On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, John Gulick wrote, in part:
> Here in S.F. where I live, young white men who _look_ like Michael Moore's
> stereotyped depictions of the working class (bowling shirts, tattoos, into
> car repair, etc.) are rarely themselves from a working-class background, hold
> working-class jobs, or have any sense of working-class identity. More likely,
> they derive from a middle-class background and already are members of or
> are heading toward the technical-professional salariat, and are merely
> "slumming" and riding the latest sardonic and demeaning capitalist culture
> industry trend, "working-class kitsch," which itself derives from a
> stereotyped depiction of "Joe Six-Pack."
This sort of trip is, of course, not unique to San Francisco, but one can bet
that it's more of a blatant hothouse plant there than in, say, Pittsburgh.
Do we take this phenomenon at its surface repulsiveness, as just one more
odious turd afloat in this flooded toilet of a society, or can it count as
an item worth some serious analysis?
In early 1937 Orwell thought that the bourgeoisie had quit Barcelona
en masse, but upon returning 3 months later he realized that it had simply
been hiding out in blue overalls (and that the revolution was over!).
valis
