# Passive aggressiveness and higher social economic class. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 7, 2010, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018 "2010-02-07T08:36:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Diamonds02](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Diamonds02](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diamonds02)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/101 "2010-06-02T18:50:09Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > People who tend to be more educated and more mature tend to be less inclined to get into childish screaming matches, throw fits, vandelize property, resort to violence and other more “active” forms of aggression. Those things are, by definition, low class. Unintelligent thugs and goons settle disputes and through physical intimidation and violence. Intelligent people use reason, logic and persuasion and when all else fails, the force of law. The OP and Wunky are witnessing passive aggressive behavior. I witness this a lot also in middle and upper class people, especially among women. We’re not witnessing reason, logic, and persuasion…we’re witnessing silent treatment, exclusion, gossip, trash talking behind people’s backs while smiling to their faces, etc. If someone says or does something that you dislike, why not just say something to them about it directly? If someone discovers that their behavior is annoying, because someone called them out on it, they might just change it. Win-win situation. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/102 "2010-06-02T18:51:40Z")
> [@Diamonds02](#): > > “For example, if you’re invited to a party and say things that aren’t ok, they’ll humor you, converse with you about whatever thing you’re talking about, smile and shake your hand, and then never speak with you again.” > > It sounds like a form of [relational aggression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_aggression). Exclusion to be more specific. It’s a hostile act, that most people would not like to experience. It is made worse when the parties act like every thing is cool to the victim’s face, when it is not. This is deception, another hostile act. > > This is not “in your face” aggression, but aggression nevertheless. That’s not aggression. Its MANNERS. Its not polite to say to someone “you are a jerk.” From your link: \* Lies - Where the abuser lies about the victim to others. - In this case there is no lying about the “victim” to others. Its very likely the “aggressor” never mentions the victim. Or if he does, he doesn’t lie, he simply says something like “he wasn’t very well behaved.” ``` * Gossip - Where the abuser tells others personal information about the victim. - Again, unlikely to happen. In my experience, these people cease to exist when they are gone. Enough so that I have a "friend of a friend" who is a meth addict. When she started preying on another friend, no one mentioned to the other friend that she was a meth addict - no one had enough current first hand information. * Betrayal - Where the abuser breaks agreements with the victim. - I'm not sure how its betrayal to stop inviting someone to your parties or conversations. * Solitude - Where the abuser prevents the victim from socializing with the victim's friends. Not unless not inviting you to MY house is somehow preventing you from seeing your friends some other place. * Exclusion - Where the abuser prevents the victim from socializing with the abuser's friends. - Not in my experience. Decisions are made independently. Granted, when someone in the group decides someone is a bore, often everyone else does as well. * Humiliation - Where the abuser humiliates or shames the victim in front of others. Quite the opposite - the icy cold politesse is keeping you from kicking the uncouth jerk out of your house and humiliating him. ``` ---
**Author:** ![moejoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@moejoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moejoe)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/103 "2010-06-02T19:51:26Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > That’s not aggression. Its MANNERS. . I agree, but maybe it’s a regional thing? Being polite one-on-one and then avoiding you like the plague whenever possible is a very “California” thing to do, or so I’ve been told by my east coast friends. For them it’s rude to behave differently than you feel or give someone a false sense of friendship, for me I just can’t imagine anything less polite than saying “I think you’re weird and boring and I really don’t want to ever interact with you again” especially if I do have to interact with them regularly. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/104 "2010-06-02T20:33:16Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > People who tend to be more educated and more mature tend to be less inclined to get into childish screaming matches, throw fits, vandelize property, resort to violence and other more “active” forms of aggression. Those things are, by definition, low class. Unintelligent thugs and goons settle disputes and through physical intimidation and violence. Intelligent people use reason, logic and persuasion and when all else fails, the force of law. > > Take \*\*Wunky’s \*\*neighbor for example. A working class man catching him pulling that shit might get into a shouting match that escalates into an asskicking. While possibly satisfying, an upper class man knows that he could go to jail, get injured or accidently permenantly injure or kill the neighbor. All he has to to is call the police and his lawyer. You seem to be implying that upper class people are more intelligent. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. It’s that the lower class has less satisfaction in life, and thus deems the risk of jail or injury to be worth the satisfaction they would get out of it. And he probably can’t afford a lawyer. Intelligence also does not directly correlate with aggression. I know some really smart people who have a temper. I know that I myself wind up losing a lot of intelligence when I’m angry. It doesn’t mean I don’t intellectually know the consequences, just that I might not think of them at the time. Fortunately, the one or two times I’ve been put to the test, I’ve only yelled a bit and then left, realizing my anger was not going to help. (Admittedly, I did try to get a person fired from her job, but that’s another story. Let’s just point out that what I was mad at her about was technically something someone in her position shouldn’t do.) ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/105 "2010-06-02T20:39:46Z")
> [@moejoe](#): > > I agree, but maybe it’s a regional thing? Being polite one-on-one and then avoiding you like the plague whenever possible is a very “California” thing to do, or so I’ve been told by my east coast friends. > > For them it’s rude to behave differently than you feel or give someone a false sense of friendship, for me I just can’t imagine anything less polite than saying “I think you’re weird and boring and I really don’t want to ever interact with you again” especially if I do have to interact with them regularly. Most U.S. etiquette experts (including my cousin by marriage, who is a nationally published etiquette columnist) live on the East Coast. In may, in fact, be a socio-economic class thing. There is one woman in our circle of friends who I’m not great friends with (she is something of a bore and doesn’t pick up on the subtle cues from others). But being a friend of friends - and a very old friend of friends. Simple fact, I will run into this woman a few times a year. She has spawned…and spawned in that sort of “she finds her children’s misbehavior endearing” sort of way. I doubt she thinks we are good friends. It isn’t like when I see her I’m all “Darling! Let’s do lunch” and then all “oh, God, I can’t stand her” behind her back. We make small talk when we see each other (mostly about her children - surprise!) and if she comes up in conversation with my other friends I keep my mouth shut. Or say “I don’t know, we aren’t close” if someone asks me about her. If I have the overwhelming need to vent about her (I don’t think its ever happened) I’d do so outside our circle and wouldn’t bring up her name. For years, we’ve had a party - sort of a free for all left over from long ago college days. Its the sort of party that’s been happening for so long that when we switch weekends and delay it, we get emails from people wanting to know when the party is. I am not at all fond of the free for all party for a number of reasons - a huge issue I can’t control the guest list - but I’ve only been married to my husband fifteen years - and the party predates me by another fifteen. So how do you not invite Deadbore and Spawn? Especially when you really haven’t invited them to start with? You can’t say “I find you weird and boring and your children were apparently raised by demons.” Well, you could, but it would be rude. Moral of story, don’t have a habitual free for all party. And so we’ve stopped - we still have the party, but the invitations now go out “adults only” - no more facebook invites - and we foist our own sweet angels off on relatives or friends. I might still be putting up with her - and I can do so graciously, if not warmly, but at least I won’t find my Christmas decoration boxes open and strewn all over the basement. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/106 "2010-06-02T20:48:16Z")
> [@Diamonds02](#): > > The OP and Wunky are witnessing passive aggressive behavior. I witness this a lot also in middle and upper class people, especially among women. We’re not witnessing reason, logic, and persuasion…we’re witnessing silent treatment, exclusion, gossip, trash talking behind people’s backs while smiling to their faces, etc. If someone says or does something that you dislike, why not just say something to them about it directly? If someone discovers that their behavior is annoying, because someone called them out on it, they might just change it. Win-win situation. Maybe logic, reason and persuasion aren’t the right words. I would say that people who tend towards passive aggressive behavior tend to be relatively weak, both in character and upper body strength. The reason they use those tactics is because for them, they learned they are effective. It allows them to lash out and feel powerful because they know there is little the person can do to retaliate. Why potentially instigate a pointless confrontation against you directly when they can simply work to have you oastracized? Middle and upper middle class people are not raised in an environment where people “say what they mean and mean what they say”. They are raised largely in a protected environment where there are very specific rules to follow. They learn to both get around these rules and to use them to their advantage to get what they want. ---
**Author:** ![Wunky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/4bbf92/32.png) [@Wunky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wunky)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/107 "2010-06-03T00:58:02Z")
Since people seem to be getting caught up on the semantics of passive-aggression, perhaps better terms are “overt aggression” vs “covert aggression.” I think we can all agree that if someone plays his music too loud and you shout out your window for him to quit it, it’s different than if you smile and tell him nothing’s wrong, then slash his tires later. I think we can all agree that if someone says something weird at a party and everyone stops and asks, “What in the world are you talking about?” it’s different than if everyone smiles and nods and changes the topic and then never invites that person to another party. The first I would call “overt aggressiveness,” the second “covert aggressiveness.” Perhaps we can agree on these terms so we can continue past the sticking point of the exact definition of “passive-aggressive.” If there’s anyone here who agrees with the basic tenet that the OP and I already share–the the higher one’s class, the less overt and the more covert one’s aggressiveness is–then I’d like to, with them, take this conversation to the next step: specifically WHY this might be the case. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/108 "2010-06-03T01:06:20Z")
> [@Wunky](#): > > Since people seem to be getting caught up on the semantics of passive-aggression, perhaps better terms are “overt aggression” vs “covert aggression.” > > I think we can all agree that if someone plays his music too loud and you shout out your window for him to quit it, it’s different than if you smile and tell him nothing’s wrong, then slash his tires later. > > I think we can all agree that if someone says something weird at a party and everyone stops and asks, “What in the world are you talking about?” it’s different than if everyone smiles and nods and changes the topic and then never invites that person to another party. > > The first I would call “overt aggressiveness,” the second “covert aggressiveness.” Perhaps we can agree on these terms so we can continue past the sticking point of the exact definition of “passive-aggressive.” > > If there’s anyone here who agrees with the basic tenet that the OP and I already share–the the higher one’s class, the less overt and the more covert one’s aggressiveness is–then I’d like to, with them, take this conversation to the next step: specifically WHY this might be the case. Is there ANY aggression in ignoring someone? Am I obligated to talk to people I don’t enjoy or like in order to not be aggressive? ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/109 "2010-06-03T02:12:41Z")
Yeah, I’m not seeing how choosing not to interact/engage/converse with people, who annoy you, is aggressive, passive or otherwise. Or have we moved on to how annoying it is that the upper classes have different manners? Because I’m pretty sure we could all learn something from the other. Those low classes shouters and screamers could, y’know, zip it now and then. And the snobby gits could maybe tell someone straight out to, y’know, to get bent, now and again. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/110 "2010-06-03T12:16:36Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Yeah, I’m not seeing how choosing not to interact/engage/converse with people, who annoy you, is aggressive, passive or otherwise. This. The act of not inviting a person to future parties (or otherwise avoid interaction) isn’t an act of aggression toward the uninvitee; it’s an act of self-protection on the part of the host. The uninvitee may feel hurt at not being included in future parties, but that hurt is not the intention/goal of the host. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/111 "2010-06-03T13:28:52Z")
Different social groups have different cultural norms, and on the whole, people with less education and money have a tendency to be more outspoken customarily. No more aggression, passive or otherwise, just different. Not seeing why this is an issue. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/112 "2010-06-03T13:39:19Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You seem to be implying that upper class people are more intelligent. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. It’s that the lower class has less satisfaction in life, and thus deems the risk of jail or injury to be worth the satisfaction they would get out of it. And he probably can’t afford a lawyer. I said “educated”, not “intelligent”. Although I would not be surprised if the superior education, diet and environment of the upper classes made them, for all intents and purposes, more “intelligent”. I would disagree with the premise that passive aggressive behavior is limited to the upper classes. Have you ever seen blue collar workers doing the bare minimum on their jobs, causing delays or otherwise shirking their duties? That is passive aggressive behavior. IMHO, the upper classes spend a great deal more energy on “saving face”. On the positive side, we call this “good manners” and it is designed to avoid making others feel uncomfortible. On the negative side, it can result in intentionally deceitful behavior. > [@Dangerosa](#): > > Is there ANY aggression in ignoring someone? Am I obligated to talk to people I don’t enjoy or like in order to not be aggressive? Yes. The expectation in polite society is that you provide a minimum level of acknowledgement and smalltalk when you run into someone. If I say hello to your three friends and simply ingore you as if you weren’t there, that is rude and passive aggressive behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/113 "2010-06-03T14:11:08Z")
It seems to me that this thread has offered very few actual examples of passive-aggression. Failing to “call someone on” his or her aggressive behavior isn’t passive-aggressiveness. Destroying someone’s property with bleach and potatoes also isn’t passive-aggressiveness. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/114 "2010-06-03T14:12:43Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Yes. The expectation in polite society is that you provide a minimum level of acknowledgement and smalltalk when you run into someone. If I say hello to your three friends and simply ingore you as if you weren’t there, that is rude and passive aggressive behavior. You are right, that is rude, and “passive aggressive.” I’ve done it, too. While talking to a group of friends the group has been approached by women my ex husband cheated on me with (and they knew he was married). And I don’t acknowledge them. At all. Its rude - and purposely so. (And I’ve only had to do it once to each of them). But its not rude or “passive aggressive” for me to see these women and simply pass them on the street. Or for me to invite other mutual friends over and not invite them. Or for me to excuse myself from conversation after a minimum of small talk with someone I don’t like. (“Hi, how are you? That’s great/I’m sorry to hear that. Oh, excuse me, Jane just walked in and I need to talk to her.”) ---
**Author:** ![Wunky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/4bbf92/32.png) [@Wunky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wunky)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/115 "2010-06-14T06:08:21Z")
Nobody? > [@](#): > > If there’s anyone here who agrees with the basic tenet that the OP and I already share–the the higher one’s class, the less overt and the more covert one’s aggressiveness is–then I’d like to, with them, take this conversation to the next step: specifically WHY this might be the case. Anybody agree with that and would like to discuss the ‘why’ of it? Anybody? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/116 "2010-06-14T12:37:18Z")
msmith talked about it upthread. I’d be more willing to participate in a thread that talked about why people of lower socioeconomic classes are seldom schooled in the rules of etiquette or find those rules to be optional. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/117 "2010-06-14T13:57:14Z")
> [@Wunky](#): > > If there’s anyone here who agrees with the basic tenet that the OP and I already share–the the higher one’s class, the less overt and the more covert one’s aggressiveness is–then I’d like to, with them, take this conversation to the next step: specifically WHY this might be the case. ``` Although I agree that there probably is a difference between how aggression is expressed in different social classes, I don't agree that the difference is in passive or not passive aggression or covert and overt aggression. An example of passive-aggressive behavior would be if I agreed to help my mother with some chore (even thought I really don't want to, to avoid the confrontation of saying no ) and then repeatedly have some excuse as to why I didn't perform - I forgot, I got stuck late at work , etc. This then leaves my mother in a position where she can't confront me on my failure without calling me a liar, and where it is possible that all of my excuses could be true. I think the difference between covert and overt aggression probably depends a great deal on expectations - I'm sure in some groups and situations a failure to acknowledge a person might be seen as covert, but in many, it will be seen as overt .If I run into a disliked coworker, and refuse to acknowledge him, I might as well have called him an "asshole" because that's pretty much how he and everyone around will take it. I think the real difference in aggression between social classes is that the higher classes are less likely to engage in behavior that causes a scene.The neighbor pouring bleach on the flowers is might be actting passive-aggressively, but that is not typical middle- to upper class behavior. Those people would be calling the police. The card sent to the owners of the dog killing the grass- sending a card is confronting the people , it's just not likely to cause a scene. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/118 "2010-06-14T14:21:06Z")
> [@Wunky](#): > > Anybody agree with that and would like to discuss the ‘why’ of it? > [@Dangerosa](#): > > I’d be more willing to participate in a thread that talked about why people of lower socioeconomic classes are seldom schooled in the rules of etiquette or find those rules to be optional. I think both propositions are fallacious. Upper class people are not more passive-aggressive; this proposition is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of passive-aggressiveness. Lower class people are not “seldom school in the rules of etiquette or find those rules to be optional”; they live in a social subgroup that has _different_ set of societal rules (the description is accurate for all social subgroups). ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/119 "2010-06-14T15:23:04Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I think both propositions are fallacious. Upper class people are not more passive-aggressive; this proposition is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of passive-aggressiveness. Lower class people are not “seldom school in the rules of etiquette or find those rules to be optional”; they live in a social subgroup that has _different_ set of societal rules (the description is accurate for all social subgroups). I would say that the lower classes are less schooled in the rules of “formal etiqutte” in a “which fork is the salad fork” sense. They also (from my observations) tend to be less formal or polite in their interactions with people. Or maybe a better description would be that their interactions are formalized in ways that appear “crude” to the upper classes. The reason for this is the same reason that the poor are often less educated or less cultured. It is because they are raised in an environment where those traits and rules are not as valued and often seem superfluous or pretentous. More attention is paid to immediate concerns like earning enough to pay the rent this month and putting food on the table. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018/120 "2010-06-14T15:41:00Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I think both propositions are fallacious. Upper class people are not more passive-aggressive; this proposition is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of passive-aggressiveness. Lower class people are not “seldom school in the rules of etiquette or find those rules to be optional”; they live in a social subgroup that has _different_ set of societal rules (the description is accurate for all social subgroups). I know - it was tongue in cheek - basically to point out exactly that. There are different sets of rules for different cultures and subcultures. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/passive-aggressiveness-and-higher-social-economic-class/528018.md?page=7)