"I'll confine myself no finer than I am"
Nov. 4th, 2013 02:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jsburbidgeI realized, as I was reading a report regarding Rob Ford's behaviour on St. Patrick's Day, one partial reason for his continuing popularity regardless of -- to some degree because of -- the ongoing scandals. Ford is a modern incarnation of a Lord of Misrule. In mediaeval and classical society, the Lord of Misrule (or equivalent figures) was in charge of having "the world turned upside down" (a later phrasing but relevant) for a few days a year, typically around Christmas. The Reformation did away with the custom. Most of us will have encountered the type mainly in literary figures who embody the type, notably Sir John Falstaff and Sir Toby Belch.
Ford's appeal is classically populist, and that particular kind of populism which generates much of its power from an unfocussed attack on "the elites". It's a class-based dynamic which avoids any clear definition of class. (Ford, by any normal economic standard, is upper class. Socially, he fits somewhere between the pretender to class with money -- the Bradford millionaire of T.S. Eliot's phrasing -- and a spendthrift / irresponsible child of an upper class father, the classic type for whom restrictive trusts in wills were designed. But by the criteria sketched below he is firmly non-elite.)
Part of the confusion is that "elite" does not actually translate as "upper-class". It overlaps with it -- many old money families reflect "elite" values and many new money families had elite values before acquiring their money. Many, if not most, members of the "elite" are solidly upper-middle or professional class. But the term "elite" continues to be applied because in mahy ways it is still the social markers rather than the economic ones which determine class membership.
Elite behaviours are easy to identify by looking at stereotypes.
- They tend to be well-educated. In fact, these include (but are not completely restricted to), the "knowledge workers" of the current economic system. The core grows out of the old learned professions -- clergy, doctors, lawyers, professors[1]. It includes scientists, software developers, prominent artistic figures, urban planners, engineers, economists. These are the working people who, as a whole, have been those who have benefited from the social and economic changes of the last couple of generations. (I specify "working people" because the leisure classes at the very top -- the 1% -- have benefited more, but that's another story.)
- They are the people who support the symphony, the opera, Tafelmusik, drama (especially drama which is either classical or experimental), ballet, and the art galleries
- They drink (if they drink alcoholic drinks) and are knowledgeable about wine, scotch, and craft beers. If they drink to excess they are well-bred about it -- "functioning alcoholics" rather than "drunks".
- Their parties are dinner parties (or in some circles cocktail parties) where everyone behaves decorously. A few generations ago, they would have had servants; these days, they may be among the sets of people who spend a fair amount of effort cooking for themselves, and in particular make up many of the supporters of movements like the locavores. You see them out at farmers' markets. They do not eat industrial fast food, but may champion more and better street food of a multi-ethnic derivation.
- Their sports are typically participatory and not team sports: golf, squash, tennis, hiking, skiing (frequently Nordic skiing), sailing. It used to include shooting and certain sorts of hunting, but that is less likely today; many members are likely to be supportive of anti-hunting policies, and support environmentalist concerns.
- They tend to walk or take transit if possible, especially those who are particularly environmentally conscious.
- They may be urban, small-town urban (the core of professionals in a county seat), or rural[2], but they are rarely, by choice, suburban.
- They read beyond bestsellers and the news. They are the main audiences for most literary writing and for much of the nonfiction which is neither sensationalist nor vocationally oriented.
- They are divided between political groupings. They have significant presences in all the mainstream political parties. Many would traditionally view themselves as apolitical (but be effectively small-c conservative). Many would, instead, explicitly see themselves as progressives. Elites who are actually in politics may have more in common with the other elites across the floor of the house than with non-elite members of their own parties, and tend to maintain cross-party lines of communication.
- They may not dress formally much of the time these days, but can do so without looking self-conscious or uncomfortable.
- Many are agnostic or atheists, and most of the rest tend to be Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, or liberal protestant. It's acceptable to be a Quaker. Reforrm/Reconstructionist Judaism (and swathes of Conservative Judaism) is at home here, and non-European faiths are accepted as long as they take an eirenic form. Religious beliefs which require the rejection of modern science tend to be frowned upon.
Now, these are all _stereotypes_. It's easy to go through the list and pick it apart. Lots of elites back their local hockey or football teams, grab burgers at Harveys, attend rock concerts, drink rye[3], or actually live in the suburbs for practical/financial reasons.
But these traits still reflect how the "non-elite" voters view them.
Ford's supporters are not just non-elite, they tend to be anti-elite. There has always been a tone of resentment against anyone perceived as being on top of society: that was the whole driving force for which the institution of the Lord of Misrule provided an outlet. (The misrule pattern then was a reaction not against bourgeois manners but against courtly ones. Since bourgeois manners have their origins in an aping of courtly manners fused with an extra pinch of moralism, there's some continuity here.) This has been intensified by the trends over the last fifty years or so, accelerating in the last twenty, in which they have tended to lose out -- there are fewer less-educated jobs and those remaining tend to be less secure and pay less well; the price of gasoline and motor vehicle ownership have risen (one reason why Ford and his supporters were so focussed on the Vehicle Registration Tax); the cost of urban home ownership has risen; values have shifted uncomfortably under their feet.
Most of Ford's supporters, no doubt, disapprove in the abstract of the things Ford has done: taken illegal drugs, appeared drunk in public, consorted with (sometimes violent) criminals, and allowed his private activities (whether drinking or coaching football) to interfere with the work he was elected to do. But there's also an undertow of seeing such actions as a finger held up to the elites, a Falstaffian rejection of the behavioral norms of the people who run the society.
(A real Lord of Misrule in real authority would be far more destructive than Ford, of course, partly because he would have a less high-minded view of himself and partly because he'd be brighter. Imagine Falstaff at the helm of Toronto: in addition to wild and drunken behaviour, wenching, and inappropriate language, he'd be looting the till and stacking the deck for himself and his associates, playing elaborate jokes on his opponents, and rejecting all semblance of law and order ("Let us take any man's horses; the laws of England are at my commandment. Blessed are they that have been my friends; and woe to my lord chief-justice!")).
So, although it sounds counter-intuitive, part of Ford's appeal is enhanced by this sort of news, as long as (to the people reacting to it) the consequences are secondary and distant. They believe Ford's own rhetoric regarding his achievements (never mind the exaggerations in his claims of savings, or the fact that his subway "win" was really Karen Stintz's, or that his failures have at least as much to do with Ford's unwillingness and/or inability to build a coalition as with any attack by the elites/the left on him). They no longer have to pay the VRT, they don't are about crowding on transit, and to the degree that they've been affected by a rise in user fees or a decline in services they associate that with inefficiencies or with the civic administration rather than Ford's own policies.
[1] There's a recognized phenomenon whereby the academic world is theoretically open to anyone with relevant intellectual skills and who can do good research, but in fact tends to require that its members, if coming from a non-upper-middle-class background, adopt the manners of the academic classes.
[2]Not so much, any more, gentlemen farmers who were "not quite gentlemen and not much of a farmer", but they may be consultants who can work at home much of the time and go into the cities only occasionally.
[3]Hugh Kenner, who counted as elite if anyone did (within academia), drank vodka by preference.
Ford's appeal is classically populist, and that particular kind of populism which generates much of its power from an unfocussed attack on "the elites". It's a class-based dynamic which avoids any clear definition of class. (Ford, by any normal economic standard, is upper class. Socially, he fits somewhere between the pretender to class with money -- the Bradford millionaire of T.S. Eliot's phrasing -- and a spendthrift / irresponsible child of an upper class father, the classic type for whom restrictive trusts in wills were designed. But by the criteria sketched below he is firmly non-elite.)
Part of the confusion is that "elite" does not actually translate as "upper-class". It overlaps with it -- many old money families reflect "elite" values and many new money families had elite values before acquiring their money. Many, if not most, members of the "elite" are solidly upper-middle or professional class. But the term "elite" continues to be applied because in mahy ways it is still the social markers rather than the economic ones which determine class membership.
Elite behaviours are easy to identify by looking at stereotypes.
- They tend to be well-educated. In fact, these include (but are not completely restricted to), the "knowledge workers" of the current economic system. The core grows out of the old learned professions -- clergy, doctors, lawyers, professors[1]. It includes scientists, software developers, prominent artistic figures, urban planners, engineers, economists. These are the working people who, as a whole, have been those who have benefited from the social and economic changes of the last couple of generations. (I specify "working people" because the leisure classes at the very top -- the 1% -- have benefited more, but that's another story.)
- They are the people who support the symphony, the opera, Tafelmusik, drama (especially drama which is either classical or experimental), ballet, and the art galleries
- They drink (if they drink alcoholic drinks) and are knowledgeable about wine, scotch, and craft beers. If they drink to excess they are well-bred about it -- "functioning alcoholics" rather than "drunks".
- Their parties are dinner parties (or in some circles cocktail parties) where everyone behaves decorously. A few generations ago, they would have had servants; these days, they may be among the sets of people who spend a fair amount of effort cooking for themselves, and in particular make up many of the supporters of movements like the locavores. You see them out at farmers' markets. They do not eat industrial fast food, but may champion more and better street food of a multi-ethnic derivation.
- Their sports are typically participatory and not team sports: golf, squash, tennis, hiking, skiing (frequently Nordic skiing), sailing. It used to include shooting and certain sorts of hunting, but that is less likely today; many members are likely to be supportive of anti-hunting policies, and support environmentalist concerns.
- They tend to walk or take transit if possible, especially those who are particularly environmentally conscious.
- They may be urban, small-town urban (the core of professionals in a county seat), or rural[2], but they are rarely, by choice, suburban.
- They read beyond bestsellers and the news. They are the main audiences for most literary writing and for much of the nonfiction which is neither sensationalist nor vocationally oriented.
- They are divided between political groupings. They have significant presences in all the mainstream political parties. Many would traditionally view themselves as apolitical (but be effectively small-c conservative). Many would, instead, explicitly see themselves as progressives. Elites who are actually in politics may have more in common with the other elites across the floor of the house than with non-elite members of their own parties, and tend to maintain cross-party lines of communication.
- They may not dress formally much of the time these days, but can do so without looking self-conscious or uncomfortable.
- Many are agnostic or atheists, and most of the rest tend to be Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, or liberal protestant. It's acceptable to be a Quaker. Reforrm/Reconstructionist Judaism (and swathes of Conservative Judaism) is at home here, and non-European faiths are accepted as long as they take an eirenic form. Religious beliefs which require the rejection of modern science tend to be frowned upon.
Now, these are all _stereotypes_. It's easy to go through the list and pick it apart. Lots of elites back their local hockey or football teams, grab burgers at Harveys, attend rock concerts, drink rye[3], or actually live in the suburbs for practical/financial reasons.
But these traits still reflect how the "non-elite" voters view them.
Ford's supporters are not just non-elite, they tend to be anti-elite. There has always been a tone of resentment against anyone perceived as being on top of society: that was the whole driving force for which the institution of the Lord of Misrule provided an outlet. (The misrule pattern then was a reaction not against bourgeois manners but against courtly ones. Since bourgeois manners have their origins in an aping of courtly manners fused with an extra pinch of moralism, there's some continuity here.) This has been intensified by the trends over the last fifty years or so, accelerating in the last twenty, in which they have tended to lose out -- there are fewer less-educated jobs and those remaining tend to be less secure and pay less well; the price of gasoline and motor vehicle ownership have risen (one reason why Ford and his supporters were so focussed on the Vehicle Registration Tax); the cost of urban home ownership has risen; values have shifted uncomfortably under their feet.
Most of Ford's supporters, no doubt, disapprove in the abstract of the things Ford has done: taken illegal drugs, appeared drunk in public, consorted with (sometimes violent) criminals, and allowed his private activities (whether drinking or coaching football) to interfere with the work he was elected to do. But there's also an undertow of seeing such actions as a finger held up to the elites, a Falstaffian rejection of the behavioral norms of the people who run the society.
(A real Lord of Misrule in real authority would be far more destructive than Ford, of course, partly because he would have a less high-minded view of himself and partly because he'd be brighter. Imagine Falstaff at the helm of Toronto: in addition to wild and drunken behaviour, wenching, and inappropriate language, he'd be looting the till and stacking the deck for himself and his associates, playing elaborate jokes on his opponents, and rejecting all semblance of law and order ("Let us take any man's horses; the laws of England are at my commandment. Blessed are they that have been my friends; and woe to my lord chief-justice!")).
So, although it sounds counter-intuitive, part of Ford's appeal is enhanced by this sort of news, as long as (to the people reacting to it) the consequences are secondary and distant. They believe Ford's own rhetoric regarding his achievements (never mind the exaggerations in his claims of savings, or the fact that his subway "win" was really Karen Stintz's, or that his failures have at least as much to do with Ford's unwillingness and/or inability to build a coalition as with any attack by the elites/the left on him). They no longer have to pay the VRT, they don't are about crowding on transit, and to the degree that they've been affected by a rise in user fees or a decline in services they associate that with inefficiencies or with the civic administration rather than Ford's own policies.
[1] There's a recognized phenomenon whereby the academic world is theoretically open to anyone with relevant intellectual skills and who can do good research, but in fact tends to require that its members, if coming from a non-upper-middle-class background, adopt the manners of the academic classes.
[2]Not so much, any more, gentlemen farmers who were "not quite gentlemen and not much of a farmer", but they may be consultants who can work at home much of the time and go into the cities only occasionally.
[3]Hugh Kenner, who counted as elite if anyone did (within academia), drank vodka by preference.
