Liberal elites recognize white privilege... do we recognize class privilege?

The concept of white privilege is, I think, is one that is generally-accepted among so-called liberal elites. Our social, political, and economic history as a nation provides substantial and convincing evidence that white privilege has been, and remains, a significant influence on American society. The enslavement of African Americans has resulted in a painful legacy for black people in in our country. As a Los Angeles Times piece concisely summarized:

... slavery morphed into 100 years of segregation, economic disadvantage, rights denied and racist terrorism for African Americans. And now, even after the advances of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and '60s, systemic issues remain: mass incarceration, unequal educational opportunities, economic disparities, political disenfranchisement, police violence.

Beyond intellectual arguments and historical explanations for white privilege, it's also not particularly difficult to recognize every-day, anecdotal ways in which white privilege manifests in our day-to-day lives. In class we reflected on this by reading Peggy McIntosh's White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. White privilege is more than an academic idea… it has infiltrated popular media and is a common social media hashtag.

Liberal elites in the United States are comfortable recognizing white privilege, but do we really recognize (and take a long, hard, look at) our class privilege, especially in relationship to working class whites? We champion socially (and racially) “progressive” ideals and values, yet we don’t seem particularly interested in championing the white-working-class. Joan Williams discusses this in her talk entitled “Why Did Trump Win? Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America” when she discusses the open mockery of the working class in American popular culture as the continuation of a “100-year tradition of snobbism.” Lisa R. Pruitt discusses this in her essay critiquing the liberal elite response to J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy. Vance’s victim-blaming rhetoric, which would curdle the blood of a liberal if it were directed toward poor black people (see: "The Moynihan Report"), was fawned over when written about poor whites. I also think back to my Feminist Legal Theory course, when we discussed the intersection of feminism and class. Sheryl Sandberg, liberal elite hero and feminist icon, isn’t exactly a class-consciousness warrior.

There are many reasons why class is so difficult to confront in American society. The American ethos that anyone can make it with enough hard work, the expanded American conception of who is middle class, the general taboo against recognizing or discussing class stratification in everyday interactions – all of these phenomena play a role. However, I think there is another explanation for our difficulties recognizing class-privilege. Liberal elites are complicit in the class system (just as ostensibly non-racist whites are complicit in white privilege) and we aren’t eager to recognize it.

This idea of elites – as a group that gives lip service to equality while simultaneously holding lower classes in contempt – is touched on in Elizabeth Currid-Halkett’s book, The Sum of Small Things. In the book, Currid-Halkett lays out a theory that defines the cultural elite as an “aspirational class.” Instead of spending money on “things,” the aspirational class maximizes “inconspicuous consumption” by spending money on child-care, “elite” media (podcasts, The New Yorker), organic vegetables from Whole Foods, gym memberships, and, most importantly, education.

Simon Kuper, of the Financial Times, wrote an interesting piece linking Currid-Halkett’s theory of the aspirational class to Trump’s election. In it, he states:

Trump likes to tag the cultural elite as ‘the elite’ but not all class members are rich. . . . Rather, what defines the cultural elite is education. Most of its members went to brand-name universities, and consider themselves deserving rather than entitled. They believe in facts and experts. Most grew up comfortably off in the post-1970s boom. Their education is their insurance policy and, so almost whatever their income, they suffer less economic anxiety than older or lesser educated people. Their political utopia is high-tax, egalitarian, feminist and green. They aim to be “better humans” rather than simply rich . . . The inequality they see everywhere is never their fault.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with advocating for higher taxes, being a feminist, or caring about the environment. But Kuper seems to argue that the space to focus on and prioritize these things comes from an enormous amount of financial, social, and educational privilege – privilege that comes from a capitalist class system under which working-class-whites are left behind. Yet liberal elites still have trouble recognizing this. In their minds, when others don’t subscribe to their political ideals, it’s not because they have logical economic motivation not to. It’s because their values are all wrong.

Currid-Halkett also notes in her book that the top 1-5 % spend 5% of their total expenditures on education, while the middle class barely spends 1%. Given that huge educational gap, Kuper observes:

Today’s cultural elite is engaged in a ruthless project to reproduce its social position. Barring some huge economic shift, today’s breastfed elite toddlers will be the elite of 2050. The meritocracy is becoming hereditary.

And the aspirational class isn’t just looking to perpetuate its social position, it’s looking to insulate it. The Midwest is flyover country, full of gun nuts, close-minded religious types, and flag-worshippers. Elites make moral judgments about and avoid people who eat junk food, leave their kids with an iPad rather than a nanny, or don’t believe in global warming. Trump voters are stupid, sexist, bigots, not to be taken seriously. Trump himself is one big joke.

Of course, it’s easier to characterize the white-working-class as an “other” that is just beyond hope than to acknowledge that class stratification (and the liberal elite role in perpetuating it) needs to be a priority topic of conversation.

One can easily poke some holes in Kuper’s theory. Liberal elites are usually the ones advocating for pro-working-class policies like increased minimum wages and universal health care. However, I do think there is a kernel of truth in Kuper’s argument… and I think I feel that way because I recognize  it within myself. My own goal moving forward is to try to have a greater consciousness of class and how growing class inequality has contributed (at least in part) to the social and political chasm in our country. I’d like to focus on bridging that gap rather than ignoring it.