Comments on: Class Mobility in the University

By: erik

erik — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Class mobility still implies that class matters. Yet, for as long as class matters, there will always be an underclass and an upperclass. Thus, really, the only alternative would be to get rid of ideas of class altogether, to make a non-class society, or a classless one. Yet, in such a society, we would have to abandon our idea of what is “better”, and abandon our idea of being “better”. The attraction of a pile is that while many people end up at its bottom, there is still the possibility that I might end up on top.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Erik –

You’re absolutely right; the entire concept of ‘class’ necessarily presupposes differentiation, and the classless society seems to me to be an impossible-to-achieve utopia. Your final sentence intrigues me, with its notion of what system we might choose if we could foresee where we might end up in the ‘pile’, and makes me think immediately of John Rawls’ ideas in A Theory of Justice of the “original position” and “veil of ignorance”. Your writing seems to be considerably informed by your position as a Christian; does that make a difference in whether or not you buy what Rawls is saying? (His thought experiment seems informed by a fairly secular worldview, but I don’t know all that much about him.)

By: erik

erik — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Interesting concept. I would disagree with Rawls not on a religious basis but on a thought basis - I find it hard to believe that people would in fact think as abstractly about themselves and their place within society as Rawls “original position” demands. We are fascinated by the very details of belief and values in each other that Rawls wishes to exclude from reasoning about justice. Thus, his thought may describe a “wished-for” situation, but doesn’t seem to me to reflect the way that people think and act.
Any theory of justice has to take into account the fact that the first human impulse is always to grab the biggest amount for myself, then for my immediate family or group, and only much later for people I don’t know so well, never mind everyone else.
The same applies to concepts of class - I would say that people will always actively construct pyramids for as long as they are convinced that there is a way for them personally to reach nearer the top. We want to be better than the Jonses next door. It takes a very strong sense of call it morals or beliefs or values, to change that impulse.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Well, yeah, the “veil” is clearly a theoretical construct. Rawls isn’t attempting to describe or reflect people in the world; he’s attempting to construct a theoretical basis for just action. And, in fact, “the fact that the first human impulse is always to grab the biggest amount for myself” is precisely what the doctrine of the original position takes into account: it’s entirely pragmatic, basing its assumptions that everyone will, in fact, act in their own best interests. In theory.

But some of your objections point to the belief in the chance that one *might* come out on top, which certainly throws a wrench into Rawls’ ideas. Me, I don’t have as much faith in chance, so I don’t play the lottery. Do you?

By: erik

erik — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

I don’t either, mostly because I’ve been raised a good German who needs to earn his way to the top.
I think the answer to a class-based society is one where I value the individual as a human being, irrespective of ability, money earned etc etc. For that to happen, I need to realise that I am in no way different than the next person, even if my talents might be different from hers or his.
As a christian, I see the fact that we are all equal as creations of God, that all I have is a gift from God, including my talents and abilities, and that I can’t be proud of something I am not responsible for. I also see that I need to try to meet the other on his or her terms, not on mine, and that if I wish anything for the other, I need to wish it on his or her terms. So, it is not my place to tell someone that they should go study and become more educated. I can only wish them the best they can imagine for themselves.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

It sounds, Erik, like your views on an ideally egalitarian society share a lot with those Gerry expresses. I’d only change your language slightly, to say “I am in no way different in value than the next person.” But the very existence of difference seems to point us towards valuation. I think maybe I’m just a little more pessimistic than you and Gerry seem to be.