Michael, Dwight and Andy: the Three Aesthetics of the Creative Class
Six months ago I proposed The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class, which says: “The higher you ascend the ladder of the Educated Gentry class, the more you become Michael Scott.”
The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class delineated the three-tier structure of the modern workplace and of the American class system. Those on the top and on the bottom both experience the world as it literally is, but those in the middle – Michael, Dwight and Andy in the show; or, the educated gentry class – live in their own reality they’ve constructed, with farcical yet familiar consequences.
Now it’s time for part two. We’re going to explore the educated gentry in more depth, and parse this group of people – which we’ll call the Creative Class – into three separate cultures, each with their own terroir and aesthetic. And we’ll introduce a new rule:
If you are a member of the Creative Class, then your aesthetic is either Michael, Dwight or Andy.
Background: the origins of the Creative Class
Our American class system continually defies simplification; but if pressed, you can trace our current creative class back to four common ancestors. The 1960s hierarchy had WASPs on the top, a growing suburban middle class, and a large multifaceted proletariat. One extra group who did not fit neatly into this class ranking were the bohemians, who commanded significant cultural capital despite having no money. These four groups – WASPs, the Middle Class, Proles, and Bohemians – are our four starting materials.
In the 90s, the WASPs and the Bohemians, historically opposites of one another, peacefully merged. In Bobos in Paradise, David Brooks coined a lovely term, “BoBos” (Bourgeois Bohemians) to describe this new ruling class of the Interesting Individual. The BoBos merged the free-spirit, individualistic romance of the bohemians with the pragmatic capitalism of the bourgeois, into a new social aesthetic that demanded the best of both. “Being Interesting” (and healthy, green, worldly, and progressive) was both good social capital and good business.
This merger between the Bohemians and the Bourgeois wasn’t a coincidence – it was a savvy adaptation to the information age. The WASPs were always a strange ruling class, relative to the elites of other countries, because they were so dull. They hated new ideas and creative expression, and their food was terrible. Meanwhile, the now-middle-aged hippies realized that they liked money, and that they were good at making it. The hippies knew how to tell you that you were unique and special; they inevitably figured out how to sell you that aesthetic. The merger really worked.
Συνέχεια ανάγνωσης εδώ
Πηγή: danco.substack.com
