book ownership is definitely a luxury.. but often one so tied up in classism that it is interesting to see that listed, but not... lets say a color tv. In theory 50 books could be far cheaper than even some used TVs.. which is why I wondered if it was completely tied to classism.
There is another aspect of social - not economic so much - class that isn't addressed in this meme, and certainly colors the book thing. People who don't have the money for a lot of luxuries may still own books, but I think we as a society do consider those folk of a different "class" than those of similar economic standing who wouldn't prioritize art or reading. Artists, for instance, Teachers living off a single income. And yes, there's definitely an element of classism in that. And here is where I'm having the disconnect... to me anything other than looking at strict economics of the haves and have nots is classism. This I know has to be shaped by my poorer mother's side of the family wanting me to 'pass' as upper middle class, and using all the same arguments... that if I was 'well cultured' (in luxuries only usually afforded by the upper class) then I would 'pass' where as my father's side of the family full of college educated engineers did not have any books to speak of, enjoyed crass humor, and often debated such facts as 'bats are birds because they have wings.'
To me assigning any kind of acceptability to jobs because they are 'more noble' such as the artist over the garbage collector is entirely classist because society needs both of those jobs, without either society would collapse... so why is one more acceptable? Perhaps because it was more of an economic investment to be a teacher and 'take on' the vow of poverty via teaching rather than being poor and continuing to be poor.
no subject
There is another aspect of social - not economic so much - class that isn't addressed in this meme, and certainly colors the book thing. People who don't have the money for a lot of luxuries may still own books, but I think we as a society do consider those folk of a different "class" than those of similar economic standing who wouldn't prioritize art or reading. Artists, for instance, Teachers living off a single income. And yes, there's definitely an element of classism in that.
And here is where I'm having the disconnect... to me anything other than looking at strict economics of the haves and have nots is classism. This I know has to be shaped by my poorer mother's side of the family wanting me to 'pass' as upper middle class, and using all the same arguments... that if I was 'well cultured' (in luxuries only usually afforded by the upper class) then I would 'pass' where as my father's side of the family full of college educated engineers did not have any books to speak of, enjoyed crass humor, and often debated such facts as 'bats are birds because they have wings.'
To me assigning any kind of acceptability to jobs because they are 'more noble' such as the artist over the garbage collector is entirely classist because society needs both of those jobs, without either society would collapse... so why is one more acceptable? Perhaps because it was more of an economic investment to be a teacher and 'take on' the vow of poverty via teaching rather than being poor and continuing to be poor.