious accomplishment. I take the heat from it. I reap the benefits. I’d do it again and am thankful I was able. And I pay it forward. Thanks for your rare candor in addressing this topic.
If you’re doing a book and want interviewees, I volunteer. It’s a fascinating subject.
Great work! I could say so much about this. Some perspective that could be interesting: I have all the education and a few years ago, I started dating again after divorce — for the first time since my early 20s. I had very few preconceived notions about who I would date and was open to anyone who seemed friendly enough. But after a few experiences, I quickly learned that men were intimidated by my education/work. They didn’t want to have discussions or ask what I did; they didn’t want to hear about how I lived because it seemed too foreign to them. They just seemed uncomfortable around me.
Reluctantly, I realized that I probably wouldn’t hit it off with anyone who had less than an undergraduate education so I shouldn’t waste my time. The reality is that it’s hard to connect with someone when you have very different life experiences and I guess the less education someone has, the more likely they are to be turned off (in one way or another) by life experiences they’ve had little contact with. And I guess in this age of dating apps, where you screen potential dates with these criteria that often simply don’t matter much in a relationship (e.g. height! Who cares?), education becomes just another marker of who you probably will/will not hit it off with.
Given that the number of women with advanced degrees is growing significantly larger than the number of men, it’ll be interesting to see how these dynamics play out over the next few decades. I think both men and women have gone through so many changes in terms of the gendered expectations of our society. Perhaps more so than at any other time in history. It’s a lot to take in!
Thanks for the comment Leah and sharing your dating experience. I do think it's generally true that the more common the background the easier it is to communicate and feel comfortable. We're all so different in any case, that to start off with fewer differences helps.
If the trends continue to play out in terms of the female/male education gap and assortative mating according to background, it will, as you write, put both men and women in unfamiliar territory.
What a thoughtful response. Thanks for sharing your own perspective. It makes sense that we are attracted to people with similar morals, values and backgrounds. It’s a shame some men are intimidated by a well educated woman. It’s a healthy relationship when we can constantly learn from our partner.
Only psychologically unhealthy men are intimidated by strong, successful women. But having a lot in common really helps with the compatibility part of the relationship equation.
I think this tendency to be intimidated by women who are strong and successful is the result of so many generations of fixed gender roles. I think it will take some time to adjust. Those men who can adjust soonest or have already adjusted will certainly be in a better position.
We men typically have lower emotional IQ's than women. While we typically are only fluent in malespeak, with perhaps a slim to modest skills in femalespeak; women are often fluent in both. They are also usually more comfortable with relational intimacy.
The males of my line going back ten generations have a history of nearly every generation marrying wealthy or very wealthy women, and keeping them happy. If you can't make it yourself, marry into it! As a young twenty-something I was shocked when a great aunt tried to arrange a blind date with a department store heiress.
"If this works out, you won't have to work another day in your life," she said.
"I really couldn't marry for money!" exclaimed yours truly, still an ingénue in the ways of the world.
"Of course you shouldn't marry for money, my boy," said my father patiently, "Just marry where money *is*."
Loved this comment, and had a similar experience when dating in the early 2000s. I thought I was open to everyone, and I technically was...until I met someone who also had an MFA, one deceased parent, and a mother who'd worked in the financial sector of the same insurance conglomerate as my own mother.
Weirdly, he knew many of the same people I knew and watched the same shows I watched and believed what I believed. My husband and I look and were raised nothing alike, but we somehow ended up in the same cultural place and had so much in common. I tell our children that we matched because we *match* and complement each other in the few areas where we don't match.
I can attest to how very real this is. While the elite have always had an advantage, they now have a stranglehold. If you use journalism which is my industry, when I was growing up in the 1970s and the 1980s, there were many highly successful journalists who didn’t go to college.
Now it’s very hard to find any who haven’t and most of them who are successful went to elite colleges if not Ivy League colleges. I am very unusual in having made it to the top of that industry while having attended a not super competitive state school – – University of Maryland – and with no family connections either. As I’m sure you know, and I think you were alluding to, getting into these elite colleges is really about making the connections.
I I don’t think there is anything wrong with wanting to make sure your children have a good life but I do think it’s important to use your connections to help people aren’t so fortunate and it’s good to hear that you’re doing that. I don’t have children, but I would do anything for my nieces, but I also make sure to constantly remind them how privileged they are. I think it’s important that they understand that they were born on third base so they don’t get confused and think that their success is something that’s inherent to them. Something I have come across is people who’ve had their parents connections helping them every step of the way, who think they’re better than other people because there’s something super special about them without realizing all the advantages they’ve had because of who they were born to.
Thanks for the comment Kristen. i think it's vital, as you write, to make sure kids who grow up in affluent families feel a sense of obligation to give back as well as recognize that their background had an important role in where they've wound up. And I believe some adversity is important for these kids to experience. As well as to be in situations where parents can't or won't intervene to help.
I think the question is not “Do we have a caste system?” But, “What is the degree of mobility from one caste to the other?”
There is no question that America has a caste system, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about Elites and how they are precisely defined.
Americans have always been notoriously ambivalent about progressive taxation because we have had a high degree of social mobility; e.g., the American dream.
You could always move from the lowest caste to the highest cast simply by dint of hard work.
Caste has a negative connotation because we first learned about the five predetermined castes of birth from India.
There is no mobility from the lowest Untouchables to any of the other caste levels all the way up to the highest, the Brahmin.
But, can Americans still move up? Will our kids live better lives than we have lived?
Not everyone will want to pay the price (eg: work).
But, for those to do, they need to know that the system will reward them and is not rigged against them.
Although I believe any caste system is unjust, one interesting thing about the Indian caste system is that not just one caste is most desirable and the system functions because it limits how many can join and not everyone even wants to be THE elite. For example, the merchant and artisan castes do quite well. Why do we need to be at the top? But in the United States, we have this mythology of the elite in which success means being the Great Gatsby. The haves and the have nots...in terms of money and status. But what about happiness? Denmark has the happiest people because no one is left behind.
Or, is it because you are viewing caste through your own modern lens?
The tripartite system in the middle-ages: peasants, clergy and the nobility is probably unjust when viewed from our perspective.
But, while the peasants were least free (again, from our modern, 21st-century perspective) and hardest working they were not expected to lay down their lives at the service of their liege lord.
Warrior caste (nobility) had the responsibility to fight and die in the service of their lord.
To learn about the increased death rate of the nobility over the peasantry, I recommend War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin.
I have studied the past. Used to idealize that tripartite system. The "philosopher king" in my mind was the epitome...sort of like the elite today, but minus Wall Street and yachts. Now I know better. Critical theory...Marxist.
In medieval conflicts like the Hundred Years War; or many of the inter-HRE (Heileges Romische Reich) conflicts, the "nobility" mainly slaughtered their rival's serfs. As in, it cost time, money, and arrows to besiege an enemy castle; while raiding their villages was profitable, damaged their pocketbooks and prestige, and gave the troops women to rape. The Normans were especially efficient at this.
And peasant men were routinely required to "lay down their lives for their lord" when conscripted into poorly armed and armored spear units.
In Europe, it was only the rise of the city/town bourgeoisie, who formed their own polearm militias and crossbow militias to defend the walls of their towns, who were "free". The best that the peasants could hope for was getting fair masters.
In India, the upper three castes basically conspire to keep the Sudra caste down. But all the Hindu castes unite when it comes to shutting out the Muslims. In Gujurat, anyway; birthplace of both the BJP and Modi.
Patels and other Vaishya castes own the farms, but it's Sudras and Tribals that do almost all the work.
Wealth inequality compounds the natural human tendency to seek greater status. Economics as an accelerant to Psychology. But compared to countries like GB that still have remnants of aristocracy, we're still pretty mild in our class posturing.
The old WASP upper-class caste system still partly exists. Trump founded his Mar-a-Lago after being blackballed seeking membership at the elite Everglades and Bath and Tennis clubs (all in Palm Beach), where you need both money--and connections--to get in.
If you've ever seen Eddy Murphy's "Trading Places", there actually still are clubs like the two portrayed in the film. Men's, Women's, and Country Clubs; in cities all over America. But mainly in the NE.
I agree with you Connie. The Great Gatsby is a fascinating book about the rich, which was an obsession of Fitzgerald's. The real elite in the book are the Buchanans who are also the people most careless of others. Gatsby as you say represents the mythology of success, from rags to riches. But his wealth is the result of illicit activity or so it's strongly implied.
Paying the price is "working"? Certainly not. Inherited wealth, trust funds, social connections -- and plain timing and luck have so much to do with moving up in the world. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book on this topic.
I think the active realization of that in our culture is an important battle. Right now, too many people of wealth and privilege attribute too much of their position to their own talent. It's a mix. The logical next step from there is that those who live lives of precariousness do so from the opposite of circumstances. And those who break free from those circumstances are laudable exceptions not proof that everyone can.
There’s also a sense of cultural displacement if you move from one “caste” to another… I went to a top school and you could tell who was “moneyed” and who wasn’t. I would argue that even if you lost a lot of your privileges (namely, wealth) tomorrow your identity and caste privileges would still very much exist. All this to say, I don’t think it’s just mobility/access; it’s also a cultural identity as well.
Thanks, Sri, for the comment. I think there's definitely a cultural aspect, which is so difficult to pin down. You comment reminded me of this famous Fitzgerald quote about the rich:
"“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we
This was such a fascinating read and I admire you for speaking so thoughtfully about the parental imperative, even as it perhaps feels antithetical to a lot of your ideologies. I would be curious for you to explore the difference between social and financial capital. What are the limitations of each? Do you actually think they’re that interchangeable and confer the same kinds of privilege etc? What if you have one without the other? There’s tons of junior reporters working at The NY Times for instance who don’t come from wealthy backgrounds and still have to survive on a relatively meager salary — do they constitute “elites” as you describe at the end?
P.S. Been loving your newsletter since I discovered it last week!
Thanks Sophie. While I don't think that financial and social capital are interchangeable, I do think they go together more often than not.
Great question about the junior reporters. I would tend to say no, they may have an elite status job, but are not elite because they are just starting out and don't have familial resources to fall back on.
Pre-elites? Proto-elites? Potential elites? Those NYT junior journalists--who are lucky to even have such jobs in the increasingly consolidated media world--are fighting stacked odds in this Third Gilded Age.
Very glad to hear about Luis's acquittal! Now I wish there were some consequences for that prosecutorial overreach. Somehow I doubt there will be.
Jane Austen, Edith Wharton, Henry James, and many others were chiefly concerned, more than a century ago, with aristocrats trying to marry well. I might be wrong, but I think the national solidarity during the two world wars, and the social upheaval surrounding the Vietnam War, might have been anomalies in building a more expansive sense of common identity and purpose among Americans. We're now reverting to something more like the Gilded Age. That's probably the norm for human civilization, which is depressing in its own way.
Thanks Josh. I agree that assortative mating at the top was an expectation in the 19th and early 20th century.
As for the prosecutor, my brother told me that the ADA who was his adversary at the trial (and according to Samuel a very decent guy and good lawyer) was not the person who made the decision to prosecute all three. It was further up the line. I have this sinking feeling that it was a decision made in haste without much thought.
Over forty years ago, my father was caught up in a political tussle when I was a teenager. He'd raised $60,000 for Rep. Daniel Flood's campaign. Flood, the Dem Chairman of House Ways and Means, from a district near Philly, made sure that Hahnemann, of which my father was then President, got a spanking new $70 million main hospital building.
A GOP DA indicted my father on conspiracy, and a hundred-odd counts of mail fraud, for bribing Flood. As an eighteen year-old, that summer I sat in on the trial, and got valuable firsthand experience of how our justice system actually works. As their case unraveled, the prosecutors came back almost daily with new, reduced plea offers. Before it even reached the jury stage, Judge Troutman threw the case out for lack of evidence.
Great read. Thank you. The concept of mobility is an interesting addition to the conversation here. I grew up on the border of working class and middle class, with little to no family privileges in terms of institutional connections, knowledge, or know-how. (I’m a first generation college student and I distinctly remember realizing on my first day of undergrad that my classes were all in different buildings— I’d never had the opportunity to go on a college visit beforehand and thus just never put that together until the first day.) After undergrad, I decided to become a teacher (certainly not an elite job). However, I was admitted to a master’s in education program at an Ivy League university. As I prepare to start a family, I wonder about what privileges and advantages my hard-wrought knowledge of the system will be able to give my children. I’m now aware of a whole world (a more elite world) than what I knew growing up. I don’t want them to lose touch with how my fiance and I grew up. I want them to earn their way. But you’re right… how could or would a parent possibly not use their advantages to help their own children, even if that advantage is just institutional knowledge and not generational privilege? What are my kids going to have access to that I didn’t? Again, thank you for this piece. It’s giving voice to something that I’ve been ruminating on recently.
Thanks Hope for the comment. As a teacher and someone already giving so much thought to these issues, Im confident that your kids will benefit from your perspective and experience. You have the advantage of bringing them different points of view of the world.
I think the caste divide is between those who come from stable families and those who don't. Even the assortive mating among "elites" has more to do with a shared (unexpressed or even not explicitly realized) goal of building a stable family.
Our popular culture is toxic and a stable family is the main bulwark against falling behind cognitively, financially, and spiritually (becoming resilient). The effect is greater and longer lasting if the family is more expansive than a nuclear family (grandparents, uncles, aunts).
From my privileged perch and perspective, not at all exaggerated, David. Before I leave a comment on the significant content of your post, I want to offer up an observation of the picture of your brother celebrating his success. The pose looks like they are about to dance and well they could.
On other matters of the truth about the U.S. I have often used the GNH compared to the rank of the GDP as a measure of "success" in the U.S. The U.S. fell in Gross National Happiness from 16th to 23rd last year. I use U.S. instead of America because there are other Americas that too few recognize, both internally and externally. You may be familiar with Michael Harrington's masterpiece that came out in 1962, the year you were born, "The Other America." A few years after that (1968) I was deeply involved with MLK, Jr. who gave a powerful speech in Grosse Pointe, Mi, a privileged community where I lived at the time. The title of that speech. "The Other America" Here's a link for your reference:
I was on the committee that invited King to speak and I was in charge of the arrangements for the facilities. The local high school gym was the only place that could accommodate the crowd of 3,000 people. I had to address the trouble during the speech with the local police who had jurisdiction although there were state police and others standing by in the library in case things got worse. Remember, times were tense and this was just a few weeks before King was assassinated. I have written elsewhere about my two days with King that changed the trajectory of my privileged life although I continued to enjoy the benefits of an extensive education and meaningful work. Like you, I have tried to help underserved people and communities. You inspired me to contribute my Substack pledges to a non-profit scholarship fund and you were the first pledge, thank you for that! We are fortunate to be able to pay it forward by giving back something for all that has been given to us. Some years ago I had a conversation with Scott Peck, author of the well-known "The Road Less Traveled." A lot of people may not know that Scott also wrote a book called "What Return Can I Make?" and that comes from a faith perspective. All of this is, I suppose, is to say that we are governed by what we believe which influences who we become and what we do with that, over a lifetime, not merely during our years of working for a living. Thank you, David, for helping us to think more deeply about these things and what some options are for helping to make things better. For those of us committed to DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) it's a tough road to travel in the U.S.
Gary, thanks for the comment. What an experience to be with MLK at that time in history. I look forward to reading his speech. I'm sure it will give me much to think about.
You're most welcome, David. I admire your taking on some tough topics, especially during these difficult and divided times in the United States. I believe most of us know and understand what separates us and too few know what to do about it or how or worse, even care to address the inequities. The first step is often to recognize or accept that there is a problem, a diagnosis from the symptoms. Then we have a consultation to decide on the best treatment and intervention, something to consider.
There were things of merit in doing what you did then. But I grew up in a family that moved to upper middle class in the Northeast, tested highly, went to a good school, grad school... affirmative action was renewed for another 25 years in the year before I finished my master's.
Took a job in public service and thought I would be able to have a decent career, but soon began to notice promotions favoring "protected classes" above those of more experienced and qualified individuals.
Figured it was ok, we live better at the middle class level than most of humanity has through the ages. But after 12 years of frontline work I tried to move to a lead position. That went to a person who was unable to compose a coherent sentence.
So I joined the military to try to gain skills and leadership experience to maybe build a career. During the Surge in Iraq, when I was age 39. Applied for and received a direct commission. Was honored to lead Soldiers in command positions. For a time, I saw a meritocracy where success was based on performance.
Then came an email under the Obama administration that stated that diversity would be emphasized for promotion. This veteran resigned his commission as soon as possible.
Now my state has an office of Equity (one that never had slavery or Jim Crow) and my office is hiring a recruiter who will work through "a DEI lens".
The perhaps honorable goal of redressing a wrong now deliberately targets a demographic that had nothing to do with the original offense. And shows no sign of doing anything but accelerating to a genocidal level.
So, people like you have kicked me down the ladder my entire adult life. It's still Selma 1963 forever for you, when you actually were doing good things.
Be advised that some of us that have been deliberately marginalized for your virtue signalling luxury beliefs carry a cold hard anger. The Prodigal Son has been served a bread of ashes and driven from the door.
Thank you for sharing your experience and perspective. It is valid for far too many who have been pushed aside or out or down while others got ahead unfairly through privilege and class, status, favors, and preferences having nothing to do with meritorious service. I remember someone saying to me that his Dad said to him, "Life is unfair. Get used to it." I don't subscribe to that view and yet I have seen what you have described. It is clearly not Selma 1963 for me nor 1968 when I was 31 and dropped out to go back to graduate school to shift gears and recalibrate my work and my life.
Your public service and your military service are noble professions and I am sorry they were not better recognized and rewarded. If you were 39 in 2007, that would make you about 56 now, the age of a couple of our 7 kids. I am curious about what you see ahead, for yourself and the world where we live. Thanks, again, for your honesty and willingness to share. I am grateful to you for that. We may disagree on numerous things and I hope your anger and bitterness do not preclude the possibility of a civil conversation, either here or elsewhere.
I really appreciate you reading and paying attention to my input. More than you would believe and I let emotion carry me further in my comment than I should like.
Bill, thanks for your response. Strong emotions for what we care about are part of what makes us human. That more people don't pay attention and care is on all of us and we do what we can where we are with what we have. I don't know who said that, but I like it. I've had many conversations over many years about many of these issues and it's not easy but I believe it's worth our time and energy to at least try to keep the conversations alive. We are, after all, part of the same global community and finding ways to live together peacefully is a tall order with multiple challenges.
It’s so tough to write a piece that encompasses what’s going on today when there is very little data. Just curious if that 2005 study included the number of couples who met while attending college. I’d also be curious to know how many couples met from a dating app as they are so popular today. I know your piece is about the extremes— vast wealth compared to poverty, but most are middle class who can’t afford college. Tuition costs are now over 80k a year. Tech schools make sense for many families.
The 2005 data was for hundreds of thousands of households. I don't believe how or when they met was one of the criterion. The way they measured the effect of assortative mating was by comparing actual mating with fandom mating (which I thought of as a gigantic statistical "key party") That was my audition to try our for Men Who are Not as Funny AF.
I think vocational training does make sense vs. many colleges. But I don't think that's going to solve the class division.
I found this very insightful: “I think I know an elite when I meet them. The characteristic they have in common is that their capital, both financial and social, gives them a sense of immunity, real or not, from life’s economic and status vicissitudes and thus great agency over their lives.”
It also strikes me as hopeful. I have a hard time imagining a successful society that eliminates inequality. However, I can imagine a society that helps every citizen get that sense of immunity over life’s vicissitudes and thus helps every citizen achieve agency over their lives. That seems a world worth building.
Thanks for the comment Ren. I'm livid on your behalf for that guy's behavior and for what his mother said to you.
by the way my mother learned to talk in Wichita so she always said "warsh" instead of wash.
I grew up in Kentucky, and also pronounce the “r” in “warsh.” This led to a lot of good natured kidding during my time at the finest university in Cambridge, MA. (The one Will Hunting went to.) It was especially bad when I was dorm treasurer and had to talk about income from the “warshing” machines.
I think you are disastrously right and are speaking out loud the thing the no one really wants to talk about, except in terms of sarcasm and resentment. Another aspect of this is the “crabs in a barrel,” “don’t get above your raising” mindset that seeks to impede superbly competent kids from moving up in the world. Some families don’t want to lose the kid. Some families resent the kid. It’s isolate and kind of inevitable.
This brings up another question: is it necessary to try to rise in the world? You say it’s in our DNA. At the same time, maybe the lifestyles of the off the grid and happy (loudly) or the limited expectations but under stressed need to be examined too.
I went from limited expectations to ferocious accomplishment. I take the heat from it. I reap the benefits. I’d do it again and am thankful I was able. And I pay it forward. Thanks for your rare candor in addressing this topic.
If you’re doing a book and want interviewees, I volunteer. It’s a fascinating subject.
Thanks for the comment Susan. And for the offer of being an interviewee.
Great work! I could say so much about this. Some perspective that could be interesting: I have all the education and a few years ago, I started dating again after divorce — for the first time since my early 20s. I had very few preconceived notions about who I would date and was open to anyone who seemed friendly enough. But after a few experiences, I quickly learned that men were intimidated by my education/work. They didn’t want to have discussions or ask what I did; they didn’t want to hear about how I lived because it seemed too foreign to them. They just seemed uncomfortable around me.
Reluctantly, I realized that I probably wouldn’t hit it off with anyone who had less than an undergraduate education so I shouldn’t waste my time. The reality is that it’s hard to connect with someone when you have very different life experiences and I guess the less education someone has, the more likely they are to be turned off (in one way or another) by life experiences they’ve had little contact with. And I guess in this age of dating apps, where you screen potential dates with these criteria that often simply don’t matter much in a relationship (e.g. height! Who cares?), education becomes just another marker of who you probably will/will not hit it off with.
Given that the number of women with advanced degrees is growing significantly larger than the number of men, it’ll be interesting to see how these dynamics play out over the next few decades. I think both men and women have gone through so many changes in terms of the gendered expectations of our society. Perhaps more so than at any other time in history. It’s a lot to take in!
Thanks for the comment Leah and sharing your dating experience. I do think it's generally true that the more common the background the easier it is to communicate and feel comfortable. We're all so different in any case, that to start off with fewer differences helps.
If the trends continue to play out in terms of the female/male education gap and assortative mating according to background, it will, as you write, put both men and women in unfamiliar territory.
What a thoughtful response. Thanks for sharing your own perspective. It makes sense that we are attracted to people with similar morals, values and backgrounds. It’s a shame some men are intimidated by a well educated woman. It’s a healthy relationship when we can constantly learn from our partner.
Only psychologically unhealthy men are intimidated by strong, successful women. But having a lot in common really helps with the compatibility part of the relationship equation.
I think this tendency to be intimidated by women who are strong and successful is the result of so many generations of fixed gender roles. I think it will take some time to adjust. Those men who can adjust soonest or have already adjusted will certainly be in a better position.
We men typically have lower emotional IQ's than women. While we typically are only fluent in malespeak, with perhaps a slim to modest skills in femalespeak; women are often fluent in both. They are also usually more comfortable with relational intimacy.
The males of my line going back ten generations have a history of nearly every generation marrying wealthy or very wealthy women, and keeping them happy. If you can't make it yourself, marry into it! As a young twenty-something I was shocked when a great aunt tried to arrange a blind date with a department store heiress.
"If this works out, you won't have to work another day in your life," she said.
"I really couldn't marry for money!" exclaimed yours truly, still an ingénue in the ways of the world.
"Of course you shouldn't marry for money, my boy," said my father patiently, "Just marry where money *is*."
Loved this comment, and had a similar experience when dating in the early 2000s. I thought I was open to everyone, and I technically was...until I met someone who also had an MFA, one deceased parent, and a mother who'd worked in the financial sector of the same insurance conglomerate as my own mother.
Weirdly, he knew many of the same people I knew and watched the same shows I watched and believed what I believed. My husband and I look and were raised nothing alike, but we somehow ended up in the same cultural place and had so much in common. I tell our children that we matched because we *match* and complement each other in the few areas where we don't match.
I'm so relieved for Luis. And bravo to Samuel.
I can attest to how very real this is. While the elite have always had an advantage, they now have a stranglehold. If you use journalism which is my industry, when I was growing up in the 1970s and the 1980s, there were many highly successful journalists who didn’t go to college.
Now it’s very hard to find any who haven’t and most of them who are successful went to elite colleges if not Ivy League colleges. I am very unusual in having made it to the top of that industry while having attended a not super competitive state school – – University of Maryland – and with no family connections either. As I’m sure you know, and I think you were alluding to, getting into these elite colleges is really about making the connections.
I I don’t think there is anything wrong with wanting to make sure your children have a good life but I do think it’s important to use your connections to help people aren’t so fortunate and it’s good to hear that you’re doing that. I don’t have children, but I would do anything for my nieces, but I also make sure to constantly remind them how privileged they are. I think it’s important that they understand that they were born on third base so they don’t get confused and think that their success is something that’s inherent to them. Something I have come across is people who’ve had their parents connections helping them every step of the way, who think they’re better than other people because there’s something super special about them without realizing all the advantages they’ve had because of who they were born to.
Thanks for the comment Kristen. i think it's vital, as you write, to make sure kids who grow up in affluent families feel a sense of obligation to give back as well as recognize that their background had an important role in where they've wound up. And I believe some adversity is important for these kids to experience. As well as to be in situations where parents can't or won't intervene to help.
Wonderful news on Luis.
Excellent post!
I think the question is not “Do we have a caste system?” But, “What is the degree of mobility from one caste to the other?”
There is no question that America has a caste system, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about Elites and how they are precisely defined.
Americans have always been notoriously ambivalent about progressive taxation because we have had a high degree of social mobility; e.g., the American dream.
You could always move from the lowest caste to the highest cast simply by dint of hard work.
Caste has a negative connotation because we first learned about the five predetermined castes of birth from India.
There is no mobility from the lowest Untouchables to any of the other caste levels all the way up to the highest, the Brahmin.
But, can Americans still move up? Will our kids live better lives than we have lived?
Not everyone will want to pay the price (eg: work).
But, for those to do, they need to know that the system will reward them and is not rigged against them.
Although I believe any caste system is unjust, one interesting thing about the Indian caste system is that not just one caste is most desirable and the system functions because it limits how many can join and not everyone even wants to be THE elite. For example, the merchant and artisan castes do quite well. Why do we need to be at the top? But in the United States, we have this mythology of the elite in which success means being the Great Gatsby. The haves and the have nots...in terms of money and status. But what about happiness? Denmark has the happiest people because no one is left behind.
Is any caste system unjust?
Or, is it because you are viewing caste through your own modern lens?
The tripartite system in the middle-ages: peasants, clergy and the nobility is probably unjust when viewed from our perspective.
But, while the peasants were least free (again, from our modern, 21st-century perspective) and hardest working they were not expected to lay down their lives at the service of their liege lord.
Warrior caste (nobility) had the responsibility to fight and die in the service of their lord.
To learn about the increased death rate of the nobility over the peasantry, I recommend War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin.
I have studied the past. Used to idealize that tripartite system. The "philosopher king" in my mind was the epitome...sort of like the elite today, but minus Wall Street and yachts. Now I know better. Critical theory...Marxist.
In medieval conflicts like the Hundred Years War; or many of the inter-HRE (Heileges Romische Reich) conflicts, the "nobility" mainly slaughtered their rival's serfs. As in, it cost time, money, and arrows to besiege an enemy castle; while raiding their villages was profitable, damaged their pocketbooks and prestige, and gave the troops women to rape. The Normans were especially efficient at this.
And peasant men were routinely required to "lay down their lives for their lord" when conscripted into poorly armed and armored spear units.
In Europe, it was only the rise of the city/town bourgeoisie, who formed their own polearm militias and crossbow militias to defend the walls of their towns, who were "free". The best that the peasants could hope for was getting fair masters.
Better "Nouveau," than no "Riche" at all.
Better the Happy Farmer
In India, the upper three castes basically conspire to keep the Sudra caste down. But all the Hindu castes unite when it comes to shutting out the Muslims. In Gujurat, anyway; birthplace of both the BJP and Modi.
Patels and other Vaishya castes own the farms, but it's Sudras and Tribals that do almost all the work.
Thanks for explaining this in detail. I didn't know this. What do you think: Is the US locked into a caste system like this one?
Wealth inequality compounds the natural human tendency to seek greater status. Economics as an accelerant to Psychology. But compared to countries like GB that still have remnants of aristocracy, we're still pretty mild in our class posturing.
The old WASP upper-class caste system still partly exists. Trump founded his Mar-a-Lago after being blackballed seeking membership at the elite Everglades and Bath and Tennis clubs (all in Palm Beach), where you need both money--and connections--to get in.
If you've ever seen Eddy Murphy's "Trading Places", there actually still are clubs like the two portrayed in the film. Men's, Women's, and Country Clubs; in cities all over America. But mainly in the NE.
I agree with you Connie. The Great Gatsby is a fascinating book about the rich, which was an obsession of Fitzgerald's. The real elite in the book are the Buchanans who are also the people most careless of others. Gatsby as you say represents the mythology of success, from rags to riches. But his wealth is the result of illicit activity or so it's strongly implied.
Paying the price is "working"? Certainly not. Inherited wealth, trust funds, social connections -- and plain timing and luck have so much to do with moving up in the world. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book on this topic.
Which one?
Outliers
I think the active realization of that in our culture is an important battle. Right now, too many people of wealth and privilege attribute too much of their position to their own talent. It's a mix. The logical next step from there is that those who live lives of precariousness do so from the opposite of circumstances. And those who break free from those circumstances are laudable exceptions not proof that everyone can.
There’s also a sense of cultural displacement if you move from one “caste” to another… I went to a top school and you could tell who was “moneyed” and who wasn’t. I would argue that even if you lost a lot of your privileges (namely, wealth) tomorrow your identity and caste privileges would still very much exist. All this to say, I don’t think it’s just mobility/access; it’s also a cultural identity as well.
Thanks, Sri, for the comment. I think there's definitely a cultural aspect, which is so difficult to pin down. You comment reminded me of this famous Fitzgerald quote about the rich:
"“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we
are. They are different. ”
That’s an excellent quote. Thank you for sharing!
You know Hemingway's response don't you?
They have more money!
This was such a fascinating read and I admire you for speaking so thoughtfully about the parental imperative, even as it perhaps feels antithetical to a lot of your ideologies. I would be curious for you to explore the difference between social and financial capital. What are the limitations of each? Do you actually think they’re that interchangeable and confer the same kinds of privilege etc? What if you have one without the other? There’s tons of junior reporters working at The NY Times for instance who don’t come from wealthy backgrounds and still have to survive on a relatively meager salary — do they constitute “elites” as you describe at the end?
P.S. Been loving your newsletter since I discovered it last week!
Thanks Sophie. While I don't think that financial and social capital are interchangeable, I do think they go together more often than not.
Great question about the junior reporters. I would tend to say no, they may have an elite status job, but are not elite because they are just starting out and don't have familial resources to fall back on.
Pre-elites? Proto-elites? Potential elites? Those NYT junior journalists--who are lucky to even have such jobs in the increasingly consolidated media world--are fighting stacked odds in this Third Gilded Age.
Very glad to hear about Luis's acquittal! Now I wish there were some consequences for that prosecutorial overreach. Somehow I doubt there will be.
Jane Austen, Edith Wharton, Henry James, and many others were chiefly concerned, more than a century ago, with aristocrats trying to marry well. I might be wrong, but I think the national solidarity during the two world wars, and the social upheaval surrounding the Vietnam War, might have been anomalies in building a more expansive sense of common identity and purpose among Americans. We're now reverting to something more like the Gilded Age. That's probably the norm for human civilization, which is depressing in its own way.
Thanks Josh. I agree that assortative mating at the top was an expectation in the 19th and early 20th century.
As for the prosecutor, my brother told me that the ADA who was his adversary at the trial (and according to Samuel a very decent guy and good lawyer) was not the person who made the decision to prosecute all three. It was further up the line. I have this sinking feeling that it was a decision made in haste without much thought.
Or a decision made by a narcissist/sociopath DA with political ambition.
That could be. "Tough on crime" is a winning political position.
Over forty years ago, my father was caught up in a political tussle when I was a teenager. He'd raised $60,000 for Rep. Daniel Flood's campaign. Flood, the Dem Chairman of House Ways and Means, from a district near Philly, made sure that Hahnemann, of which my father was then President, got a spanking new $70 million main hospital building.
A GOP DA indicted my father on conspiracy, and a hundred-odd counts of mail fraud, for bribing Flood. As an eighteen year-old, that summer I sat in on the trial, and got valuable firsthand experience of how our justice system actually works. As their case unraveled, the prosecutors came back almost daily with new, reduced plea offers. Before it even reached the jury stage, Judge Troutman threw the case out for lack of evidence.
Great read. Thank you. The concept of mobility is an interesting addition to the conversation here. I grew up on the border of working class and middle class, with little to no family privileges in terms of institutional connections, knowledge, or know-how. (I’m a first generation college student and I distinctly remember realizing on my first day of undergrad that my classes were all in different buildings— I’d never had the opportunity to go on a college visit beforehand and thus just never put that together until the first day.) After undergrad, I decided to become a teacher (certainly not an elite job). However, I was admitted to a master’s in education program at an Ivy League university. As I prepare to start a family, I wonder about what privileges and advantages my hard-wrought knowledge of the system will be able to give my children. I’m now aware of a whole world (a more elite world) than what I knew growing up. I don’t want them to lose touch with how my fiance and I grew up. I want them to earn their way. But you’re right… how could or would a parent possibly not use their advantages to help their own children, even if that advantage is just institutional knowledge and not generational privilege? What are my kids going to have access to that I didn’t? Again, thank you for this piece. It’s giving voice to something that I’ve been ruminating on recently.
Thanks Hope for the comment. As a teacher and someone already giving so much thought to these issues, Im confident that your kids will benefit from your perspective and experience. You have the advantage of bringing them different points of view of the world.
I think the caste divide is between those who come from stable families and those who don't. Even the assortive mating among "elites" has more to do with a shared (unexpressed or even not explicitly realized) goal of building a stable family.
Our popular culture is toxic and a stable family is the main bulwark against falling behind cognitively, financially, and spiritually (becoming resilient). The effect is greater and longer lasting if the family is more expansive than a nuclear family (grandparents, uncles, aunts).
Bravo, right on with your comment. Family can and should be central to stability.
I agree that family stability helps a great deal with flourishing. And if it's a multi-generational and expanded family, that is a great blessing.
From my privileged perch and perspective, not at all exaggerated, David. Before I leave a comment on the significant content of your post, I want to offer up an observation of the picture of your brother celebrating his success. The pose looks like they are about to dance and well they could.
On other matters of the truth about the U.S. I have often used the GNH compared to the rank of the GDP as a measure of "success" in the U.S. The U.S. fell in Gross National Happiness from 16th to 23rd last year. I use U.S. instead of America because there are other Americas that too few recognize, both internally and externally. You may be familiar with Michael Harrington's masterpiece that came out in 1962, the year you were born, "The Other America." A few years after that (1968) I was deeply involved with MLK, Jr. who gave a powerful speech in Grosse Pointe, Mi, a privileged community where I lived at the time. The title of that speech. "The Other America" Here's a link for your reference:
https://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/
I was on the committee that invited King to speak and I was in charge of the arrangements for the facilities. The local high school gym was the only place that could accommodate the crowd of 3,000 people. I had to address the trouble during the speech with the local police who had jurisdiction although there were state police and others standing by in the library in case things got worse. Remember, times were tense and this was just a few weeks before King was assassinated. I have written elsewhere about my two days with King that changed the trajectory of my privileged life although I continued to enjoy the benefits of an extensive education and meaningful work. Like you, I have tried to help underserved people and communities. You inspired me to contribute my Substack pledges to a non-profit scholarship fund and you were the first pledge, thank you for that! We are fortunate to be able to pay it forward by giving back something for all that has been given to us. Some years ago I had a conversation with Scott Peck, author of the well-known "The Road Less Traveled." A lot of people may not know that Scott also wrote a book called "What Return Can I Make?" and that comes from a faith perspective. All of this is, I suppose, is to say that we are governed by what we believe which influences who we become and what we do with that, over a lifetime, not merely during our years of working for a living. Thank you, David, for helping us to think more deeply about these things and what some options are for helping to make things better. For those of us committed to DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) it's a tough road to travel in the U.S.
Gary, thanks for the comment. What an experience to be with MLK at that time in history. I look forward to reading his speech. I'm sure it will give me much to think about.
You're most welcome, David. I admire your taking on some tough topics, especially during these difficult and divided times in the United States. I believe most of us know and understand what separates us and too few know what to do about it or how or worse, even care to address the inequities. The first step is often to recognize or accept that there is a problem, a diagnosis from the symptoms. Then we have a consultation to decide on the best treatment and intervention, something to consider.
There were things of merit in doing what you did then. But I grew up in a family that moved to upper middle class in the Northeast, tested highly, went to a good school, grad school... affirmative action was renewed for another 25 years in the year before I finished my master's.
Took a job in public service and thought I would be able to have a decent career, but soon began to notice promotions favoring "protected classes" above those of more experienced and qualified individuals.
Figured it was ok, we live better at the middle class level than most of humanity has through the ages. But after 12 years of frontline work I tried to move to a lead position. That went to a person who was unable to compose a coherent sentence.
So I joined the military to try to gain skills and leadership experience to maybe build a career. During the Surge in Iraq, when I was age 39. Applied for and received a direct commission. Was honored to lead Soldiers in command positions. For a time, I saw a meritocracy where success was based on performance.
Then came an email under the Obama administration that stated that diversity would be emphasized for promotion. This veteran resigned his commission as soon as possible.
Now my state has an office of Equity (one that never had slavery or Jim Crow) and my office is hiring a recruiter who will work through "a DEI lens".
The perhaps honorable goal of redressing a wrong now deliberately targets a demographic that had nothing to do with the original offense. And shows no sign of doing anything but accelerating to a genocidal level.
So, people like you have kicked me down the ladder my entire adult life. It's still Selma 1963 forever for you, when you actually were doing good things.
Be advised that some of us that have been deliberately marginalized for your virtue signalling luxury beliefs carry a cold hard anger. The Prodigal Son has been served a bread of ashes and driven from the door.
Thank you for sharing your experience and perspective. It is valid for far too many who have been pushed aside or out or down while others got ahead unfairly through privilege and class, status, favors, and preferences having nothing to do with meritorious service. I remember someone saying to me that his Dad said to him, "Life is unfair. Get used to it." I don't subscribe to that view and yet I have seen what you have described. It is clearly not Selma 1963 for me nor 1968 when I was 31 and dropped out to go back to graduate school to shift gears and recalibrate my work and my life.
Your public service and your military service are noble professions and I am sorry they were not better recognized and rewarded. If you were 39 in 2007, that would make you about 56 now, the age of a couple of our 7 kids. I am curious about what you see ahead, for yourself and the world where we live. Thanks, again, for your honesty and willingness to share. I am grateful to you for that. We may disagree on numerous things and I hope your anger and bitterness do not preclude the possibility of a civil conversation, either here or elsewhere.
I really appreciate you reading and paying attention to my input. More than you would believe and I let emotion carry me further in my comment than I should like.
Bill, thanks for your response. Strong emotions for what we care about are part of what makes us human. That more people don't pay attention and care is on all of us and we do what we can where we are with what we have. I don't know who said that, but I like it. I've had many conversations over many years about many of these issues and it's not easy but I believe it's worth our time and energy to at least try to keep the conversations alive. We are, after all, part of the same global community and finding ways to live together peacefully is a tall order with multiple challenges.
Thanks to you both for your substantive and respectful dialogue.
It’s so tough to write a piece that encompasses what’s going on today when there is very little data. Just curious if that 2005 study included the number of couples who met while attending college. I’d also be curious to know how many couples met from a dating app as they are so popular today. I know your piece is about the extremes— vast wealth compared to poverty, but most are middle class who can’t afford college. Tuition costs are now over 80k a year. Tech schools make sense for many families.
The 2005 data was for hundreds of thousands of households. I don't believe how or when they met was one of the criterion. The way they measured the effect of assortative mating was by comparing actual mating with fandom mating (which I thought of as a gigantic statistical "key party") That was my audition to try our for Men Who are Not as Funny AF.
I think vocational training does make sense vs. many colleges. But I don't think that's going to solve the class division.
Haha. Key parties. Some aspects of the 70’s should stay in the 70’s.
I found this very insightful: “I think I know an elite when I meet them. The characteristic they have in common is that their capital, both financial and social, gives them a sense of immunity, real or not, from life’s economic and status vicissitudes and thus great agency over their lives.”
It also strikes me as hopeful. I have a hard time imagining a successful society that eliminates inequality. However, I can imagine a society that helps every citizen get that sense of immunity over life’s vicissitudes and thus helps every citizen achieve agency over their lives. That seems a world worth building.
Thanks for the comment Brian. it's certainly a world to aim for.
Great article, right on the money (so to speak).