Perhaps we should read Daniel Bell's entire essay, "The New Class - "A Muddled Concept", before passing judgment.
Here's a longer excerpt: "Yet a double process of detachment was at work in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For the advanced social groups - the artists and the educated social classes - the legitimization of social behavior passed from religion to the expressive culture. Nothing was sacred, and the exploration of all impulses became an aesthetic norm. Thus "the culture" was freed from the domination of religion and from traditional moral norms." Is that all so wrong-headed? Clearly, this fragment is just part of a longer argument. Is it possible to write cultural history without concepts that skeptics like Cheerskep can call "muddled"? (at least this author puts "muddled" into his title!) ____________________________________________________________ Free Workers Compensation Legal Information. Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxaDRVPbVEvWVyF5JM65JOSFm LufdcDRfls0zV3X2MxgQBizJuJbWI/
