Class and the Victim Mentality

Over on the ever active and engagaing Parabasis, Isaac has brought up, recently, both Class and (in several ... contexts) his dislike for the "victim mentality."

He doesn't connect these two issues, but something in me does.

A few rambling thoughts:

The issue of class, although I didn't post on it when it first came up in March, has been at the forefront of my own life and work for quite some time. Partially because, as I've gotten older and more self-aware, it's become clear to me that my most prominent prejudice is related specifically to class envy and class inequity.

Compared to some (or maybe that comparison is simply perceived by me) I have lack of a solid foundation in the liberal arts, and a catch-as-catch-can education. My schooling was in Acting, and my education was at a public high school with very little depth or challenge. Reading theory was always a matter of personal choice and curiousity, and it was never taught to me in a structured way. Because of this, I've often felt hostile to those that were given, perhaps, a better systemic education. I am, for the most part, a self-taught playwright and self-taught reader.

Because of this, I've often affected the tone of the populist, to counteract what I felt was a sort of class barrier. To protect myself, I'm sure, from charges of being undereducated.

I've often, also, felt hostile to those with money. Especially those in that 18-35 range, that have financial security through an accident of birth. I've been known to be dismissive of anyone with financial advantages, treating their successes as somehow false, calling their dedication into question.

I remember reading, for example, a profile of Arielle Tepper and being incensed. How many of us, with far more credentials and elbow grease, would kill to produce at her level? I thought, and said to others, that I found it revolting that someone who was simply wealthy could control that much of the New York stage, at her whim. Then again... who else could do it? And... are her choices bad? Does she make mistakes, or does she try to promote new work? My gut response was and is a sort of adolescent churlishness. The reality is that she could spend her money on anything, and she spends it on new playwrights and exciting theater. Is it fair that her tastes are reflected over those who might have sacrificed more? No. Is it fair to dismiss her own choices because she is able to make them? No.

Paul Auster is one of my favorite writers. A few years ago, though, I read Hand-To-Mouth, which is subtitled "A Chronicle of Early Failure." I found the work disingenous at best. His story was one of a child of privilege who chooses to struggle, and then tries to impress upon the reader that this struggle was, in a sense, real. The book stuck in my craw. Isn't it privilege itself to choose struggle? Isn't it, in a sense, hubris to imitate the troubles of those less fortunate?

Isaac used the term Upper Middle Class to describe himself in his original posting. That's a loaded term in and of itself. For example, when reading Within the Context of No Context by George W.S. Trow, Trow assigns himself to the Upper Middle Class as well. He also notes a long and connected family history, and a private school, top-flight education. I thought to myself ... why does he insist on the word "Middle?" Is he not, in many ways, a representative of Upper Class? By way of his thinking, his dismissal and removal from the troubles of the broader culture, his breeding, his world-class education? Again, it's a comparative term. To whom are Trow and Auster comparing themselves?

I would venture to say a rather wealthy elite.

Growing up in Boyertown, PA, with a mother who taught at the public high school...no one could call us wealthy. Not by those standards. Then again, the teachers in our area were often considered overpaid, a wealthy citizenry who had summers off. This was by the "middle class" of our community, who worked in factories or ran small businessnes, and struggle to make ends meet and keep track of large families.

Then again, I wasn't from Boyertown. I went to elementary school in Maplewood, NJ, with is an affluent and multi-cultural community. There were times I was acutely aware that much of the racial prejudice in the community in Boyertown was simply the result of insulation that I had been privileged enough to avoid. So should I feel superior to these people for not being a racist? Or lucky? Or, in fact, is it a combination of a variety of factors, and not just "where you grew up and how much your parents made?"

My father, for example, may not be Bill Gates, but he isn't about to starve to death either. He's worked at the wealthiest and most iconic institutions in the Episcopal Church: Trinity Church on Wall Street and the Washington National Cathedral. As a rector, he's lived and worked in very wealthy communities, like Short Hills, NJ and now Orono, Minnesota, which is a sort of Short Hills of the Midwest. Suffice to say, even though he's been the minister to CEOs and Powerbrokers, he has had access to them and hasn't done badly because of it. (For the record, his background is decidedly less affluent, growing up in Lawrence, Massachusetts, which was, briefly, the arson capital of the US.)

How does this connect to the "victim mentality?" Is it possible that it's easier to dismiss certain kinds of complaint as a "victim mentality" if you have an easier time participating in culture? It seems to be a mantra of those with a certain amount of privilege that those who engage in a certain amount of hand-wringing about systemic problems are simply crying victim.

But what does it mean to actually be a victim? Is it, in fact, finding yourself in circumstances that are antithetical to your own success, or that are actively harmful to you, through no fault of your own? Isn't it easier to avoid this attitude if you can, for example, spend your way out of those circumstances?

There are certainly people who can purchase a production at Theater Row, regardless of their background, resume, artistic credentials. There are many out there who could not to this, regardless of the same issues.

If what it takes to make it in the world of art in the US is free time to do ones work, the ability to pay (at times) for one's own way, and access to excellent education and information... then those with financial advantages simply have easier access into the Arts and an easier time developing their work. That isn't to say the results won't be the same in the end. It means that time, for example, that a few can spend reading over the great books and rehearsing and doing script analysis is time that many are doing overnight or giving up sleep for. To believe that having financial security doesn't affect the longevity and effectiveness of many young artists in the US would be folly.

This isn't to devalue Isaac's opinion at all. He's brave to bring up his own class issues, because having privilege can be just as difficult a position as not having it, when trying to feel a member of a peer group. I also applaud his honesty and his absolute dedication to the art that I'm dedicated to. We share that value, whether or not he has to temp occasionally or if he had to work the night shift. All of us in theatre have the same basic goals, which is to be successful and to be heard. But the dynamics of the debates going on, and the issues we all face in a culture that does not properly subsidize the arts, are directly related to a certain amount of privilege.