This seems pretty evident in the UK where we have these attitudes proudly parading themselves around, particularly in the guise of a particular Jacob Rees-Mogg.
I think the article would be more interesting if they dove more into the history of this idea - for instance I've always been under the impression that the UK and USA suffer from this particular ailment because of the 'protestant work ethic', otherwise called 'calvinism' handed down by many generations of wealthy property owners and aristocrats attempting to motivate their workforce. While at one point those land owners would simply have cited the fact that their ancestors fought for the property that they owned, or that they had it through divine intervention at some point that got questioned.
In the secular age, the assumption that the rich worked for the property that they own is pre-supposed (and hence own it morally, and claim the rights to that moral superiority) even if it's not true - and certainly isn't true when you consider the effort that they expend vs. the efforts of others and their relative outcomes. This is then reinforced through, primarily, economic power - the ability to advertise their status, the fact that your boss will tell you about how they've been creating jobs, etc. reinforces this narrative. By this point, whether they worked for it or not is irrelevant, because their perceived ownership of the moral high-ground is so deeply ingrained until something actually goes wrong.
I'm conflicted about this article. On one hand, its central premise, that people who are successful (in societal terms) tend to ascribe that success to an inherent moral superiority, is obviously true.
On the other hand, there's nothing particularly Victorian about this attitude; people have been doing this ever since society has existed and will be doing it long after we're all dead.
On yet another hand (I have three), who is the target audience for this article? Seems like this is something that anyone who would be interested in or capable of understanding this article would already know.
>people have been doing this ever since society has existed and will be doing it long after we're all dead.
Jacobin is a leftist magazine. One of the main ideas of people on the socialist left is not just to observe how people behave and live, to merely be reactive, but to seek to change society to ameliorate its ills.
While the central observation of the article is vaguely interesting, what is more interesting perhaps is the slow and gradual pivots from Victorian moral signaling to modern moral signaling, and whether modern moral signaling is more or less adaptive towards actually making one's life better than Victorian moral signaling was.
For example, life satisfaction is strongly correlated with exercise. This was true even before the general population used exercise to signal virtue. (See the Harvard longitudinal study as an example of this.)
Additionally, the modern practice of allowing (some) women to have highly successful careers seems to lead to better outcomes than the Victorian practice of locking women out of everything except teaching and nursing, and encouraging them to get out of those as soon as they could lock down a man.
Perhaps virtue signaling slowly converges on actual virtue? (This isn't to imply that all modern virtue signaling practices are virtuous. For example, I'd argue that modern virtue signaling around sleep, or lack thereof, and work, namely filling one's life entirely full of it with no breaks, at least in the USA, are terrible for health and life satisfaction.)
Edit: added clarification that modern values around female careers are better than Victorian ones, but are not yet a fully solved problem.
I think the observations that the author makes are quite interesting, but his conclusions are quite a stretch.
Human society and natural law always reward meritocracy. I think he makes a mistake when he tries to suggest that all activities and lifestyles of any "class" of people are equally valuable.
Eating unhealthily is objectively bad. Smoking cigarettes is objectively bad. Its not a sign or "oppression" if you teach your kids not to get pregnant in high school or advise them against alcoholism and drug use...
Feels like a lot of projection. At some point in there lives people realize that there are “groups” who seem similar. Often by dress, and attitude. Not all of these groups are conscious of the conformity.
Once you can see a group the question will come up “Am I part of that group?” Or “Do I want to be?” And sometimes the group will reject your attempts to join. How you deal with those situations seems to have an outsized effect on your life.
The author clearly sees the groups and recognizes that they have existed for a long time, and then attacks them for their shallowness. Why? For lulz? Because they want to belong but can’t? They seem to reject the idea that groups serve a purpose other than snobbery. At the end of the article I was left with a sense the author was offended but not entirely sure what they were offended by.
I think the purpose of the article was perfectly clear. Arguing against those in the upper middle class that place an inordinate amount of focus on their personal virtues as the reason for their success.
"Both lines of thinking assert that the lower classes cannot control themselves, so they deserve exactly what they have and nothing more. No need, then, for higher wages or subsidized health care. After all, the poor will just waste it on cigarettes and cheeseburgers."
The underlying point is that these professional-class distinctions are cast in moralistic tones and serve as an ideological justification for denigrating and ignoring the material needs of the bourgeois's class enemies. This is most clearly seen in the case of college admissions.
Of course, most bourgeois aggressively refuse to accept the idea that there is anything political about their consumption choices at all, or that they even have 'class enemies', because they refuse to acknowledge that they occupy and actively maintain a privileged position in a fundamentally unjust and exploitative system.
From the closing paragraph: We should care about health, food, and education. But instead of seeing them as ways to prop up class dominance, we should improve them for everyone.
Sure, that's agreeable enough. But I can't tell for sure if the author understands the difference between 1) upper middle class parents having resources to confer material advantages to their own families and 2) faddish tribal markers that confer no material advantage. The two are mixed indiscriminately throughout the article. There's no benefit to enabling the lower 4 income quintiles to participate in the same fads embraced by the top quintile.
Being an overweight smoker really is bad for your health. It's not just an arbitrary tribal marker.
Breast-feeding infants is good for them.
Limiting screen time is good for young children.
Exclusively eating organic-certified food, or gluten-free food (without a supporting diagnostic test), is just a tribal marker.
Wearing exercise outfits to the grocery store is just a marker. Actually exercising isn't.
One upper-middle-class fad that is actually worse for children, omitted from the article: refusing to vaccinate.
While the central point about using things inherent to your structural position in life as a personal morality skewer is spot on, I find some of the buttressing arguments annoying.
For example, the gluten-free shaming. While yes, not everyone is celiac, I am confused by people are insistent that some kind of gluten allergy is impossible. If you are that kind of person, I have some hsCRP results that maybe you could explain?
In my opinion, the author dies try to indicate that they are meaning people who avoid gluten yet do not suffer from celiac disease.
"Consider the gluten-free movement — those who choose to eliminate gluten from their diet, not those who have celiac disease and must eschew wheat entirely."
I do agree that a non-celiac person who chooses to avoid gluten simply to avoid gluten, without any other health concerns, is bizarre. And it's certainly on the rise: where I live restaurants actually alter behavior based on whether or not you suffer from celiac disease or simply "prefer no gluten". My partner has celiac disease and when they ask if something contains gluten (or requests a gluten-free menu, some places offer this) the server always asks: "Do you have an allergy?"
While my partner always replies "yes", this indicates to me that some people are saying "no". In those cases, apparently, the restaurant is doing something differently.
From the title I expected a piece about censoriousness. How did England go from the libertine Regency period to the social-policing Victorians? Is there a similar dynamic today, of course around different norms? That's something I've been wondering but haven't got to read about so far.
Sometimes it's painful to read someone's oversimplified judgement of socitey through their rigid ideological prism(s).
To be sure, there are some interesting dynamics at play with regards to self denial, class/hierarchical dynamics, and such, but I don't believe this article has done a particularly good job of illustrating them.
Some times the world is rather more complicated than Victorian vs Socialism/Feminism/Marxism, etc.
I don't like the idea that because the upper class does something we should be skeptical of it. Maybe part of the reason the upper class is the upper class is because of its commitment to good ideals: two-parent stable households, having a healthy lifestyle, preparing your kids for success.
to be charitable to the author, it's not so much that the ideals aren't good ones, it's more the preening self-regard that the upper middle class (author's words here, and it's an important distinction) holds while engaging in this lifestyle. Not to mention the judgmentalism that they cast while doing so.
Where the argument breaks down is that he connects this with some sort of oppress-the-poor policy program, when in fact the crowd that most loudly crows about its yoga practice and organic food consumption is squarely behind the policy program of living wage and universal healthcare.
[+] [-] captainbland|7 years ago|reply
I think the article would be more interesting if they dove more into the history of this idea - for instance I've always been under the impression that the UK and USA suffer from this particular ailment because of the 'protestant work ethic', otherwise called 'calvinism' handed down by many generations of wealthy property owners and aristocrats attempting to motivate their workforce. While at one point those land owners would simply have cited the fact that their ancestors fought for the property that they owned, or that they had it through divine intervention at some point that got questioned.
In the secular age, the assumption that the rich worked for the property that they own is pre-supposed (and hence own it morally, and claim the rights to that moral superiority) even if it's not true - and certainly isn't true when you consider the effort that they expend vs. the efforts of others and their relative outcomes. This is then reinforced through, primarily, economic power - the ability to advertise their status, the fact that your boss will tell you about how they've been creating jobs, etc. reinforces this narrative. By this point, whether they worked for it or not is irrelevant, because their perceived ownership of the moral high-ground is so deeply ingrained until something actually goes wrong.
[+] [-] cfadvan|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CommieBobDole|7 years ago|reply
On the other hand, there's nothing particularly Victorian about this attitude; people have been doing this ever since society has existed and will be doing it long after we're all dead.
On yet another hand (I have three), who is the target audience for this article? Seems like this is something that anyone who would be interested in or capable of understanding this article would already know.
[+] [-] good_gnu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noobermin|7 years ago|reply
Jacobin is a leftist magazine. One of the main ideas of people on the socialist left is not just to observe how people behave and live, to merely be reactive, but to seek to change society to ameliorate its ills.
[+] [-] 1053r|7 years ago|reply
For example, life satisfaction is strongly correlated with exercise. This was true even before the general population used exercise to signal virtue. (See the Harvard longitudinal study as an example of this.)
Additionally, the modern practice of allowing (some) women to have highly successful careers seems to lead to better outcomes than the Victorian practice of locking women out of everything except teaching and nursing, and encouraging them to get out of those as soon as they could lock down a man.
Perhaps virtue signaling slowly converges on actual virtue? (This isn't to imply that all modern virtue signaling practices are virtuous. For example, I'd argue that modern virtue signaling around sleep, or lack thereof, and work, namely filling one's life entirely full of it with no breaks, at least in the USA, are terrible for health and life satisfaction.)
Edit: added clarification that modern values around female careers are better than Victorian ones, but are not yet a fully solved problem.
[+] [-] Jldevictoria|7 years ago|reply
Human society and natural law always reward meritocracy. I think he makes a mistake when he tries to suggest that all activities and lifestyles of any "class" of people are equally valuable.
Eating unhealthily is objectively bad. Smoking cigarettes is objectively bad. Its not a sign or "oppression" if you teach your kids not to get pregnant in high school or advise them against alcoholism and drug use...
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|7 years ago|reply
Once you can see a group the question will come up “Am I part of that group?” Or “Do I want to be?” And sometimes the group will reject your attempts to join. How you deal with those situations seems to have an outsized effect on your life.
The author clearly sees the groups and recognizes that they have existed for a long time, and then attacks them for their shallowness. Why? For lulz? Because they want to belong but can’t? They seem to reject the idea that groups serve a purpose other than snobbery. At the end of the article I was left with a sense the author was offended but not entirely sure what they were offended by.
[+] [-] NeoBasilisk|7 years ago|reply
"Both lines of thinking assert that the lower classes cannot control themselves, so they deserve exactly what they have and nothing more. No need, then, for higher wages or subsidized health care. After all, the poor will just waste it on cigarettes and cheeseburgers."
[+] [-] blackbagboys|7 years ago|reply
Of course, most bourgeois aggressively refuse to accept the idea that there is anything political about their consumption choices at all, or that they even have 'class enemies', because they refuse to acknowledge that they occupy and actively maintain a privileged position in a fundamentally unjust and exploitative system.
[+] [-] philipkglass|7 years ago|reply
Sure, that's agreeable enough. But I can't tell for sure if the author understands the difference between 1) upper middle class parents having resources to confer material advantages to their own families and 2) faddish tribal markers that confer no material advantage. The two are mixed indiscriminately throughout the article. There's no benefit to enabling the lower 4 income quintiles to participate in the same fads embraced by the top quintile.
Being an overweight smoker really is bad for your health. It's not just an arbitrary tribal marker.
Breast-feeding infants is good for them.
Limiting screen time is good for young children.
Exclusively eating organic-certified food, or gluten-free food (without a supporting diagnostic test), is just a tribal marker.
Wearing exercise outfits to the grocery store is just a marker. Actually exercising isn't.
One upper-middle-class fad that is actually worse for children, omitted from the article: refusing to vaccinate.
[+] [-] ryanobjc|7 years ago|reply
For example, the gluten-free shaming. While yes, not everyone is celiac, I am confused by people are insistent that some kind of gluten allergy is impossible. If you are that kind of person, I have some hsCRP results that maybe you could explain?
[+] [-] cmiles74|7 years ago|reply
"Consider the gluten-free movement — those who choose to eliminate gluten from their diet, not those who have celiac disease and must eschew wheat entirely."
I do agree that a non-celiac person who chooses to avoid gluten simply to avoid gluten, without any other health concerns, is bizarre. And it's certainly on the rise: where I live restaurants actually alter behavior based on whether or not you suffer from celiac disease or simply "prefer no gluten". My partner has celiac disease and when they ask if something contains gluten (or requests a gluten-free menu, some places offer this) the server always asks: "Do you have an allergy?"
While my partner always replies "yes", this indicates to me that some people are saying "no". In those cases, apparently, the restaurant is doing something differently.
[+] [-] castlegloom|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abecedarius|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quxbar|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zengid|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] switchbak|7 years ago|reply
To be sure, there are some interesting dynamics at play with regards to self denial, class/hierarchical dynamics, and such, but I don't believe this article has done a particularly good job of illustrating them.
Some times the world is rather more complicated than Victorian vs Socialism/Feminism/Marxism, etc.
[+] [-] jeffreyrogers|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blackbagboys|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark212|7 years ago|reply
Where the argument breaks down is that he connects this with some sort of oppress-the-poor policy program, when in fact the crowd that most loudly crows about its yoga practice and organic food consumption is squarely behind the policy program of living wage and universal healthcare.