Terms Which Have Disappeared

Upgrade said:

...He also mentioned how the Victorians were interested in more fleshy encounters, comparing them to Jabba the Hut. Hence commenting that this was a more aerobic bordello.

Click to expand...

Historically speaking, until the mid-1800s women who would today be described as being "overweight" were far more desirable than "thin/skinny" women. In America the "ideal" of the female physique changed drastically between 1890 and 1920 specifically, when doctors began to truly learn the importance of diet and exercise for a healthier lifestyle and, as such, spread the notion that excess weight was a form of physical disability. The industrial revolution contributed to this when standardized dress sizes were created; women who previously made their own clothes or had them made by a seamstress (i.e., their "size" was based simply on their own measurements) were buying their clothes from department stores where those standardized sizes made it easier to compare who was or wasn't "overweight". This led to the various "diet and exercise" fads through the more recent decades (for both men and women) as people tried to attain whichever "standard for attractiveness" was in effect at the time, and...well, we all know how that's turned out.

^^^^^
"Fat cat" wasn't wholly metaphorical.

When starvation is a real danger, a person carrying extra poundage might well be viewed as more attractive. A few extra inches around in certain regions of the anatomy might project relative affluence and stability -- desirable traits in lean times.

These days, lower-income people are likelier to be overweight than their more affluent brothers and sisters. Says something about what it means to be poor, then versus now.

tonyb said:

^^^^^
"Fat cat" wasn't wholly metaphorical.

When starvation is a real danger, a person carrying extra poundage might well be viewed as more attractive. A few extra inches around in certain regions of the anatomy might project relative affluence and stability -- desirable traits in lean times.

These days, lower-income people are likelier to be overweight than their more affluent brothers and sisters. Says something about what it means to be poor, then versus now.

Click to expand...

Not coincidental is the opening of the first McDonald's in 1955.

tonyb said:

^^^^^
"Fat cat" wasn't wholly metaphorical.

When starvation is a real danger, a person carrying extra poundage might well be viewed as more attractive. A few extra inches around in certain regions of the anatomy might project relative affluence and stability -- desirable traits in lean times.

These days, lower-income people are likelier to be overweight than their more affluent brothers and sisters. Says something about what it means to be poor, then versus now.

Click to expand...

Similarly, at one time having a sun tan was an indication of being a farmer or some other outdoor laborer, and thus a pale complexion was the fashionable one.

We see today the same sort of conflation of "health consciousness" with "moral virtue" used as a definition of class boundaries that the Victorians used with covering up the flesh. To a great many people today, the rail-thin, kale-eating, Whole Foods-shopping yoga-stretched body is a positive marker of both class and moral superiority over the pudgy proles waddling out of McDonalds in exactly the same way that Mr. and Mrs. Bourgie Victorian sneered down their perfect Anglo-Saxon noses at the just-off-the-boat rabble.

I'll often enjoy a Quarter Pounder with exaggerated relish in front of such ones as a sort of metaphorical middle finger in their direction.

"Civility."

Well, maybe it hasn't disappeared, but it's certainly on the endangered list.

LizzieMaine said:

We see today the same sort of conflation of "health consciousness" with "moral virtue" used as a definition of class boundaries that the Victorians used with covering up the flesh. To a great many people today, the rail-thin, kale-eating, Whole Foods-shopping yoga-stretched body is a positive marker of both class and moral superiority over the pudgy proles waddling out of McDonalds.

Click to expand...

Living in NYC, I see and know plenty of hefty and more-than hefty and not-very-health-conscious "upper" class people and plenty of thin and health conscious "regular" working people (the gym I work out in is very working class - a lot of hospital and general office building "staff" people work out there). And I'm not talking about a one-off, in my job and life, I encounter a pretty good range of people and other than young mothers from well-to-do families (who take working out and not-eating food [but talking about it as if they do] almost as a religion), I do not see a correlation between weight / working out and income situation.

As to moral superiority, some subset (not all) of people who work out, people who eat well, don't drink, don't smoke, etc., do express this trait, but again, I don't see it income related. Am I missing your point or not looking at it from the angle you mean?

I don't consider income a marker of social class -- speaking not in the Marxist sense, but in the sociological sense. That's a common American way of looking at it, but in fact and in practice how much money you make has very little to do with your actual social class. Social class in America is a matter of family background, education, and what used to be called "breeding," just as it is in Europe. There was quite a bit of writing about this during the Era in the stratiation of people into various "brow" categories, but Paul Fussell's 1970s writings are still the best guidelines to how Americans are divided into classes. His book "Class" is highly recommended -- even though some of it is dated, it's still very much an eye-opener. It's also very very funny in a persnickety New England sort of way.

Around here, the rail-thin pallid-faced kale-eaters sneer perceptibly at the pot-bellied and the florid-faced when they meet them on the street or in the checkout line, setting their organic celery and their tofuburgers on the conveyor belt in a highly marked manner. It's entertaining to hear them loudly declaring that they only eat NON-GMO snacks while standing in the popcorn line, lest anyone mistake them for Joe Blow shoveling cheap greasy junk-food into his craw.

Apropos the above, here's how social classes lined up during the early postwar years. This chart was prepared by social historian Russell Lynes for a Harpers Magazine piece in 1947, and was republished by Life in its April 11, 1949 issue. While, again, much of it is dated and there's a bit of humorous exaggeration, it wouldn't likely take too much modification to prepare a similar chart for 2018.



It's amusing that this chart was originally published for a readership that fit squarely into the upper-middlebrow category, but didn['t get widely noticed and discussed until it hit a squarely lower-middlebrow publication like "Life." Lynes' book "The Tastemakers" is well worth reading for an elaboration of the theory, and an early pre-Vance Packard look at the role of the Boys in perpetuating this class structure.

LizzieMaine said:

I don't consider income a marker of social class -- speaking not in the Marxist sense, but in the sociological sense. That's a common American way of looking at it, but in fact and in practice how much money you make has very little to do with your actual social class. Social class in America is a matter of family background, education, and what used to be called "breeding," just as it is in Europe. There was quite a bit of writing about this during the Era in the stratiation of people into various "brow" categories, but Paul Fussell's 1970s writings are still the best guidelines to how Americans are divided into classes. His book "Class" is highly recommended -- even though some of it is dated, it's still very much an eye-opener. It's also very very funny in a persnickety New England sort of way.

Around here, the rail-thin pallid-faced kale-eaters sneer perceptibly at the pot-bellied and the florid-faced when they meet them on the street or in the checkout line, setting their organic celery and their tofuburgers on the conveyor belt in a highly marked manner. It's entertaining to hear them loudly declaring that they only eat NON-GMO snacks while standing in the popcorn line, lest anyone mistake them for Joe Blow shoveling cheap greasy junk-food into his craw.

Click to expand...

I want to think more about this as my first thought is, yes, some "healthy living" people feel superior to those who don't live that way and find ways to "announce" their "superior" choices, but I'm not sure I see anything more than some subset of "healthy living" people being obnoxious.

Contrary to what others may believe, there's only so much you can do about your body, although it's easy enough put on the pounds. But one will see frequent indications from before WWII that people were more concerned then with gaining weight than in losing it. It was probably a reflection of the general economy during the depression. And believe me, growing up in the 1950s, you never stopped hearing about the Great Depression, even more so than about WWII.

I do see a lot of people out jogging and walking in my neighborhood and most of them are probably pretty fit, though fit for what, I don't know. There are also plenty of gyms around here, too, and I was very surprised to learn that my daughter belongs to a gym. It must do some good, though, because she looks pretty fit. But I don't see the income/social level/high brow-middle brow-low brow differences. But I'm not looking for it, either.

The only thing that will make you taller is elevator shoes.

That chart that appeared since I started this post is hilarious, if only slightly dated. I think we, my wife and I, fit into all of those categories and some people I can think of don't fit in any of them.

BlueTrain said:

Contrary to what others may believe, there's only so much you can do about your body, although it's easy enough put on the pounds.

Click to expand...

You should always choose your parents wisely.

BlueTrain said:

That chart that appeared since I started this post is hilarious, if only slightly dated. I think we, my wife and I, fit into all of those categories and some people I can think of don't fit in any of them.

Click to expand...

Paul Fussell postulated the existence of a "Class X" in America -- which was sort of nebulously defined as people from an upper/upper-middle-class background who deliberately chose to live a life outside the class system. He used this category to explain many of the hippie/back-to-the-lander types who were rampant in the mid-1970s, but in the years since many if not most of these have in practice regressed toward their native classes, even while retaining the outward trappings of "Class X." At least that's been the case here.

Of course, you could argue the only people who can realistically live outside of the class system a la "Class X" are those whose inborn class privilege allows them the freedom to do so. A lower-class person presuming to take such a step would still be viewed as "lower class," just as a lower-class person who ends up making a lot of money in, say, real estate, is still viewed as lower-class by the true uppers.

Class in America can't be measured on a simple line chart, but requires 3 dimensions of income, education and culture.

It's the people in the middle incomes who are most tightly bound to the outward appearances of class. Those with a lot of wealth have the liberty to ignore outward appearances, and those who have little wealth lack the means to create them.

Calisthenics

Not gone, but used much less often then when I was growing up in the '60s / '70s.

That said, I don't know if it was a popular word back in the '30s-'60s? I watch a lot of movies and read a lot of books from the GE and can't say I encounter the word "calisthenics" much at all, so maybe the word just had a vogue when I was a kid.

I realize that the chart above, as well as the notions of high brow, etc., and books like the Peter Principle are done in a light-hearted manner but there's still a great deal of truth in them, as should be obvious from looking at the chart. Still, it is confining and suggests there are fewer gradations than there really are. Moreover, they probably wouldn't be the same everywhere. The chart seems to have been written from a 1950's northern big city perspective and that's fine as far as it goes. And anyway, it's only about cultural class. There's nothing really in the chart to suggest income levels or occupation. Around here, for example, some plumbers drive Mercedes. Mercedes vans, that is. But I wonder how many patronize the opera. I've graduated from university, lived overseas, married someone listed in Burke's Presidential Families, have a semi-professional job and have yet to see the first opera. I've seen a few musical, though. That knocks me down a notch or two, no doubt.

I just realized that the chart doesn't mention opera but I've never seen a ballet, either, even though I've performed (dance) in public. That was in my salad days.

Although I mentioned that some people don't even make it to a chart like that--uncultured, I guess--I have known people from each one of those categories, more or less. The category you best fit in, however, is no indication of how nice you are to be around or how good a neighbor you might be. It might be a good indicator of the kind of neighbors you have, though, given that you probably live somewhere surrounded by people just like yourself, if you can help it.

Although the chart was about Americans, it's true in other places to a greater or lesser extent. But there is something that transcends nationality. In the movie about Frida Kahlo, there was a scene in an art gallery where she was hosting an exhibition of her work. It was in Mexico City. Everyone in the gallery certainly looked Mexican but somehow, at the same time, they also looked like someone you would see in an art gallery.

Opera is very much an upper-middlebrow pursuit. I've been interacting with the local opera audience on a regular basis for over a decade now, and there is no group of people on Earth more strenuously upper-middlebrow in every possible way -- "I'll be using my Harvard Visa card to pay for this" -- than they are.

In the Era there was a definite effort to make opera something more accessible to the common herd. When listening to Met broadcasts from the Era, you'll note that Milton Cross's commentaries are specifically directed to people who have no particular background in opera or classical music, but are kept just erudite enough to flatter the listeners into believing that they are more cultured than they actually are. It was a very fine skill, and one that none of Cross's successors have really had.

[QUOTE="LizzieMaine, post: 2358402, member: "I'll be using my Harvard Visa card to pay for this".[/QUOTE]

How one little line can say so much.

We laughed about it for days, but it was exactly the phrase used. Somewhere Paul Fussell was smirking.

LizzieMaine said:

Opera is very much an upper-middlebrow pursuit. I've been interacting with the local opera audience on a regular basis for over a decade now, and there is no group of people on Earth more strenuously upper-middlebrow in every possible way -- "I'll be using my Harvard Visa card to pay for this" -- than they are. ..

Click to expand...

Several years ago, a gal pal-a college English Lit professor-inquired as to whether I wished to accompany her to a Renee Fleming opera
discussion at the University of Chicago the following Sunday; which conflicted with a Chicago Bears game and obligatory radio post game analysis.
She wasn't very happy at my declining; sending a subsequent email stating that she thought I was "a cultured professional."
I mailed back that I really only attended opera discussion forum hosted by Karita Matilla; Maria Gulgehina; or Anna Netrebko.
We laughed over it later, of course, but the moment itself was precious.