The Show Part 6: Social Class

by Jefferson Hansen

(This is a series of posts reflecting on the place of "the show" in contemporary society and culture.)

We can ask whether or not a tree falls in a forest when there is nobody there to hear it. But there is now a more relevant question: Does anything happen, in a meaningful way, if it is not filmed or photographed? Digitalized "film" is slowly being accorded more reality than that which is filmed: Something not filmed is becoming irrelevant and quaint. More and more, we live in the show, as spectators and participants.

The working class, as a whole, seems to me less hooked into the show than people in the middle or upper classes. I am describing a mere tendency, not an absolute.

Working class people tend to be involved in institutions that, while certainly affected by the show, have historical roots that mitigate against its influence. Family structures, church, unions—all sustain values of community that blunt the impact of the show.

Among the more moneyed classes, the show is stronger. Indeed, it may be at the center. Family, church, work are derived from the show. While it's true that our affections, for the most part, are more taken up by the historical institutions, these institutions are, especially for people with some money, formed more and more by the show.

The difference is that the moneyed classes stand, to a degree, outside the show as its direct and indirect producers. The direct ways are obvious: anyone involved in media, politics, mass sports, and mass entertainment. As far as indirect ways, there are plenty.

Take a physicist, for instance. He or she researches according to the needs and rules of the discipline. Put another way, a physicist, obviously, works in the arena of how physics is practiced. However, this practice is more and more formed by the needs of the show. Research must have practical benefit to be funded. Where does this practicality come from? From economic relevancy. Funded research is, more and more, that which has a direct impact on some aspect of the economy—perhaps just the self-interest of a corporation footing part of the bill. The contemporary economy is, more and more, created by the show. 

Physics research is used, for example, to build bigger and stronger computers. Which are in turn sold to companies, governments, and eventually people. While the physicist certainly stands at the edge of the show (in his role as a physicist, not a full human being, I hasten to add), he or she helps to produce it and is rewarded on the basis of this production. While he or she may be focused, in intention, on pure research, the wider context does not allow for purity. Eventually, this research must be used by or translated into the language of the show in order to be deemed relevant.

The show is a primary engine of the economy; natural science and engineering are the primary engines of the show. This does not mean that science and engineering come before the show. That is a chicken and egg sort of question. 

An engine is not created if its effect is not desired by someone.

Which brings us back to social class. The more monied people in our culture create portions of the show in indirect and direct ways. 

Educators train students to, ideally, become such creators.

The show is bigger than everyone.

The show is for everyone; it is the glue of the society. To not engage is to not be hooked in, to not be connected, to be on the outside looking in.