Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace | Hacker News Reader

Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace

danah.org

16 pointsdanw13 comments

"working class teens will reject hegemonic values because it's the only way to continue to be a part of the community that they live in. In other words, if you don't know that you will succeed if you make a run at jumping class, don't bother - you'll lose all of your friends and community in the process."

This seems to apply to middle class entrepreneurs as well. Saying that you don't need a boss often gets interpreted as a big fuck-you by everyone else. (Same applies to not finishing college.)

Is this an undergraduate project or something? It seems to be masquerading as a paper that is more serious than it actually is.

All the anecdotal stuff, opinions, and ideas are cool. Where the author starts trying to put labels on things is where this paper falls apart. Don't waste my time trying to subdivide people into groups like "art fag" and "emo" unless there is data and falsifiable definitions to support them.

She.

Neutralized.

I just posted a comment saying that if, like me, you are skeptical about claims that "Wal-Mart Nation has destroyed many of the opportunities for meaningful working class labor", you should squint a bit and read the article anyway, because there is some truth to it.

Looking at it some more, I am still convinced that there is some truth to it, but there really is also a lot of very, uh, fluid logic going on.

Identifying those who can "play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm" with those who are expected to go to college, and later calling them "hegemonic", is simplistic. An enumeration like 'Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, "burnouts," "alternative kids," "art fags," punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids' lumps together categories that are closely related to social class (Hispanic), categories that have nothing to do with it (queer), and even some categories that may be associated with higher social strata (when did you last meet a working class art fag?)

"Looking at it some more, I am still convinced that there is some truth to it, but there really is also a lot of very, uh, fluid logic going on."

It's sociology, what do you expect? ;-) (I nearly majored in sociology in college, taking 4 courses before I switched first back to physics and then to computer science. This gave me both a basic fluency in the lingo and a healthy disrespect for its conclusions or lack thereof.)

Anyway, you have to understand the particular school of thought she's coming from. This article's steeped in the lingo of Gramsci and Spivak, who studied primarily power relations within society, particularly the question of "Who decides who can speak?" In sociology, there's the concept of a discourse, which is basically "What can you talk about without getting odd looks?" Certain discourses are legitimated: you can talk about Heroes or Desperate Housewives or Paris Hilton or the Red Sox and everyone will find it socially acceptable. Certain discourses are relegated to specialized niches, but still socially acceptable: you can talk about monads or CSS or DNA replication and people won't think you weird, but they may not listen either. And certain discourses are fringe: if you talk about how 9/11 was an inside job or put on eyeshadow and leather pants for a goth party, people will think you a little nutty, unless you're on Reddit.

In this context, the article's list makes a little more sense. What's considered socially acceptable discussion in high school? Pop music, the latest movies, that party at the class bitch's house, homecoming, cheerleading and school spirit, and apparently Facebook. What's not? Having to work to support your family and put yourself through school. Slacking off and doing lots of drugs. Weird art bands that nobody has heard of. Local music that nobody has heard of. Wearing odd clothing or odd makeup. Being gay, unless you live on the northern portion of either coast. And apparently MySpace.

Basically - ask yourself "Who would you want your daughter to date?" Unless you're one of those enlightened parents that believes in letting their kids make their own choices, you probably wouldn't want her going out with an art fag. You wouldn't want her dating a stoner or a gansta. You'd look at her a little weird if she brought home a goth or a punk.

This is different from the notion of social class that William Julius Wilson or Barbara Ehrenreich writes about. That's much more (though not wholly) economic and educational, and is closer to popular definitions of social class. The Gramscian notions of hegemon/subaltern are much more about power and people's unconscious reactions to cultural behavior.

That's very interesting, I can swallow the whole subaltern/hegemonic thing even if I think it's a bit pretentious, but I still don't know what "a goth" really is. The last time I looked it up on Urban Dictionary there were roughly 40 million conflicting definitions. I think using terms like that in this essay is unwise and confuses her points.

Thanks for the background info! I never studied much sociology; all the social science electives at the college where I took them turned out to be about game theory.

We should expect that a piece like this will draw conclusions that are "simplistic" over-generalizations; she is going for mass generalizations that do have a point, but some significant data will be smoothed over in the process. She is describing high-level patterns, not specifically addressing each subgroup. Note that she does address the distinctions between the subgroups within "subaltern", e.g.:

"I should note here that aesthetics do divide MySpace users. The look and feel that is acceptable amongst average Latino users is quite different from what you see the subculturally-identified outcasts using. Amongst the emo teens, there's a push for simple black/white/grey backgrounds and simplistic layouts. While I'm using the term "subaltern teens" to lump together non-hegemonic teens, the lifestyle divisions amongst the subalterns are quite visible on MySpace through the aesthetic choices of the backgrounds."

Also, you asked "when did you last meet a working class art fag?". I'll bet most "art fags" are not getting rich off of it.

I understand your point, but mine was that she fluidly goes back and forth between various definitions. I do think that she realizes this, and it is probably inevitable, but it makes it hard for me to wrap my head around exactly what she is trying to say. Danah writes: "I will attempt to delineate what we see on social network sites in stereotypical, descriptive terms meant to evoke an image." I think I understand why she wants to take that approach (it's easier), but the problem with it is that it makes it very hard for her readers to disengage from their own stereotypes and prejudices and evaluate her ideas on the merits. Basically, it works just as long as she's preaching to the choir.

As for the working class art fags (I dislike the term, by the way, but that's another can o' worms altogether): I'm not saying art is the way to riches, but rather just applying the cultural, rather than income-based, idea of class that is, it would seem to me, implicit in the words "all of my anti-capitalist college friends who work in cafes and read Engels are not working class just because they make $14K a year and have no benefits."

I'm not certain your definition of "art fag" and her definition match. I don't think she includes the Engels-reading baristas in that category - that's why she listed them explicitly as "not working class". Rather, I think she's referring to artists who basically give themselves up for art, delving into really esoteric tastes and edgy artwork.

To use a couple pop-culture examples that you may or may not be familiar with: none of the characters in Rent are art fags. Isaac Mendez from Heroes may be, but we don't know much of his history before he became a junkie or what he does besides paint the future. The characters from Scott Westerfield's novel "The End Days" are, as are the somewhat-caricatured characters in Terry Pratchett's "Soul Music".

She doesn't have the research to support the precision of her terminology. Or if she does, she's not sharing it in which case it doesn't help us. If she wants to make broad assertions, she should make broad assertions. Not specific assertions that sound carefully thought-out but in fact are not.

when did you last meet a working class art fag?

I've never met an "art fag" in my life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com