Recent conversation with some British about Kate Middleton revealed some interesting observations. She was universally admired as an able woman stepping in to a difficult role, especially with the backdrop of the Diana disaster, but she was also seen wryly as "not a royal." She was a commoner, her parents were merchants, her mother chewed gum and was simply not up to royal snuff. Someone said she spoke like a royal; the Brit answered "She was taught that." It was not her nature.
The "nature" of people is always under discussion. Are the Irish, by nature, drunks? Are Blacks lazy? Are Asian girls bad drivers? These are classic examples of small sample prejudice, that is, bad thinking. But the notion of a "royal" is larger; it implies some selective process over time that has created a different sort of person. Does injection of common genes into the family contaminate that specialness? Invalidate it, even? (The Chinese royals used to do that on purpose, to keep the line from getting "thin blood.") Or can that only be done with the guillotine? This is the basis of the royal family: they are seen as a different "class" of person.
This appears everywhere, sometimes with a vengeance. Middleton can cross that class barrier, a woman of the untouchable cast in India may not. Advance in the French bureaucracy is difficult if you are not from the correct educational institution.
The Americans have always prided themselves as being without class distinction. De Tocqueville marveled that this was a land where no man called another "master." But distinction--physical and educational--is making an appearance, politically at least. The racial prism is present in every encounter, every discussion. The "1%" tarring threatens an economic distinction. Politicians and entrepreneurs seem to be willing to drive this early wedge despite the eventual cost.
The Americans have always prided themselves as being without class distinction. De Tocqueville marveled that this was a land where no man called another "master." But distinction--physical and educational--is making an appearance, politically at least. The racial prism is present in every encounter, every discussion. The "1%" tarring threatens an economic distinction. Politicians and entrepreneurs seem to be willing to drive this early wedge despite the eventual cost.
John Adams said in 1805: 'The rewards ... in this life are esteem and admiration of others -- the punishments are neglect and contempt. . . . The desire of the esteem of others is as real a want of nature as hunger -- and the neglect and contempt of the world as severe a pain as the gout or stone. ...'
Perhaps as Americans deny class they would admit to the hierarchy of materialism: Status.
No comments:
Post a Comment