#social class

Right!?!? Marco understands the value of money, better than any of his friends, because none of his friends has been the one solely in charge of grocery shopping and household management for their entire family. Jake and Rachel have typical rich-kid attitudes of "money doesn't matter and I see no need to earn it," Cassie's less sheltered because her parents are financially secure (we learn in #19 they're not) than because her parents are consciously choosing to shelter her, and Ax has no concept of money. Tobias comes a little closer to getting where Marco's coming from, but Tobias also comes from a household where his guardian(s) provide food, shelter, and basically nothing else — he's free to come and go as he pleases, and free to grab enough pocket money for The Gardens out of his uncle's wallet without anyone giving a damn one way or another.

« La Révolution française n’a pas appelé le peuple français au pouvoir, mais cette classe artificielle qu’est la bourgeoisie. Cette classe, qui est devenue de plus en plus dégradée, jusqu’à devenir traîtresse à son propre pays. »

I know this sounds whack, because he’s literally a billionaire, and that is important. But the Iron Man trilogy has always struck me as very anti-capitalist, and Tony’s story, actions and development mirror working class experiences, even though he is a billionaire in his context, which gives him resources and he uses his money to fund the avengers later, and that matters to his characterisation.

Being a billionaire doesn’t disqualify Tony from representing the working class if we look at Marxist literary theory (that is, the literary theory which focuses on how social class impacts a narrative). There are overt and covert aspects to any text. The idea that Tony represents working class people would be covert — it’s underlying and likely not even intentional, but it’s there. This isn’t to say that Tony Stark is a working class person, he isn’t, but he could be a representation of the working class experience.

Marxist literary theory states that capitalism reifies people, and capitalism exploits its labourers. Reification is the opposite of personification. It is when a person is viewed as a thing, a means for production, and Tony, who cannot stop building and advancing tech, is a means of production. Tony, who can’t let go of Iron Man, and considers the suit an extension of his body (a ‘high tech prosthesis’, as he calls it in Iron Man 2) is reified. And there’s no question as to whether his labour is exploited.

The Iron Man trilogy portrays capitalist ideology and the corrupt nature of billionaires in a lot of different ways, but most obviously through the character of Obadiah Stane, who is likely only a little less wealthy than Tony himself, but embodies the values of the bourgeoisie in our society far more than Tony ever has. Obadiah is selfish and corrupt, he hurts others (Tony, the stand in for the working class) to get what he wants, and while he has the resources and is given the option to make the world better, he chooses instead to make things worse to for the sake of profit. Stane has no empathy or compassion for others, and is content to attempt to murder Tony twice because he was in the way of what Obadiah wanted. This is a clear and simple reflection of the way that people in power mistreat those who have less than them, and I’m sure I don’t need to point out any of the real-life people it parallels. It is significant that Tony has spent the vast majority of his life (and indeed the entirety of his adult life) being used and exploited by this representation of the upper class, who is depicted as predatory and deceptive towards him. And it is also significant that the resolution of the story comes from the death of Obadiah (ie: the dismantling of the system he represents).

Is there a way to describe this kind of phenomenom? About rich people considered progressive, but who are not willing to lose their privileges?

Normally, these people are called social liberals in the political sphere. Social liberalism… well, it depends, because they’re often aligned with certain parties, which don’t necessarily have to be fully aligned with all social liberal principles. But social-liberal parties, for example, are centrist parties that are progressive within the elite, but not progressive in the sense that genuinely progressive parties are. They’re centrist parties with deep neoliberal capitalist policies, but socially, they support certain concessions aimed at improving social rights.

The thing is, if you inherit wealth and never really critically examine your own privileges — f you don’t go through the process of deconstructing those privileges— you’re not truly progressive. You’re progressive within the elite. You’re progressive for the traditional aristocracy, yes. You’re progressive for large inherited fortunes, yes. But you’re not progressive for someone working in a factory, a union member who works their ass off every day, risking their paycheck for their coworkers. For that person, you’re basically a fascist, you get me?

And for people who belong to an intellectual elite, this type of character is like “progressive, but with limits.” The privileged kid who still has upper-class attitudes but votes for left-wing or liberal parties. These people never understand the root of social problems. They have a paternalistic view, seeing themselves as saviors. It’s literally the class-based version of the “white savior.” That is, a privileged person who thinks that just by being progressive, or having progressive political ideas, they’re doing a huge favor to marginalised groups when really, they’re doing almost nothing.

Just as respecting the rights of racialised people is the bare minimum for a white person, behaving decently as a rich person is also the bare minimum. It doesn’t make you a hero. You have resources —social and economic capital— that could be used to genuinely change things. If you just stay in your bubble and maybe donate a bit here and there like charity actually solves problems… well, it doesn’t. Structural change is what matters. Doing the bare minimum isn’t enough.

So, was James Potter’s family progressive? Yes, in a way. Within their sphere of pure-blood families who were blood purists and didn’t want to see muggles anywhere near them. But James himself was classist. He treated Severus terribly, exploiting his economic and social privilege. James was a classist asshole. If the Potters had truly been progressive, fully aware of these issues, they wouldn’t have raised their son that way.

For example, the Diggorys were a wealthy family too, with an only child and Cedric Diggory is one of the kindest, most admirable boys in the saga, who never hurt anyone. James Potter? He’s practically Draco Malfoy —except he sleeps with a Muggle-born and defends Muggles. Okay, fine — but if he’s going around bullying the poor, then what’s the point? It’s like someone saying, “I’m not racist, I married a racialised woman,” while their main bullying victim is also a racialised kid whom they publicly humiliate. That doesn’t make you less racist. James Potter is exactly the same.

This has been sitting in a doc for a while now, so I thought I'd throw it out into the void.

I’ve seen this movie once (and am sure to watch it many times again), and found the portrayal of class differences to be very interesting. The writers made it very clear to us that Neil’s family wasn’t as wealthy as some of the others at Wellton. When he’s talking to Mr.Keating about his struggles with his father and the play, he says, “We’re not a rich family like Charlie’s, and we- but he’s planning my whole life out for me.” Later on in the movie, the comparison between Charlie and Neil in particular becomes even more apparent. 

Charlie is daring and frivolous. He doesn’t worry himself over rules, and he experiences the consequences of that, so it’s interesting then to look at how Neil, a similarly excitement-seeking and passionate character, simply doesn’t have the option to take risks like Charlie. Sure, he’ll sneak out of the dorms at night, audition for a play, fake a letter of approval from Nolan, but there are lines he can’t cross, lines that Charlie dances on constantly and eventually crosses entirely. 

Cameron's response after he got decked by Charlie (best part of the movie tbh) brought me a lot of clarity, “You just signed your expulsion papers, Nuwanda”. Charlie may not be coming home to a warm hug and a cup of tea, but where he would lose some privileges, Neil, who’s been deprived of even small and well-deserved joys, has no privileges to lose. So they sent him to military school. 

Anyway... look how cute he is 💕💐☺️