Is there such thing as a "White American Overclass"?

[msmith537]

In several other threads related to class or economics, Brain Glutton has posted the following excerpt from [The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind](The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind):

Understanding the white overclass requires revising the most common misconceptions about class. The discussion of social class has been confused for generations by Marxist thinkers, who made the mistake of completely identifying class with economic function. Like the Marxists, old-fashioned American liberal pluralists tend to misunderstand class. What they refer to as class is typically not a social class at all, but a mere occupational or income category, such as service-sector workers or millionaires. Meanwhile, the New Left which came to prominence in the sixties has tended to drop the idea of class altogether, in favor of race and gender. . . . In recent years, conservative ideologues have added further confusion by defining political factions and lifestyle subcultures as classes. . . .

In order to think about class in twenty-first century America, we must first clear our minds of these Marxist, liberal, New Left, and conservative definitions of class, and return to the older notion of class found in classical and European political thought from Aristotle to Montesquieu.

A class is a group of families, united by intermarriage and a common subculture, whose members tend to predominate in certain professions and political offices, generation after generation. Note that the class – the group of similar families – has an existence independent of the offices which its members tend to hold. Indeed, we cannot talk intelligently about class unless we make a distinction between a social class and a mere institutional elite. Those who talk about “the political class” or, with C. Wright Mills, about “the power elite,” are confusing two very different things. Every modern society, even the most perfectly egalitarian, will have an institutional elite – top civilian politicians, military officers, judges, diplomats, financial and industrial executives, publishers, editors and leading intellectuals, clerical leaders, and so on. The subject of class is raised only when you examine the social origins of the particular individuals who hold office in the institutional elite or elites. Learning the organization of judicial offices in a country tells you nothing about class. However, if you find out that most of the judges tend to come from old-money families in a particular region of that country, and that most attended one of half a dozen schools, then you have learned something important about that country’s class system.

The United States at the end of the twentieth century has both an institutional elite and a dominant social class. The institutional elite is composed of upper-level officials in the federal and state governments, plus executives and professionals in the concentrated private sector and foundation and university executives (low-level government officials and small business owners are not part of the institutional elite). Almost all of the members of the American institutional elite also happen to be members of a single social class: the white overclass. To put it another way, the labor pool from which most elite positions are filled is the white overclass. The overlap is not complete. Though most members of the institutional elite belong to the white overclass, most members of the white overclass are not part of the institutional elite (since the overclass greatly outnumbers the elite); and – though this is uncommon – a person can become a high-ranking politician, military officer, judge, CEO, foundation president, or university president in the United States without having been born into the white overclass. It is possible to imagine a United States in which most members of the institutional elite did not have similar class origins. But that is not the country in which we live.

. . . The white overclass is the child of the former Northeastern Protestant establishment, produced by marriage (not only figurative but literal) with the upwardly mobile descendants of turn-of-the-century European immigrants and white Southerners and Westerners. Unlike the Northeastern establishment . . . this relatively new and still evolving political and social oligarchy is not identified with any particular region of the country (though it is concentrated in East and West Coast metropolitan regions). Nor does the white overclass dominate other sections through local, surrogate establishments, as the Northeastern establishment once did. Rather, overclass Americans are found in the higher suburbs of every major metropolitan area, North and South, coastal and inland. Unlike the sectional elites of the past, members of the white overclass are not even identified with the regions in which they happen (temporarily) to live. The white overclass, homogeneous and nomadic, is the first truly national upper class in American history.

The white overclass is the product, not merely of the amalgamation of Anglo- and Euro-Americans, but of the fusion of the rentier and managerial-professional classes. This blurring of the upper and upper-middle strata is a relatively new development in the United States. In earlier generations, there were distinct landowning and rentier classes, with their own lifestyles and institutions – cotillions, seasons spent in the country, and the like. The elaborate rituals that governed upper-class life, such as dressing for dinner, were designed to conspicuously display wealth, including a wealth of leisure time. That was a long time ago. There is a class, or rather a category, of the celebrity rich, and there are still pockets of old-fashioned rentiers in the U.S. – in Virginia, there are still planters who do not work and who hunt foxes with hounds – but these subcultures are detached from the summits of power. Members of the upper class who want to make a mark in the world tend to adopt the style of life and dress and speech of the managerial-professional elite. Even though they do not have to, most members of the small hereditary upper class go to college and get executive or professional jobs, and work, or at least pretend to. Instead of serving as a model for well-to-do executives and lawyers and investment bankers, the hereditary segment of the American overclass conforms to the segment immediately below it, the credentialed upper middle class.

. . . The composition of student bodies at Ivy League schools is a good surrogate for the composition of the white overclass. If you factor out black and Hispanic students admitted under affirmative action programs, you are left with a student body that is disproportionately of British or German-Scandinavian Protestant and European Jewish descent. There are relatively few evangelical Protestants and Catholics in the overclass, despite their significant numbers in the general population. If you are Episcopalian or Jewish, have a graduate or professional degree from an expensive university, work in a large downtown office building in an East or West Coast metropolis, watch MacNeil/Lehrer on PBS, and are saving for a vacation in London or Paris, you are a card-carrying member of the white overclass, even if your salary is not very impressive. If you are Methodist, Baptist or Catholic, have a B.A. from a state university, work in or for a small business or for a career government service, watch the Nashville Network on cable, and are saving for a vacation in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Branson, Missouri, or Orlando, Florida (Disneyworld), you are probably not a member of the white overclass – no matter how much money you make.

Although there are residual religious and ethnic differences among members of the white overclass, these are minor compared to what they have in common. There is, for example, a common white overclass accent, which is more or less identical in corporate boardrooms from one end of the continent to another – the “NBC standard,” which is the equivalent of BBC English or Britain’s Received Pronunciation (RP). As formerly distinct local elites have fused into a single national ruling class equally at home in New York and Texas and California, this accent has become the badge of elite status. In order to advance in overclass circles in America, a white American has to suppress any regional or ethnic dialect, whether it be a Southern drawl or a Boston honk or Brooklynese, and learn to speak this flat, clipped, rather nasal version of English. . . .

. . . The overclass eats pate and imported cheeses; the middle class eats peanut butter and Velveeta. The overclass sips wine; the middle class drinks beer. The overclass plays squash and tennis; the middle class plays pool and bowls (both golf, but the middle class does so at second-tier country clubs and public courses). The overclass jogs; the middle class does not. . . . These are cliches, but they are a better guide to the real class structure in the United States than income categories in the census or pseudoscientific sociological measures like the SES (socioeconomic survey).

So is there a formal and exclusive “White Overclass” or is it just a cliche?

[Shagnasty]

The whole commentary is too convoluted to comment on. What I distilled out of it is that “yuppies” are real which nobody ever denies. This comes from a person who came from a very poor area and a broken family, then went to an expensive private university, and then an Ivy League grad school. My wife and I converted to be Episcopalian when my first daughter was born. I suppose I qualify based on many of the definitions but my membership card doesn’t list many benefits that don’t apply to everyone that works hard and have a small degree of luck. I am still not sure how to “overclass” anyone in practical matters. I would love to learn though.

Playing the Devil’s advocate, the Kennedy’s and the Bushes do exist in the U.S. but we are only talking a microscopic portion of the population and they still do not have absolute power. The idea to make Caroline Kennedy a Senator because of birthrights is admittedly disgraceful but I will have to wait to see how that plays out before I make a judgment.

[Belowjob2.0]

It’s fairly clear that it’s exclusive - look at the competition to gain access to the top level public and private universities, especially medical, law, and business schools. These schools, and the jobs they they make it possible for their graduates to take, define the overclass. It’s also worth noting that the overclass increasingly intermarries, and sequester their kids in either private schools or public schools in upscale districts.

Membership is also formally defined - primarily by job, education, and let’s face it, standardized test performance.

Part of the massive hate that descended on Sarah Palin was a result of she and her clan being NOKD with regard to the overclass.

There’s a lot of overlap betweens Lind’s definitions of American class and Paul Fussel’s book, Class. Lind’s Overclass is Fussel’s Upper Middle Class, roughly speaking.

[Eonwe]

I sort of get the point, but this guy is very sloppy, and I get the feeling that he’s kind of making stuff up in order to support an ulterior agenda. First, what exactly does he mean by “overclass”? It’s not ‘upper’ class, so what is it? Why not use the word class? Second, why use the word white, as he goes on to explain that most white people do not fall into the category. The term ‘white overclass’ carries the connotation of privilege of white people over those who are not white, but that is not in fact what he describes in this excerpt.

[Ruminator]

@msmith537

So is there a formal and exclusive “White Overclass” or is it just a cliche?

Not sure what “formal” would mean here. A “coat of arms” symbol that most folks in the country would recognize? A registry of family names that the FBI keeps track of?

[Jackmannii]

There’s a “white overclass”?

Why wasn’t I issued a membership card and parking decal?

[Belowjob2.0]

The white overclass is the product, not merely of the amalgamation of Anglo- and

Euro-Americans, but of the fusion of the rentier and managerial-professional classes. This blurring of the upper and upper-middle strata is a relatively new development in the United States. In earlier generations, there were distinct landowning and rentier classes, with their own lifestyles and institutions – cotillions, seasons spent in the country, and the like. The elaborate rituals that governed upper-class life, such as dressing for dinner, were designed to conspicuously display wealth, including a wealth of leisure time. That was a long time ago. There is a class, or rather a category, of the celebrity rich, and there are still pockets of old-fashioned rentiers in the U.S. – in Virginia, there are still planters who do not work and who hunt foxes with hounds – but these subcultures are detached from the summits of power. Members of the upper class who want to make a mark in the world tend to adopt the style of life and dress and speech of the managerial-professional elite. Even though they do not have to, most members of the small hereditary upper class go to college and get executive or professional jobs, and work, or at least pretend to. Instead of serving as a model for well-to-do executives and lawyers and investment bankers, the hereditary segment of the American overclass conforms to the segment immediately below it, the credentialed upper middle class(bolding mine).

This part I find particularly interesting, because it represents a blending/blurring of what Fussel calls the Upper Class with the Upper Middle Class. Uppers, according to Lind, are giving up on acting like Uppers in order to ape the style of the Upper Middles.

Lind calls the Overclass white because whiteness is one of it’s key markers. Although he doesn’t appear to speak to the huge and growing East and South Asian components in the Overclass. I would argue, though, that even these folks are “white” in a way that blacks and Latinos aren’t.

[Beware_of_Doug]

In order to advance in overclass circles in America, a white American has to suppress any regional or ethnic dialect, whether it be a Southern drawl or a Boston honk or Brooklynese, and learn to speak this flat, clipped, rather nasal version of English. . . .

A qualification. New York “white ethnic” speech (Brooklynese being one) is not nearly so stigmatized today as other accents, simply because so many academics and business leaders grew up speaking it and never bothered to lose it. Listen to (say) Robert Dallek, the historian, sometime (he does a lot of public TV).

[Belowjob2.0]

@Beware_of_Doug

A qualification. New York “white ethnic” speech (Brooklynese being one) is not nearly so stigmatized today as other accents, simply because so many academics and business leaders grew up speaking it and never bothered to lose it. Listen to (say) Robert Dallek, the historian, sometime (he does a lot of public TV).

\

True.

And local accents can be a great help to politicians and trial lawyers.

If your work is primarily concerned with selling yourself - your skills, expertise, education, experience - to other members of the overclass, it helps to speak just like they speak.

OTOH, if your work involves selling yourself to regular folks, a more regional accent can be a benefit. Local folks can find the overclass accent off putting, hoity toity, etc.

[Beware_of_Doug]

Class aside, if you speak like the movers and shakers in your profession, that helps too. Nobody but an actor is going to learn a Brooklyn accent, but having one will lend you an intellectual kind of street cred in professions with large numbers of New Yorkers.

[Sage_Rat]

I’ve seen reports that race doesn’t have any effect on success once you account for income of the parents.

http://www.economica.ca/ew02_1p1.htm

The following source is more complete, and looks decent. It’s missing pages and graphs, but seems to be saying that if you factor in parent’s income, education, and the kids don’t flake out (e.g. out of a belief that they are screwed no matter what they do) and do continue on with their education then, again, you get pretty much the same probability of success as people of other races.

No Excuses

Now I wouldn’t be surprised if there is still a slight demerit even once you control for income, etc. But certainly it could be said that the gap is closing and possibly even closed. And no, there’s no particular reason to think there’s an overarching conspiracy to keep the black man down. Even if there was such a thing at one time, it seems to have passed and if non-white kids get just as much education and pushes to succeed, they’ll have every chance that everyone else does.

[gonzomax]

The Ivy League schools are full of Kennedys ,Bushs, Duponts ,and Rockefeller types. They arrive through legacy breaks. If you want to get in ,you have to be the best at your school. That makes us think the schools are full of people like that. W got an MBA. I am sure you are impressed . No school would dare flunk out a doping ,carousing ,drinking Bush.
The Ivies get better jobs,more money and faster promotions. They take care of themselves very well. The MBAs managed to bring the worlds economic system down and still do not have to answer for what they did. They skate away rich and powerful. They own us.

[Belowjob2.0]

@Sage_Rat

I’ve seen reports that race doesn’t have any effect on success once you account for income of the parents.

http://www.economica.ca/ew02_1p1.htm

The following source is more complete, and looks decent. It’s missing pages and graphs, but seems to be saying that if you factor in parent’s income, education, and the kids don’t flake out (e.g. out of a belief that they are screwed no matter what they do) and do continue on with their education then, again, you get pretty much the same probability of success as people of other races.

No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning - Abigail Thernstrom, Stephan Thernstrom - Google Books

Now I wouldn’t be surprised if there is still a slight demerit even once you control for income, etc. But certainly it could be said that the gap is closing and possibly even closed. And no, there’s no particular reason to think there’s an overarching conspiracy to keep the black man down. Even if there was such a thing at one time, it seems to have passed and if non-white kids get just as much education and pushes to succeed, they’ll have every chance that everyone else does.

This has no connection to the OP. No one is talking about keeping anyone down. Not the point. At all.

[Belowjob2.0]

@gonzomax

The Ivy League schools are full of Kennedys ,Bushs, Duponts ,and Rockefeller types. They arrive through legacy breaks. If you want to get in ,you have to be the best at your school. That makes us think the schools are full of people like that. W got an MBA. I am sure you are impressed . No school would dare flunk out a doping ,carousing ,drinking Bush.
The Ivies get better jobs,more money and faster promotions. They take care of themselves very well. The MBAs managed to bring the worlds economic system down and still do not have to answer for what they did. They skate away rich and powerful. They own us.

And there’s this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/19/national/main956890.shtml

(AP) Elizabeth Paige Laurie’s name was on a sports arena when a former University of Southern California roommate alleged the Wal-Mart heiress paid her $20,000 to do her homework. Now it isn’t even on a USC diploma.

Laurie, the granddaughter of Wal-Mart co-founder Bud Walton, has returned her degree, nearly a year after Elena Martinez told ABC’s “20/20” that she had written term papers and done assignments for Laurie for 3 ½ years.

[RickJay]

@Belowjob2.0

This has no connection to the OP. No one is talking about keeping anyone down. Not the point. At all.

Fair enough, but then the question is; what exactly is the overclass? What does it do?

BG quoted Lind so many times I had to go read the book, and if I can offer a criticism, the book provides little predictive value. Predictiveness is a key part of science; science must examine the evidence to predict the results of the next experiment. I’m simplifying for brevity, but Lind essentially says “These people are that class and these people are not” and there isn’t a lot of proof thereof, except his own definitions. That’s easy, though; I can set people up into any classes I want if I’m the one defining them.

What good is his personal definition of “the overclass”? Can it be established that his definition will be consistent over time in terms of who’s included in, or excluded from, the overclass? Lind claims the overclass drinks wine and vacations in different places, but so what? Some people drink wine and some drink beer; what does that tell us except that some drink wine and some drink beer?

I’m not saying it’s a purely No True Scotsman theory, but it sure leans that way. As quoted, one of the few predictive points he makes is that the “institutional elite” is primarily comprised of the overclass, but “Most positions of power are filled by rich white people” is

A) Not exactly a staggering discovery, and

B) By his own admission, not a universal truth, and so its value as an observation is questionable.

[Sage_Rat]

@Belowjob2.0

This has no connection to the OP. No one is talking about keeping anyone down. Not the point. At all.

If we’ve determined that anyone of any race can get into it, then it’s not a “white” overclass. And if we’ve determined that anyone can get into any layer of income, including the top one, then it’s not an “overclass”.

Ergo, relevant.

And BrainGlutton and the Michael Lind are almost certainly bringing up the point of a hereditary overclass because such an overclass keeps the people down. That it’s a “white” overclass would almost certainly have been mentioned as an implication that they’ll particularly keep the black man down. True, that’s guesswork, but I’m not feeling too worried that the guess is a poor one.

[Belowjob2.0]

@Sage_Rat

If we’ve determined that anyone of any race can get into it, then it’s not a “white” overclass. And if we’ve determined that anyone can get into any layer of income, including the top one, then it’s not an “overclass”.

Ergo, relevant.

And BrainGlutton and the Michael Lind are almost certainly bringing up the point of a hereditary overclass because such an overclass keeps the people down. That it’s a “white” overclass would almost certainly have been mentioned as an implication that they’ll particularly keep the black man down. True, that’s guesswork, but I’m not feeling too worried that the guess is a poor one.

No.

As it’s used by Lind, the term White is descriptive, not prescriptive. The question isn’t whether or not non whites can get in, the question is, What are the common characteristics of this class?

Lind’s argument has nothing to do with keeping black people down. That’s not the point. At all.

In fact, Lind plainly states that most white people are NOT members of the overclass. It’s not white vs black. It’s the overclass vs. everyone else, in Lind’s view.

[Sage_Rat]

If the overclass doesn’t keep people down and can be entered freely by anyone, then who the hell cares? That’s not even a “class”.

If you’re going to argue class politics which, your assertion aside, is the intent. That’s pretty well a non-starter.

[Ruminator]

@Belowjob2.0

This has no connection to the OP. No one is talking about keeping anyone down. Not the point. At all.

That’s not true. You need to the include entire context of OP (meaning including “In several other threads related to class or economics, BrainGlutton has posted…”)

@Belowjob2.0

Lind’s argument has nothing to do with keeping black people down. That’s not the point. At all.

I think you’re incorrect about the relevancy of comments in this thread. Lind’s excerpt by itself may be “descriptive not prescriptive” as you say but that’s not the point. The point is that BrainGlutton has a history of left-leaning economic postings so Lind’s text must be reanalyzed as prescriptive hints for the purposes of this particular GD thread.

Please reread the OP (especially the text outside the Lind excerpt) and ask why the thread was started.

Maybe I’m also wrong and misinterpreted msmith537’s intentions. Maybe he actually wanted to start a purely “descriptive vs prescriptive” thread. But if that’s the case, we might as well all be starting descriptive GD threads that “the sky is blue” and wagging our heads in agreement. That doesn’t make a GD thread very much fun does it?

[Belowjob2.0]

@Sage_Rat

If the overclass doesn’t keep people down and can be entered freely by anyone, then who the hell cares? That’s not even a “class”.

If you’re going to argue class politics which, your assertion aside, is the intent. That’s pretty well a non-starter.

Not anyone can get in. In fact, most people can’t get in, if you accept Lind’s argument. Race isn’t the primary filter, though. Lind, who opposes affirmative action and ethnic identity politics in general, doesn’t see race per se as much of a filter at all. One of his repeated themes is the idea that Democrats get bogged down in ethnic grievance politics rather than focusing on the pursuit of left of center policies which could benefit everyone.

The basic argument is that members of the overclass perpetuate their advantages through intermarriage, access to private schools and elite colleges, networking, quid pro quo hiring and promotion. The overclass tends to make decisions, decisions which have a huge impact on everyone, based on its own self interest, not the interests of the majority.

It isn’t a question of keeping people down so much as it’s a question of ignoring the interests and concerns of everyone who isn’t like you.

I don’t agree with Lind’s position entirely, but I don’t want to see it misrepresented either.