Alright this story starts with this article, entitled "Army of Altruists" by David Graeber, originally published in Harper's, though thankfully some kind blogger has decided to transcribe the thing for us lazy Interneteers. The first half of the article is kinda crap, as the author attempts quite unconvincingly to argue that altruism only appears as a flip side to egoism, and both of these only as a consequent of "the market." I'm not going to bother critiquing it, cuz it's pretty self-evidently crap, and it's not really what I want to talk about.
The interesting part of this article comes towards the end, where he begins to discuss the options available to people in the US if they feel the need to selflessly expend their efforts on altruistic causes. The crux of Graeber's argument is that more and more, volunteering is an exclusively middle-class activity, and that for the poorer working-class their options are restricted to either joining a church, or joining the military. He argues that this is, in part, an explanation for the Republican's strength in the working class, and how a party that represents, in truth, the richest of the rich, can have such a strong appeal amongst those most strongly affected by the inequities of wealth the Republican's are working so hard to extend. So:
Why do working-class Bush voters tend to resent intellectuals more than they do the rich? It seems to me that the answer is simple. They can imagine a scenario in which they might become rich but cannot possibly imagine one in which they, or any of their children, would become members of the intelligentsia. If you think about it, this is not an unreasonable assessment. A mechanic from Nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an Enron executive. But it is possible. There is virtually no chance, however, that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human-rights lawyer or a drama critic for the New York Times. Here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships. It has become a fact of life in the United States that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the salary, for the first year or two one will not be paid. This is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or NGOs, or to become a political activist. But it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like Beauty or Truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter. The custom effectively seals off such a career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education. Such structures of exclusion had always existed, of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.
If that mechanic’s daughter wishes to pursue something higher, more noble, for a career, what options does she really have? Likely just two: She can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get. Or she can join the army.
So essentially the Republicans represent the few remaining avenues for altruism in the working-class: the church, the military, and capitalist success. Whereas the Democrats, with a university system saturated with their own scions, proffer their virtue as the proper aim of any truly beneficent citizen while ignoring the unbalanced conditions that make their altruism possible.
There are flaws in this argument. For one, universities are filled with many Republicans, conservatives, and avowed capitalists. Second, it seemingly ignores the rich history of working-class based social movements that succeeded quite well without a large university involvement (for example, much of the black civil-rights movement, though there was a strong church involvement).
But what I do like about this argument is that it does make a claim for all of us having the urge to do good with our lives, to attain purpose and meaning through devotion to a cause we feel is bigger than ourselves. It is only the opportunities open to us that cause differences in our behaviour, and it is the failure to recognize this that has led to the left's alienation of the working-class, making us appear sanctimonious, rather than compassionate.
On the other hand, isn't this the same as the Republican/Capitalist assertion that the reason the poor/blacks/mexicans/etc aren't making more money and moving up the social ladder is because they simply aren't working hard enough? This claims misses the same structural forces that mean that just "working hard" will never be enough: the institutional racism & sexism, the lack of access to education, the continued entrenchment of the laws and values that made the rich rich in the first place. Why exactly is it that the working-class can still imagine miraculously getting rich, and not moving into the middle-class intelligentsia? Is this just the continued power of the "American Dream?" Or are we just putting words in to the working-classes mouth again, patronizing as always. In fact, dealing with "the working-class" like they were one monolithic entity is pretty damn bullshit and patronizing in the first place. But hell, I've been doing that for the middle-class as well, and sometimes it just useful/interesting/fun to make broad generalizations, isn't it? :)
Alright, well I've swung back and forth on this enough times, and have successfully blown a whole afternoon writing bullshit for the old blog, so I'd better quit before I go nuts.
Thus ends our saturday afternoon blogstravaganza! Hope y'all enjoyed it. Oh yeah, and would it kill you people to post a commment every now and then??? (dano excepted, of course...)
