Henderson makes a compelling argument for why class, culture and family structure determine life trajectory through his own heart-wrenching story. Liberals need to read this.
I love the fact that serious consideration about luxury beliefs is starting to coalesce, Henderson defined and named a phenomenon I've been seeing but hadn't been able to put a label on. I find your text:
The affluent have largely abandoned trickle-down economics in favor of trickle-down culture whereby they pluck talented people from ‘marginalized’ backgrounds based on race and gender to join their ranks, and their harmful beliefs about family, crime, substances, and everything that provides structure to life trickle down to the lower classes.
Just read another interview with RH where he accurately observes that the new definition of equality being implemented is making the 1% perfectly demographically representative of the substrate community rather levelling the field for all.
I've seen a backlash against the concept as well, with people thinking it's overused. I'm not sure that's yet the case. The diversification of the elite is something I've seen happen over the past ten or so years but it's not been a net good. It's actually just meant that the people of color who end up in their ranks bolster their ideology because it's a class project, above all, which is what I'm trying to emphasize in my work overall. I appreciate that the concept of trickle down culture made sense to you. And thanks for reading!
Thank you for somehow taking the thoughts that have confusingly swirled around my head the last few years and put them down clearly on paper.
Many excellent points in this piece. My partner and I noticed the stark lack of class discussion when his employer did an employee satisfaction survey that included a hefty amount of detailed demographic data. The one parameter conspicuously missing was salary range/economic class.
I’ve had this odd relationship with the idea of self victimization the last few years where others have told I’m a victim in some way or another or I’ve questioned whether I’ve been a victim in a given situation. Sometimes we are victims and it’s worth learning to productively stand up for ourselves, not to wait and hope that someone else will fix the problem for us. Sometimes I found we’re not victims at all, but simply not seeing the opportunities in front of us. Like you, I’m an immigrant, and although life in the great America isn’t the dream it was made out to be, I know I am much better off than most other places in the world or in the past.
I’ve decided to stop listening to what others tell me about myself and listen to my own experience.
I'm very glad you could synthesize some thoughts; all I have swirling in my head these days are the connections between all these things. Ironically, even though I believe in collective action, it was seeing myself as an individual with motivations and control of my life that led me to make changes to stop self-victimizing. I definitely got social clout from white people in the woke decade for self-victimizing, and I shouldn't have done it. And the point of that is if someone can accrue social advantage by playing up their victimhood, many will (and I see this a lot), because it's almost impossible to refute them and the left has made the victim sacred, above reproach. I've realized also like you that may past situations were not victimizing me and it was a question of how I saw the situation. Other times, it's hard to tell if I indeed am being victimized legitimately and prevent overcorrection.
Having also participated extensively in the DEI industrial complex, I can confirm that no one cares about class in the least, even though it involves a tremendous amount of code switching to live among the PMC (at least for me).
“…even though it involves a tremendous amount of code switching to live among the PMC (at least for me).”
Yup. I’ve noticed that while I certainly have external battles with people and the way they see me, my biggest battles are within myself, having to select which voices to amplify and figuring out how to get comfortable in a new role when I haven’t had a guidebook.
“I worked hard, transcending an unstable family environment and working class background (though nowhere near like Henderson’s) to climb economically only to find my peers (again, especially women) adhering to illogical, contradictory and intellectually bankrupt ideas. It would be one thing if they believed them and left everyone else alone. Still, like many religious groups, they want to ensure others come to believe them as accurate, especially the uneducated hoi polloi, because that confers the ultimate status on the elite as the saviors of the marginalized.” I love the last sentence of this.
"I started thinking of myself as South Asian when I got to college instead of Indian American because I knew on some level that was the more politically correct way to think of myself. But now I realize how ridiculous the label is because immigrants from East or South Asia would never describe themselves that way. "
In the UK, South Asians are simply referred to as Asian. Americans find that odd since "Asian" here means East Asian. Americans don't think of Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, Sri Lankans as "Asian" at all.
South Asia is a geographical (and geo-political) location and I think the trend in referring to Desis from various South Asian countries as "South Asians" evolved from the use of South Asia in this regard. I don't think there was any malicious intent. I mean, "Desi" itself is an umbrella term for Indians, Pakistanis, etc, so I don't see what the problem is with "South Asian".
Interesting. You are quite correct in that in UK speak folks of Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi heritage etc are referred to as ' Asians '. But by whom and in what environs ? I wonder when they are in their home setting what label families who originally migrated from Kashmir - Pakistan for example, attribute to their selves ? I dunno, Pakistani, Kashmiri, British, a hyphenated collaboration of two of or of three of the aforementioned ? For myself, the labeling of folks as being Asian is a pretty non descriptive term as it can both refer to a rural native of the undeveloped Andaman Islands and also a native of the urban metropolis of Tokyo thousands of miles away and I don't see a commonality between the two other than what they aren't - white skinned Caucasians . The term Asian gives me so little information that it seems overly reductive. This highlights how we present ourselves and indeed how we label others depending upon the setting and with whom we are engaging with, which obviously entails engrained singling. But, I often I think that it'd be interesting to know how folks label themselves privately. Or, to delve a little deeper, do we actually each obsessively attached a geographical location to ourselves over and above our gender, sexual orientation, class, marital status, profession , religion, political ideology, or preferred sports team/ vacuous celebrity idolised on social media platforms ?
We've taken the labels from the Census and put them on steroids, and the British/colonial powers in general conducted censuses that constructed identities for people who didn't think of themselves as Hindu, Muslim, etc. I won't totally blame the british, but people having to check a box often reinforces something that's meaningless (Hindu is also a meaningless category). I read a book The Loneliest Americans by Jay Caspian Kang who explores this phenomenon well. Ultimately, diasporic communities see themselves in terms of country and culture/religion, like Hindu Indians in my experience. We don't describe ourselves as South Asian unless we're talking to white people. I was the president of the South Asian American Student Association in college, and that was really a forced sort of integration; none of the other country specific student groups wanted to participate, and the "inclusion" was forced.
They do refer to themselves as Asians as well as more specifics like Punjabi, Bangladeshi, etc. Just like in USA how Koreans, Chinese, etc do. Ever since the exposure of the Rotherham "Asian grooming gangs" however, there seems to have been a bit of a pushback by certain types of British Asians not to be put in same category with other certain types of Asians.
"But no one wants to talk about the only privilege that matters, which is that of class. But to admit that social class matters the most would mean the entire ideological edifice of identity leftism would come tumbling down. It is the one thing no one will ever admit. This is why we can’t have nice things like a functional social safety net."
-- Close but no cigar. The reason class cannot be discussed in the USA is because "COMMUNISM!!!". Conservative Capitalists have never allowed the discussion and they never will. Try bringing it up and get labled a "commie" or "socialist". Same thing in their eyes.
"I saw this when I taught with working-class, mostly Dominican-American kids at a middle school in Providence. The boys struggled, refused to do homework despite my appeals, and saw school as an impediment to their freedom... School does not provide anything resembling structure for boys, nor does it allow them an outlet to get out their natural aggression brought on by hormonal changes. Most teachers being women means that boys without father figures have only women telling them to do things at school and home. These changes lead to acting out and violence, and we’ve been unable to deal with it. We try to force boys to sit quietly and do work while doing nothing to deal with their naturally destructive, restless energy."
-- The "contemporary schooling is not conducive to boyhood" narrative is difficult to get on board with considering that Asian (including South Asian/Desi), Jewish and and so many other boys don't seem to have a problem in school, now do they?
Anyway, the legal age of work for teens is going to be lowered so that "these kind of" boys can be put to work for Capitalism soon. I guess that's one solution.
It is a problem of culture and socioeconomic class. Asian/South Asian boys are certainly more compliant in school, partially bc of home environment and partially bc they come from wealthy families in which an internal locus of control is emphasized. Such a thing is hard to do for americans from working class backgrounds, but we're also not allowed to talk about how culture contributes to these things.
You should also explore the systemic discrimination against boys that's endemic in schools. Women are noted to have an in-group bias, and the changes made in education policies in the 70s have caused a marked decline in the school/college performance of boys since that time.
It’s funny you say that, and yes I have noticed. Richard Reeves’s Of Boys and Men makes this point, but there are also badly constructed studies out there that claim to show that girls are discriminated against in school. Part of this may have a kernel of truth because of how boys are assumed to be good at math and easily are seen as “geniuses” who are naturally bright compared to girls. That said, the one year I taught at a low income school I saw that boys were constantly disciplined for being boys,
So then what type of education methods might work with american boys from working class backgrounds? Separate schools for different socio-economic classes of students?
No, class integration of schools. Poor kids and rich kids learning together, without the fear that the poor kids would hold the rich kids back. I benefitted greatly from going to school with rich kids and raised my expectations of myself without anyone telling me.
Disagree; US school systems are demonstrably largely segregated by class and byb race as a result of class disparity. They talk a lot about racial segregation in schools, but it's a function of income.
I love the fact that serious consideration about luxury beliefs is starting to coalesce, Henderson defined and named a phenomenon I've been seeing but hadn't been able to put a label on. I find your text:
The affluent have largely abandoned trickle-down economics in favor of trickle-down culture whereby they pluck talented people from ‘marginalized’ backgrounds based on race and gender to join their ranks, and their harmful beliefs about family, crime, substances, and everything that provides structure to life trickle down to the lower classes.
Just read another interview with RH where he accurately observes that the new definition of equality being implemented is making the 1% perfectly demographically representative of the substrate community rather levelling the field for all.
I've seen a backlash against the concept as well, with people thinking it's overused. I'm not sure that's yet the case. The diversification of the elite is something I've seen happen over the past ten or so years but it's not been a net good. It's actually just meant that the people of color who end up in their ranks bolster their ideology because it's a class project, above all, which is what I'm trying to emphasize in my work overall. I appreciate that the concept of trickle down culture made sense to you. And thanks for reading!
Thank you for somehow taking the thoughts that have confusingly swirled around my head the last few years and put them down clearly on paper.
Many excellent points in this piece. My partner and I noticed the stark lack of class discussion when his employer did an employee satisfaction survey that included a hefty amount of detailed demographic data. The one parameter conspicuously missing was salary range/economic class.
I’ve had this odd relationship with the idea of self victimization the last few years where others have told I’m a victim in some way or another or I’ve questioned whether I’ve been a victim in a given situation. Sometimes we are victims and it’s worth learning to productively stand up for ourselves, not to wait and hope that someone else will fix the problem for us. Sometimes I found we’re not victims at all, but simply not seeing the opportunities in front of us. Like you, I’m an immigrant, and although life in the great America isn’t the dream it was made out to be, I know I am much better off than most other places in the world or in the past.
I’ve decided to stop listening to what others tell me about myself and listen to my own experience.
I'm very glad you could synthesize some thoughts; all I have swirling in my head these days are the connections between all these things. Ironically, even though I believe in collective action, it was seeing myself as an individual with motivations and control of my life that led me to make changes to stop self-victimizing. I definitely got social clout from white people in the woke decade for self-victimizing, and I shouldn't have done it. And the point of that is if someone can accrue social advantage by playing up their victimhood, many will (and I see this a lot), because it's almost impossible to refute them and the left has made the victim sacred, above reproach. I've realized also like you that may past situations were not victimizing me and it was a question of how I saw the situation. Other times, it's hard to tell if I indeed am being victimized legitimately and prevent overcorrection.
Having also participated extensively in the DEI industrial complex, I can confirm that no one cares about class in the least, even though it involves a tremendous amount of code switching to live among the PMC (at least for me).
“…even though it involves a tremendous amount of code switching to live among the PMC (at least for me).”
Yup. I’ve noticed that while I certainly have external battles with people and the way they see me, my biggest battles are within myself, having to select which voices to amplify and figuring out how to get comfortable in a new role when I haven’t had a guidebook.
“Women should especially read this book.” Yes. It would help their understanding of men.
I fear women don't like reading stuff like this; in fact, I suspect there's a gender divide in terms of fiction/nonfiction consumption.
“I worked hard, transcending an unstable family environment and working class background (though nowhere near like Henderson’s) to climb economically only to find my peers (again, especially women) adhering to illogical, contradictory and intellectually bankrupt ideas. It would be one thing if they believed them and left everyone else alone. Still, like many religious groups, they want to ensure others come to believe them as accurate, especially the uneducated hoi polloi, because that confers the ultimate status on the elite as the saviors of the marginalized.” I love the last sentence of this.
This is a very refreshing viewpoint, especially your views on men and women. Thank you.
I, too, enjoy your writing very much; thanks for reading! Curious if you have views on these dynamics as well.
"I started thinking of myself as South Asian when I got to college instead of Indian American because I knew on some level that was the more politically correct way to think of myself. But now I realize how ridiculous the label is because immigrants from East or South Asia would never describe themselves that way. "
In the UK, South Asians are simply referred to as Asian. Americans find that odd since "Asian" here means East Asian. Americans don't think of Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, Sri Lankans as "Asian" at all.
South Asia is a geographical (and geo-political) location and I think the trend in referring to Desis from various South Asian countries as "South Asians" evolved from the use of South Asia in this regard. I don't think there was any malicious intent. I mean, "Desi" itself is an umbrella term for Indians, Pakistanis, etc, so I don't see what the problem is with "South Asian".
Interesting. You are quite correct in that in UK speak folks of Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi heritage etc are referred to as ' Asians '. But by whom and in what environs ? I wonder when they are in their home setting what label families who originally migrated from Kashmir - Pakistan for example, attribute to their selves ? I dunno, Pakistani, Kashmiri, British, a hyphenated collaboration of two of or of three of the aforementioned ? For myself, the labeling of folks as being Asian is a pretty non descriptive term as it can both refer to a rural native of the undeveloped Andaman Islands and also a native of the urban metropolis of Tokyo thousands of miles away and I don't see a commonality between the two other than what they aren't - white skinned Caucasians . The term Asian gives me so little information that it seems overly reductive. This highlights how we present ourselves and indeed how we label others depending upon the setting and with whom we are engaging with, which obviously entails engrained singling. But, I often I think that it'd be interesting to know how folks label themselves privately. Or, to delve a little deeper, do we actually each obsessively attached a geographical location to ourselves over and above our gender, sexual orientation, class, marital status, profession , religion, political ideology, or preferred sports team/ vacuous celebrity idolised on social media platforms ?
We've taken the labels from the Census and put them on steroids, and the British/colonial powers in general conducted censuses that constructed identities for people who didn't think of themselves as Hindu, Muslim, etc. I won't totally blame the british, but people having to check a box often reinforces something that's meaningless (Hindu is also a meaningless category). I read a book The Loneliest Americans by Jay Caspian Kang who explores this phenomenon well. Ultimately, diasporic communities see themselves in terms of country and culture/religion, like Hindu Indians in my experience. We don't describe ourselves as South Asian unless we're talking to white people. I was the president of the South Asian American Student Association in college, and that was really a forced sort of integration; none of the other country specific student groups wanted to participate, and the "inclusion" was forced.
They do refer to themselves as Asians as well as more specifics like Punjabi, Bangladeshi, etc. Just like in USA how Koreans, Chinese, etc do. Ever since the exposure of the Rotherham "Asian grooming gangs" however, there seems to have been a bit of a pushback by certain types of British Asians not to be put in same category with other certain types of Asians.
"But no one wants to talk about the only privilege that matters, which is that of class. But to admit that social class matters the most would mean the entire ideological edifice of identity leftism would come tumbling down. It is the one thing no one will ever admit. This is why we can’t have nice things like a functional social safety net."
-- Close but no cigar. The reason class cannot be discussed in the USA is because "COMMUNISM!!!". Conservative Capitalists have never allowed the discussion and they never will. Try bringing it up and get labled a "commie" or "socialist". Same thing in their eyes.
"I saw this when I taught with working-class, mostly Dominican-American kids at a middle school in Providence. The boys struggled, refused to do homework despite my appeals, and saw school as an impediment to their freedom... School does not provide anything resembling structure for boys, nor does it allow them an outlet to get out their natural aggression brought on by hormonal changes. Most teachers being women means that boys without father figures have only women telling them to do things at school and home. These changes lead to acting out and violence, and we’ve been unable to deal with it. We try to force boys to sit quietly and do work while doing nothing to deal with their naturally destructive, restless energy."
-- The "contemporary schooling is not conducive to boyhood" narrative is difficult to get on board with considering that Asian (including South Asian/Desi), Jewish and and so many other boys don't seem to have a problem in school, now do they?
Anyway, the legal age of work for teens is going to be lowered so that "these kind of" boys can be put to work for Capitalism soon. I guess that's one solution.
It is a problem of culture and socioeconomic class. Asian/South Asian boys are certainly more compliant in school, partially bc of home environment and partially bc they come from wealthy families in which an internal locus of control is emphasized. Such a thing is hard to do for americans from working class backgrounds, but we're also not allowed to talk about how culture contributes to these things.
You should also explore the systemic discrimination against boys that's endemic in schools. Women are noted to have an in-group bias, and the changes made in education policies in the 70s have caused a marked decline in the school/college performance of boys since that time.
It’s funny you say that, and yes I have noticed. Richard Reeves’s Of Boys and Men makes this point, but there are also badly constructed studies out there that claim to show that girls are discriminated against in school. Part of this may have a kernel of truth because of how boys are assumed to be good at math and easily are seen as “geniuses” who are naturally bright compared to girls. That said, the one year I taught at a low income school I saw that boys were constantly disciplined for being boys,
So then what type of education methods might work with american boys from working class backgrounds? Separate schools for different socio-economic classes of students?
No, class integration of schools. Poor kids and rich kids learning together, without the fear that the poor kids would hold the rich kids back. I benefitted greatly from going to school with rich kids and raised my expectations of myself without anyone telling me.
American public schools already have that.
Disagree; US school systems are demonstrably largely segregated by class and byb race as a result of class disparity. They talk a lot about racial segregation in schools, but it's a function of income.