What is the source of class distinction?

[coberst]

What is the source of class distinction?

The very first class distinction was between mortal and immortal; between human and superhuman. For the primitives it was often the dead who held power. Primitives were “securely immersed in his particular cultural ideology, which was in essence an ideology of life, of how to continue on and on to triumph over death.” Power was and is the basic category of being for which sapiens have fundamental respect.

The primitives recognized a spiritual cosmology wherein power emanated from the “pool of ancestors and spirits”. In the modern world power emanates from technology and money.

The infant recognizes the source of power quickly; power becomes the basic category of being. If one does not get this location of power one will have little opportunity to get anything else correct. Without power one quickly declined in vitality leading to death. The primitives were quick to recognize a hierarchy of power. With power the other basic category was ‘danger.

Since the eighteenth century the great minds have formed this question, ‘what is the source of inequality?’ and have sought the answer. Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence into the conflicts of classes and states. Marx capitalized (a pun perhaps?) on Rousseau’s idea to remind us that humanity did not all start out as exploited peons. Today this class and state differential is more abundantly clear.

It has been deduced that power and coercion are not the only culprits here, it is that wo/man harbors an “enemy within”; perhaps the “slave is somehow in love with his own chains”.

Rousseau offered this answer “The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say ‘this is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”

The salient question became ‘not when’ but ‘why’ it happened?

Primitive man recognized differences in talent, strength, and merit and easily deferred to these characteristics. Why—because such characteristics served well the needs of the tribe or community. Certain individuals showed ability for defying death and others wished to share in that immunity.

We see here that he “carries within himself the bondage that he needs in order to continue to live…we are born in need of authority and we even create out of freedom, a prison…This insight is the fruit of the outcome of modern psychoanalysis…it penetrates to the heart of the human condition and to the principle dynamic of the emergence of historical inequality…primitive religion starts the first class distinction…That is, the individual gives over the aegis of his own life and death to the spirit worlds; he is already a second-class citizen.”

“The first class distinction, then, was between mortal and immortal, between feeble human powers and special superhuman beings.”

Quotes from Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker

[AuntShecky]

Wow, was this ever a thoughtful, salient start for a philosophical distinction! The notion of "class distinction" is a very sore subject with me. (That's about the only thing with which I can truthfully say that I have in common with F. Scott Fitzgerald, for class distinction, especially the status and romantic advantage that status bestows, is a recurrent theme in his works.)

The United States of America, the country that I truly love, nevertheless harbors a "dirty little secret." We take pride in proclaiming our "democracy" and our egalitarian culture,
but like a garbage bag festering in the July heat, the odor of inequity permeates every aspect of society -- in areas of education, race, sexual orientation, health care, and especially wages, you name it. Politicians run away from such problems; whenever anybody cites poverty, the politician always accuses him or her of attempting to "promote class warfare," the quaint term that wasn't even viable when Marx and his fellow-travellers used it.

Oh, don't get me started on "class" issues, but please allow me to make some specific comments on your original posting:

Could the distinction between the (merely) human and the superhuman come down to a difference in one's DNA? Perhaps there is dominant gene for "natural-born leaders" and its opposite, a recessive gene for followers. This might help explain the ineffable, intangible quality of "charisma." The problem with that hypothesis is that according to evolution, an individual would naturally gravitate toward choosing a strong leader as a mate, and the issue of that union would produce more leaders than followers. But history has shown incontrovertibly that the world is full of many more followers (underlings, serfs, workers) than leaders.

You hit it right on the nose when you wrote that in the "modern world power emanates from technology and money." Ain't that the truth! Remember the old song: "The rich get rich and the poor get. . .children." As far as the former, the group who owns the technological system does have power, in a broad sense. But the old axiom, "knowledge is power," isn't, I'm afraid, exactly true in 20th century Western world. I could show you legions of folks who are "overeducated and unemployed," or under-mployed.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the Rousseau quotation that posits that "the slave is in love with his own chains." (although it made me think of Camus's beautiful allegory, "The Myth of Sysphus," and the psychological condition called "Stockholm syndrome," and even a certain poem which Prince Myshkin posted last week.) I think that the idea of freedom and autonomy is deeply inherent in our DNA, for leaders and followers alike. There is something about slavery that is fundamentally alien to human nature. This is part of the reason that all Americans still bear the scars of the Great Original Sin committed in the history of this nation.

And finally, while I really don't want to make light of this thoughtful posting of yours, one sentence made me laugh a little. That's the part where you write: "An infant recognizes the source of power quickly." Again, ain't that the truth. All I could think of was my first grandson, whose Mom and Dad (as well as any other adult within earshot)come running at the tiniest peep. We would move heaven and earth to fulfill the immediate needs of a beloved baby. He's only a few months old, but already he thinks he is the center of the universe! Not a bad start for the little guy.

That's kind of miraculous, methinks, though perhaps a luxury reserved for more affluent cultures, alas bringing us back to the original thread, which is where I'll (finally) leave you.

Thanks so much for posting this, as well as your other worthwhile threads.

[MarkBastable]

I think you'll find that some people are simply rather common.

[coberst]

Humans seek to be more than animals. We seek to be gods or at least propagate that level above animal and below God.

That which promotes life is good that which promotes death is evil. “Evil lies not in the hearts of men but in the social arrangements that men take for granted.”

Wo/man lives a debased life under tyranny and self delusion because s/he does not comprehend the conditions of natural freedom. Sapiens need hope and belief in themselves; thus illusion is necessary if it is creative for life, but is evil if it promotes death.

A psychodynamic analysis of history displays saga of death, destruction, and coercion from the outside while inside we see self-delusion and self enslavement. We seek mystification. We seek transference; we seek hypnotists as our chosen leaders.

We seek the power to ward off big evil by reflexively embracing small terrors and small fascinations in the place of overwhelming ones.

Courage is the fundamental qualifying quality for being a hero. So, why are we all so naturally cowardly? Our goal is to be a hero and we lack the courage to be so.

We constantly struggle for a life that has meaning. All meaning for us is associated with that which comes to us from the outside. Our sense of self is derived by looking at others for determining who and what we are. “Our whole world of right and wrong, good and bad, our name, precisely who we are, is grafted into us; and we never feel we have authority to offer things on our own…we feel ourselves in many ways guilty and beholden to others…indebted to them for our very birth.”

Abraham Maslow spoke of our being fearful of standing alone. We fear actualizing our potential. We have the urge to ‘be all we can be’ but we fear to attempt the fulfillment of this urge. “We fear our highest possibility…we even thrill to the godlike possibilities we see in our self…yet we simultaneously shiver with weakness.” Maslow coined the phrase ‘Jonah Syndrome’ to mean the evasion of the full intensity of life.

The Jonah Syndrome is a justified fear of losing control and being torn apart—to even being killed by the experience of being all we can be. Otto Rank spoke of our natural feeling of inferiority in the face of the transcendence of life and creation.

Quotes from The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker

[MarkBastable]

Wo/man lives a debased life under tyranny and self delusion because s/he does not comprehend the conditions of natural freedom.

As a slight aside - if you were reading that sentence out loud, how would you pronounce the first word?

[billl]

I like a lot of what's getting brought up here, but I can't go for it whole-hog. I think there are still issues about what it means to be all we can be. If it involves interacting with others, then there'll be conflicts (especially if we aren't all identical elements in some grey goo of highly-unified culture). Sometimes we'll need heroism, sometimes we'll just need to let the next guy do what he wants in his garden, as long as he isn't hurting anybody else.

I have an admiration for people who find a way to live life, experience beauty, exercise their mind, etc. without stepping on a lot of toes all the time, without reaching for godhood, superhuman-hood, etc. I think some people might be heroes, when the opportunity arises, but I don't know if it's true that everyone would best be occupied going out and looking for chances to be heroic in all situations. I'm not knocking "heroism," but I doubt it belongs on a to-do list--it arises out of necessity, and I think some people do step-up and do heroic stuff (or, heroically don't do stuff).

I think a concern and respect for others is important, and that one of the messy projects is negotiating how we can all interact, as well as "being what we want to be, out of all that we can be," alongside others doing the same. I like Aunt Shecky's point about the possible role of DNA (and mating among followers and leaders might produce both followers and leaders and maybe mixtures...), and also imagine that the "memes" floating about encouraging following and leading on behalf of various projects are also perhaps inevitable. Maybe the "work" is to recognize ways to lead and follow that don't dehumanize, don't treat people as mere means to selfish ends, as manipulatable game pieces in stratospheric ego-explosions, etc.

But--while we have varying levels of concern for universal, societal, local, friend and familial events--there is also, as Aunt Shecky pointed out, an undeniable urge (in many of us, at least) for freedom and individuality. Critical Thinking among individuals and a representative and accountable "elite" of responsible/respectful leaders and innovators could maybe keep such a messy and challenging project on a generally successful course.

It's complicated, and in the end, could still be approached with the original urgings to "be all we can be," within such parameters. I'm just saying it doesn't have to all be about overcoming fear and feelings of inferiority. Sustaining individuality amidst shared experience introduces other "limiting" factors.

[coberst]

As a slight aside - if you were reading that sentence out loud, how would you pronounce the first word?

I would not use this "word" while speaking. I would try to find another non sexist way of saying wo/man.

[MarkBastable]

I would not use this "word" while speaking. I would try to find another non sexist way of saying wo/man.

Why not do that on the page?

I ask for a good reason. I was reading it out to my wife, and I didn't know how to pronounce it - so I had to paraphrase you. Which introduces the possibility of misinterpretation.

[The Atheist]

Are you maybe over-analysing this?

I would have thought power structure and ultimately the class system simply evolves from territorial and alpha instincts encoded in our selfish genes.

[coberst]

Are you maybe over-analysing this?

I would have thought power structure and ultimately the class system simply evolves from territorial and alpha instincts encoded in our selfish genes.

Many years ago I asked myself the question "why do humans do the things they do and can we do better?" Along the way I discovered Ernest Becker had written four books after asking him self the same question. I found a great bounty of interesting and insightful analysis of this fundamental question from Becker.

[prendrelemick]

Introducing semitics into the discussion, we English regard "Class" as something entirely different from "Position" You can have a lower class Prime Minister, and an upper class gardener. The measure of superiority is not always success .

[The Atheist]

Introducing semitics into the discussion,...

What class are the Jews then?

[coberst]

Class—a group sharing the same economic or social status.

In this post I am focusing upon a class defined by a hierarchy determined by the degree of power status. Power status is a combination of economic and social considerations. A very rich person might very well have little power while a person with little wealth might have great power.

For example any Christian or any Jew may or may not have a high or low status of power.

Why so witty are Jews and African-Americans? I know!

“What must this people have suffered, that they might become thus beautiful?”—Nietzsche

Wit is about many things but power may be its most important characteristic. I think that Jews and African Americans are successful wits in our society because wit provides them both an escape from the world’s discrimination and because it provides the witty with power that serves as a defense against the strong hate and discrimination that the world showers on Jews and Blacks.

The other day I listened to an interview on NPR with Jerry Seinfeld. The interview took place many years ago before Seinfeld had made his appearance on the “Jerry Seinfeld” show. Jerry said something that surprised and impressed me. Jerry made it clear that he considers wit to be a very powerful force when welded in the hands of the comic.

Wit allows the comic to manipulate the audience into becoming completely in the control of the comic. The successful comic quickly grabs the audience and makes them her captive, which s/he can lead in whatever direction desired.

Freud wrote “Wit and the Unconscious” early in his career. This book is considered to be Freud’s most significant contribution to the theory of wit, which is, by extension, the theory of art.

In this book Freud “affirms the connection between art and the pleasure-principle…he also affirms the connection between art and childishness; however childishness is not a reproach, but the ideal kingdom of pleasure which art knows how to recover…with scant effort…Play on words—the technique of wit—is recovered when thought is allowed to sink into the unconscious…Freud’s analysis of wit invites extension to the whole domain of art.”

Psychoanalysis is about the nature of repression; the essential characteristic of the human psyche.

There is a constant conflict between the conscious and the unconscious. Societies repress the individual and the individual represses the self.

Neurotic behavior, dreams, and various “Freudian slips” provide us with e-mails from the unconscious that elude the conscious repression mechanism. These behavior characteristics are meaningful because they manifest the purpose of the unconscious that remains hidden from consciousness.

The conscious mind strenuously disowns and resists the rumblings of the unconscious. The conscious self disowns and resists its human nature.

Neurosis is the label given to these human phenomena of conflict between the conscious and unconscious self. All of us are neurotic to one degree or another. When this neurosis interferes with ‘normal’ human behavior then, and only then, does it require outside interference by society.

Universal neurosis is the analogy of “original sin” for theological doctrine.

In “Life against Death” Norman Brown develops, with the help of Freudian theory, a theory of art. There are no paradigms in art; the psychoanalytic themes in art offer a perspective in the doctrine of “there is no single meaning to any work of art”.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The only thing I can think of contributing to this very thoughtful discussion is an aphorism I once composed: "In the end true power may lie with him or her who does not seek power as an end in itself."

But that is in the realm of spirituality rather than that of actual, coercive power that most of you are discussing here.

[AuntShecky]

[QUOTE=coberst;751756]
Why so witty are Jews and African-Americans? I know!

“What must this people have suffered, that they might become thus beautiful?”—Nietzsche

Wit is about many things but power may be its most important characteristic. I think that Jews and African Americans are successful wits in our society because wit provides them both an escape from the world’s discrimination and because it provides the witty with power that serves as a defense against the strong hate and discrimination that the world showers on Jews and Blacks.
QUOTE]


Please include the Irish in this group!