Charles Murray’s "Coming Apart"

[Mark6]

Disclaimer: Linking does not imply advocacy

http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-...3421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331740266&sr=8-1

I skimmed "Coming Apart" in a bookstore, and however much I disagreed with Murray in the past, I think his new book has a point. What Murray calls "new upper class" is really "smart class" – intelligent people gravitating together into culture of interests very distinct from the rest of the country. Which, Murray points out, is entirely natural – people want to be around those they can relate to and have conversation with, and modern economy/technology make it easier than ever before for smart people to be with other smart people – at work, at home and at leisure. Not all smart people are liberal although they tend to be, and not all are rich – although again, they tend to make more money than not-so-smart people.

A hundred years ago if you were a math genius but had no social skills, what job prospects did you have? Not much – companies had only a few positions like actuary for people like you. In 1960, same thing. Today, there are tons of high-paying jobs for you.

Murray also points out the above is a good thing – networks of smart people accomplish things that could never be accomplished otherwise. Microsoft and Apple could never have done what they did if they had to contend with average-brains employees. The downside is that "smart class" or "new upper class" no longer cares or knows much about the "lower class" because frankly, things which concern the lower class are boring to the new upper class. And that separation of interests is where American culture "comes apart", and that bothers Murray. He claims that before 1960 rich Americans were culturally very similar to middle class[1]: ate same food, watched same shows, read same books, played same sports – except they did all that with servants.

Rich people engaged in very few pastimes which middle class did not; polo and foxhunting are the only ones I can think of, and only a small portion of rich people did those.

Basically his complaint is that today there are two "white Americas", and while one is on the average (with some overlap), richer and and more liberal than the other, the real problem is they have nothing to talk to each other about. I am taking it with a grain of salt – did Joseph Kennedy Sr. really had that much to talk about with Joe Shmoe from Boston South Side? I suspect US always had much more cultural divide than Murray admits, but today's divide is undeniable.

[1]Specifically, rich and middle class whites. American blacks and hispanics always were a separate culture, and them being separate is nothing new. If anything, lower-class blacks are today culturally closer to lower-class whites, and upper-class blacks are to upper-class whites than ever before. (Again, with "upper class" defined as "smart class".)

 

[angrysoba]

My guess is that all cutting edge technology and science today can only really be engaged in by experts who make up a tiny fraction of the population. Technologies have become ever more specialized whereas in the past (say the late-nineteenth century, early twentieth century) it was much easier for people to have a broad understanding of all the major new theories.

But I think Murray is wrong that only those with social skills could flourish a hundred years ago. There are numerous scientists and mathematicians who were thought of as real oddballs compared even to other members of their class for various reasons (Alan Turing would surely be one, and I am sure there are many others, too).

But I think that the most important point is that Murray might be confusing cause and effect: few scientists and mathematicians who are at the top of their field were probably interested in the vulgar diversions of the inferior classes: reality TV, pop "music", branded goods, baseball/football/basketball statistics etc... etc...

Anyway, I think your pinch of salt is on the mark. The United States was founded partly on distrust of the mob and too bloody right I say.

 

[Nasty Neil]

"Not all smart people are liberal although they tend to be,"

That Sir, is TOTAL BS!

The reason there are millions and millions of Christians who are now "Former" Christians is because as they aged, gaining in both Experience & Knowledge, they discovered they had been conned and there are no gods.

They realized about the only reason they were Christians and not Jews or Moslems and why they believed in one god rather than in many gods as the Hindus and over a Billion others do, was simply becasue of who raised them.

And the EXACT same thing applies to Liberals!

More than a few Liberals, as the age and gain in both Experience & Knowledge, also discover they had been conned by the pie in the sky, every thing can be great until you run out of other peoples money Liberal ideas are just another total CON Job.

So they became FORMER Liberals and they are NOW Conservatives!

The PROOF of the above is true is the many Books & Blogs written by FORMER Liberals and the DEARTH of those written by Former Conservatives.

More Proof?

Ever hear of Former Liberal Christopher Hitchens?
Or the very famous Conservative Blogger Andrew Breitbart?

Sadly Andrew, who recently died was an Atheist and also Former Liberal And FYI, Breitbart was also Co-Founder of the liberal Huffington Post before he came to his senses.

Another Former Liberal ia Atheist Tammy Bruce. She was the Youngest, and the Longest serving president of NOW. She is now a Consecrative Radio Host, Author and Blogger.

And there is Former Liberal is Burt Prelutsky, a LA Times Humor Columnist, TV / movie Screen writer and an Author who wrote "Liberals: America's Termites" And Burt is now another Consecrative blogger.

While there are most certainly other Atheists who are Former Liberals, there are also many, many religious Conservatives who were once all former religious Liberals!

There are also more than a few very intelligent Atheists who never were Libeals and who are Conservatives and we are Damn Proud of it.

 

[Floyt]

I'd agree there is just a much larger playing field now for smart people to make a living from their brains, and that the accumulation of more "members" has catalyzed the development of a more strongly segregated culture of, e.g., entertainment and literature. It's sympatric speciation by niche partitioning Whether that's a desirable thing, I don't know. It will be hard to stop or reverse in any case, because it's so rewarding for those who make up the new strata.

(re the chestbeating exercise just above, I'd say that there are likely fewer smart Conservatives because lack of knowledge, education, and critical thinking go hand in hand with dogma and bigotry, which is more of a conservative than a liberal mindset - but never mind that diversion...)

 

[Bikewer]

Hasn't "classism" always been a part of Western society? "We don't associate with those sorts of people." "You don't get overly familiar with "the help.""
"She's from the wrong side of the tracks."
"Sire, the peasants are revolting...." "I know, I know..."

And so on. Part of human nature.

 

[Mark6]

Hasn't "classism" always been a part of Western society? "We don't associate with those sorts of people." "You don't get overly familiar with "the help.""
"She's from the wrong side of the tracks."
"Sire, the peasants are revolting...." "I know, I know..."

Yes it has. Murray claims that US historically has been much less classist (at least among whites) than Europe. He actually says in the last chapter that if the "two Americas" trend does not reverse, it will be "the end of American experiment" -- and of American exceptionalism.

 

[catsmate]

My guess is that all cutting edge technology and science today can only really be engaged in by experts who make up a tiny fraction of the population. Technologies have become ever more specialized whereas in the past (say the late-nineteenth century, early twentieth century) it was much easier for people to have a broad understanding of all the major new theories.

But I think Murray is wrong that only those with social skills could flourish a hundred years ago. There are numerous scientists and mathematicians who were thought of as real oddballs compared even to other members of their class for various reasons (Alan Turing would surely be one, and I am sure there are many others, too).

But I think that the most important point is that Murray might be confusing cause and effect: few scientists and mathematicians who are at the top of their field were probably interested in the vulgar diversions of the inferior classes: reality TV, pop "music", branded goods, baseball/football/basketball statistics etc... etc...

Anyway, I think your pinch of salt is on the mark. The United States was founded partly on distrust of the mob and too bloody right I say.

The inability of most people to understand the technology they take for granted (and the society it has created), the impossibility of predicting the effects of a new discovery and the inter-reliance of technological society aren't new themes; Burke was concerned by the implications more than thirty years ago.

 

[aggle-rithm]

More than a few Liberals, as the age and gain in both Experience & Knowledge, also discover they had been conned by the pie in the sky, every thing can be great until you run out of other peoples money Liberal ideas are just another total CON Job.

So they became FORMER Liberals and they are NOW Conservatives!

I can remember taking a government class in college where the professor cited a study showing that college students tended to be more liberal than non-college students; therefore, the more educated you are, the more liberal you tend to be.

But hold on a minute (I thought to myself)...is that the right conclusion? Perhaps it's the younger you are, the more liberal you tend to be.

I now think it's not quite as simple as either of these. I think people tend to drift toward the middle as they get older, and adopt beliefs that incorporate some hard-learned lessons into the knee-jerk political allignment they originally had.