soma

Race, class, and gender

Which of the above most strongly separates people in society and why?

sapiens

Do you have an opinion? Sounds like an assignment for a sociology class.

arf

I would have to say Race by far. The reason would be throughout history there have always been conflicts between nations of a different race, whenever two races met either one would go to war or try to enslave the other. Racism is not as bad (thats is people are more tolerant) now but really only in places where there are a diverse group of people living there and that community has existed for a while, though even then it still exist. Even now some families would frown upon or abosolutely forbid inter-racial marriages. I believe that humans have yet to fully outgrow a natural instinct to fear that which is different, that mix with their situtation in life, upbringing, jealousy and other factors contribute to racism. Also it's not just all racism, most people feel more comfortable with people of their own race. I live in Australia which is a pretty diverse place but their are still places where it is pre-dominanly one or two types of race and lot's of countries have a chinatown or little italy of some sort.

d*d

class : it's always there and there has been class distinctions in every different culture throughout history. I would say that most wars between nations have not been purely on racial ground, religion is a much bigger factor

zen_tom

Class, because that's the one most closely associated with economics.

abraxas

Class. Class is very much related to economics. People never really escape from their social class - and very few people in a society ever interact outside of their class. Race may be a characteristic feature inside a social class; however race does not determine social class.

Master_Shake

I think it's economic class, but it is often presented to be the others.

To explain:

The objective of the upper economic classes is to remain in power and in control of the wealth. They are always threatened by the possibility of the lower classes uniting to overthrow them. To prevent such organization, the upper class seizes upon irrelevant distinctions among the lower classes (race, gender, sexual orientation) and encourages them to fight over it. Unable to organize, the lower classes remain in a position to be exploited.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

roachboy

these variables are tightly intertwined.
to sort the question of requires that you look at specific situations.
you cannot resolve it in the abstract.
sorry.
so pose some situations and maybe analysis can be straightforward.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

kollege_gal2000

I would have to say class.

In today's world, things are trying to be done so that gender and race will have a better way of life (all the equality rights).

However, I feel that the hardest thing to do is change your class. Society will not pass laws that state businesses must employee people from lower classes and make them CEO's of companies.

It is truely a big fight if you want to move up in this world and be considered a part of the so called "upper class".

__________________
I am not afraid of tomorrow; for I have seen yesterday and love today!

Cyphrspwn

Class...because the rich tend to stay rich and the poor tend to stay poor. As a majority (encompassing the whole world) people tend to stay within their class due to unavailible resources (education, training, better paying jobs, better healthcare). So until a satisfying conclusion has been made about the World's main problems, classes WILL exist. Race has been looked past. Gender has been looked past. But I'd like to see the faces of the waspy shits up in Bloomingdale's if a bum walked in to buy a pair of shoes.

Just a thought.

Cyphrspwn

I have to disagree...because you took the question out of context. He said...in society...not history. It's not so much the clash of races...but of religions and cultures. One nation wouldn't understand the other, and so conflict would rise. Racism started when one nation "advanced" faster than the other and became "more civilized". This would lead to a beilief that that nation was far superior, and then in turn, that slavery was OK.

ravenradiodj

IMHO - Race, then gender, then class, followed closely by sexual orientation and religious orientation.

JJRousseau

In Canada, I would say class. There is certainly a lot more distinction and social division in this country between the rich and the poor than between a man and a woman or a black and a white. Globally, I'd pick option "d", religion. If it weren't for the extremist morons of different faiths trying to kill each other and the rest of us off in the name of their God Brand, we could focus more energy on reducing the impact of race, gender and class.

wilbjammin

Race is a function of class. Class divides society the most, and it keeps getting worse as wealth divisions increase.

__________________
Innominate.

zen_tom

Racism is a form of classism, sexism too can be thought of as a form of classism. Classism is basing your acceptance of a person's worth according to the clues provided by their appearance, speech, and deportment. Everyone does it, but it's a matter of taking mental shortcuts.

One reason why I've enjoyed working around the world is that in a foreign country, those subtle class clues that you grow up recognising become impossible to read (because they are so different everywhere you go - especially in a country that doesn't have English as its native language) you effectively become class 'blind'.

It's a refreshing and enjoyable experience.

Zeraph

Class, race, and gender in that order. Class will also probably be the longest lasting one that keeps us seperate (if it can ever go away.)

ravenradiodj

I reject the idea that racism and sexism are identical to classism. Most white bigots would rather be white and poor than black and rich, and I can't imagine a misogynist who'd rather be a woman than a man. To put the shoe on the other foot, I'm sure Andrea Dworkin would rather be a dead woman than a living man. They all have their root source in ignorance and fear, but the distinctions are important, IMHO.

zen_tom

That may be so, but the amount of money you have will never lift you up (and rarely step you down) the class ladder, it just doesn't work that way. The concept of class isn't purely a matter of social standing, it is a way to decide who to identify with. Older class definitions tend to carry with them a stronger polarisation of good/bad traits. But it isn't the level of polarisation that makes the difference.

As you say, the root source is ignorance and fear, but discrimination (of any kind) is the placing of someone into a certain 'class'. Take the word class from the dictionary:

Pronunciation: klås
n. 1. A group of individuals ranked together as possessing common characteristics; as, the different classes of society; the educated class; the lower classes.
2. A number of students in a school or college, of the same standing, or pursuing the same studies.
3. A comprehensive division of animate or inanimate objects, grouped together on account of their common characteristics, in any classification in natural science, and subdivided into orders, families, tribes, genera, etc.
4. A set; a kind or description, species or variety.

People from the same race posses a 'common characteristic', men and women are separated by the 'characteristic' of their sex. If one chooses to use a particular characteristic to form snap (and likely ill-founded) judgements, i.e. one performs an act of classification, then I guess one could be described as classist, and be seen as engaging in classism.

I know it's a question of semantics, but I'd definately say that classism is more generic a term than racism or sexism, it therefore should come first in the list.

asaris

No, I disagree. "Classism", as it's generally used, refers to discrimination on the basis of social class; it's not a more generic term that includes racism and sexism. I mention this not as an exercise in pointless semantics, but because I tend towards the opinion that classism, not racism, is the root of many ills in American society. If we used your definitions, zen_tom, I couldn't say this without self-contradiction.

It might also be worth noting that, while I'm throwing in my two cents and too tired to care anyway, that not all forms of discrimination and classification are bad. My love life, as bad as it is, would certainly be worse if I couldn't classify people into 'women' and 'men'. And if I'm hiring for a job, I'd better be able to discriminate between qualified and non-qualified candidates. The problem with discrimination is when it is unwarranted; for example, if I were to decide that someone couldn't do the job simply because they were black, or female, or the apocryphal black jewish handicapped lesbian.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

wilbjammin

I'll agree with this. My point earlier was not that classism and racism were the same, but that racism almost always has emerged due to issues of resources. The race that has more resources has often used race as the excuse to exploit the race with less resources. In my view, race, as an invention, was made by the ruling class to justify otherwise unjustifiable behavior.

Now, we live in a complicated world where there are more opportunities for all races, so the origins of racism aren't as apparent as they used to be. However, not having knowledge of the legacies that have created racism do not mitigate the factors that have made race a function of class. It just shows that people who are racist and don't have knowledge of where their racist traditions come from are <i>really</i> ignorant and probably very scared and angry.

__________________
Innominate.

zen_tom

Yes you are right asaris. Classism, as it is generally used does refer to discrimination on the basis of social class.

But what then is social class, and how can one determine which social class one belongs to?

zen_tom

Don't racist traditions evolve all the time? If you are a rich Abian, and you live in a neighbourhood with other rich Abians, and over the railway tracks is a run-down neighbourhood of poor Bbians where there is likely more crime etc, aren't people from your neighbourhood more likely to associate Bbians with people of a lower class? That Bbians as a race might have more criminal tendencies?

And in another city somewhere, where there is a rich neighbourhood of Bbians next to a poor neighbourhood of Abians, might the Bbians be more likely to draw similar conclusions?

And if Abians and Bbians live in a poor neighbourhood together, are they likely to hold the same views as the Abians and Bbians in the previous two examples? They might still dislike one another, and if they are, then the roots of that dislike are likely to still be social/economic.

Ruse

Race and Class ( more often than not ) go together hand in hand...

planets

Of all three choices given, it seems that the majority would have to go with the one that is the most difficult to define. heh

The point is, Class has to be the foremost determinant of social stratification, for that is what the people in power would have us believe. Given a voting population, what is the largest partition you can draw, subject to the condition of course, that you wish to piss off as little people as possible? If politicians went for the gender vote, they'd risk about 1/2 of the population (not very sure about the demographics but heck it'll be close to 1/2). If they went for race, that's something that is less obviously discriminating than gender, but that has been the cause of the most bitter wars ever to be waged. It is probably more of a taboo to speak of racial distinction in the context of democracy (which was set up to accord rights to the minority, often racial minority) than that say of homosexuality. So politicians play it down, or wisely do not bring it up. Now consider class distinction. I distinguish 6 seperate levels for ease of argument. Upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle, lower and britneylovers. Very few people believe they are in the lower class. In fact, if one did quote sufficient out-of-context irrelevant facts, one could probably make everyone people believe they are in the middle to upper middle class. Which leaves a vacuum in the lower class. The class that everyone secretly looks down upon, or wishes they were not part of does not in fact exist. However that doesn't matter the least, class distinctions are raised and manipulated by politicians to suit their benefits, thus the point of view held by the majority of the population now: Class distinction is the most polarizing of all distinctions. Where we demarcate the distinction however, is entirely up to us. It could be between people who choose Macs' coffee over some gourmet shit, or Britney over Bach... The point is we can draw the distinction, bear a severe prejudice against the person, and still get away with it for that person might have you as his definitive low class dude.

roachboy

all this might be true, but in the end the relation between variables would be rooted in types of experience..if that is true, the variables would be weighted differently by folk who occupy different class positions, presumably with the degree of importance for class going up as income level and/or sense of stability in social position went down. if you say that class is the underlying variable at all points, and that those who are in a position to not experience class as a regulating variable nonetheless experience class as determinant by its absence, then it seems that you the other variables different in terms of logical order and so short circuit the entire question.

this from someone who is by disposition on this kind of matter still a marxist (in some ways).

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

society: class
jail: race
hooters: gender

zen_tom

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. For example, I used to work with a guy who was evidently 'better' socially placed that I or any of my colleagues. He had been born in area x, his parents belonged to y and z social circles and he'd been a student at the most prestigious schools, colleges and universities in the country. His accent was unbelievable and everything about him spoke of someone used to moving in lofty circles. Anyway, after about a week, he was fired. I asked my boss why, and she answered "Because he was too posh." Apparently his deportment had annoyed so many of my more modestly classed colleagues due to his "Plummy accent" etc and that he'd been fired for being a toff. If you think this is reasonable (they did) Imagine firing someone because they are too black, or too disabled, or too blonde. It's criminal, but continues to happen. My colleagues were so rooted into the idea of the class system that they looked down on someone not of their own class. It doesn't matter whether you are higher or lower on the scale, birds of a feather stick together, and will attack anything they percieve as belonging to a different group. The question of how those groups are defined is a mixture of personal and group dynamics, but is arbitrary. Some things provide more obvious clues (i.e. race and gender) and are more easily understood by people.

flstf

Well, it used to be that only gentlrmen wore ties (dinner bibs) to distinguish themselves from the non-mannered lower classes. Now everyone can afford to wear the damn things so it is harder and harder to tell who has class and who is just riff raff.
All joking aside I think even the wealthier classes separate themselves into new money and old money.

asaris

One of my professors told me that his father had told him that only gentlemen polish the backs of their shoes.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

zen_tom

Exactly, there is less of a belief in a coherent set of universally held ideas and values (was there ever really such a set of universally accepted ideas?) So now, the poorer classes separate themselves along racial or sporting lines, or slip into membership of a street-gang. There are 'real' locals and 'newcomers', or there are Northerners and Southeners. The rich will also separate, whether it's New Money or Old Money, Eton or Harrow, Cambridge or Oxford, London or Paris, Gucci or Armani. It doesn't matter what you do, where you come from or how you think, people will always separate themselves over some arbitrary criteria and judge you according to their own set of pointers.

roachboy

agreed, zen: i hope i did not give the impression that i was offerring anything like a real analysis--the notion that class tends toward a highly level of transparency as you move up the economic chain comes mostly from bourdieu--but within particular communities--like academics, which i know all too well--you see class boundaries being enforced in often quite repellent ways--but i would expect that this enforcement has a particular explanation, to do with the institutional space academics occupy, particularly (it seems from your posts) in britian. all i would say is that the examples you give seem to me quite particular, almost anecdotal. but my post was perhaps too general, so the point is taken.

i was trying to make a different argument in any event--that the direction takenn by the posts immediately before the first one i made was already resolving the problem of how to articulate these variables by shifting class to a different logical level than the others--but it did not seem obvious to the folk i was reacting to that they were doing it. in which case, the problem posed at the outset of this thread dissolves. that was as far as i really meant to go.

interesting responses, however.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

flstf

Wasn't it Woody Allen who said "any club that would have me, I don't want to be a member of"? I guess that's one way to determine if it has class or not.

I guess it is wealth and the perception of class that separates people more than race or gender. A wealthy African and a wealthy American probably have more in common than either one with their poorer countrymen. Although I have heard Europeans complain about rich Americans having no class because of the way they dress and their unsophisticated taste in food, etc... LOL.

joeshoe

Class, as in economic class. I think people care more about money than race. The gender gap, in MY view, seems to be decreasing.

ravenradiodj

fistf, actually, it was a Groucho Marx line that Woody quoted in Annie Hall.

asaris

Well, I think it's important to distinguish between purely economic class and socio-economic class. One's income may be part of one's socio-economic class, but it's hardly the only factor. Social workers, who make roughly the same amount as factory workers, are nevertheless in a different socio-economic class. It has to do, not just with income, but also with the sort of people you're likely to hang out with, what activities you tend to enjoy, etc.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

mused76

class most definitely

livingfossil

Uhgh... If I have to listen to one more lecture on the Trinity, I will be ill.

__________________
Never anything witty.

Suave

Couple of questions:
Which society are we talking about? You'll have to be very specific for any sort of clear answers.

What do you mean by separate? Do you mean which factor causes the most distinctions between social groups and actors, or do you mean which factor causes the most divisions between them? Do you mean something I haven't thought of?