Editing 1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Vindictive about things that are often uncomfortably transparent proxies for race or social class || This is probably the most impactful observation. Rules around fashion and grammar, being arbitrary, are generally set by the most powerful classes in any society, which often run along racial lines as well. As a result, the "proper" way to dress or speak generally remains associated with those classes. This association can be pragmatic, such as "fashionable" clothing being more expensive and hard for poor people to acquire, or it may simply be cultural, as 'proper' grammar is whatever's spoken in wealthy neighborhoods and schools, while language variants associated with poor people and minority groups is bluntly denounced as 'wrong', even if it has a fully consistent internal grammar. Similarly, fashions that are associated with poor and non-white social groups are broadly considered to be inappropriate, even if the reasons are arbitrary. As a result, such things become signifiers by which one can present oneself as being part of a social class. In America, it would be socially unacceptable to reject a job applicant because they grew up poor, and illegal to do so because of their race. However, rejecting an applicant for using 'improper' grammar, or for not wearing the right clothing or hairstyle, is standard practice. Randall identifies this fact as "uncomfortably transparent". | |Vindictive about things that are often uncomfortably transparent proxies for race or social class || This is probably the most impactful observation. Rules around fashion and grammar, being arbitrary, are generally set by the most powerful classes in any society, which often run along racial lines as well. As a result, the "proper" way to dress or speak generally remains associated with those classes. This association can be pragmatic, such as "fashionable" clothing being more expensive and hard for poor people to acquire, or it may simply be cultural, as 'proper' grammar is whatever's spoken in wealthy neighborhoods and schools, while language variants associated with poor people and minority groups is bluntly denounced as 'wrong', even if it has a fully consistent internal grammar. Similarly, fashions that are associated with poor and non-white social groups are broadly considered to be inappropriate, even if the reasons are arbitrary. As a result, such things become signifiers by which one can present oneself as being part of a social class. In America, it would be socially unacceptable to reject a job applicant because they grew up poor, and illegal to do so because of their race. However, rejecting an applicant for using 'improper' grammar, or for not wearing the right clothing or hairstyle, is standard practice. Randall identifies this fact as "uncomfortably transparent". | ||
| β | |||
| β | |||
|- | |- | ||
| Fun to cheer on until one of them disagrees with you|| As with any arbitrary set of rules, those that we're in agreement and comfortable with are easy to promote, and we may enjoy taking part in the condemnation of others. But that suddenly changes when we find ourselves on the outside, condemned for our own use of language or how we dress. At that point, the flaws of such groups become much harder to ignore. | | Fun to cheer on until one of them disagrees with you|| As with any arbitrary set of rules, those that we're in agreement and comfortable with are easy to promote, and we may enjoy taking part in the condemnation of others. But that suddenly changes when we find ourselves on the outside, condemned for our own use of language or how we dress. At that point, the flaws of such groups become much harder to ignore. | ||
