Watch on Netflix Instant: "The American Ruling Class"

[Ghiddy]

Really good documentary that explores the "ruling class" in America. Two "students" who just graduated Yale go around deciding if they want to live a life of virtue or one in which you pursue money and power. They talk to guys who are in power, bankers, waitresses, etc, to get many different perspectives on whether there is a ruling class, and if so, how one gets into it. Most of the people who are a part of the ruling class that are interviewed say that there is "sort of", and that you are invited in.

 

[Dimmu]

Thanks for the heads up! That documentary sounds really interesting. I'll give it a look-see.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Define "a life of virtue".

 

[Ghiddy]

Define "a life of virtue".

Well they seemed to think of it in two different ways in this documentary. One one hand one of the newly graduated kids wanted to become a writer -- an artist -- and they showed how those with artistic aspirations almost always have to make a choice between staying true to their art or sell out by creating content that will sell. But then they also explored him becoming a journalist, and the necessary balance between journalistic integrity and the news company as a business.

So a life of virtue could mean being an artist or doing work to make the world a better place for people other than yourself.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Arn't they already living a life of power? Going to Yale isn't exactly cheap and not many people have that opportunity.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Well they seemed to think of it in two different ways in this documentary. One one hand one of the newly graduated kids wanted to become a writer -- an artist -- and they showed how those with artistic aspirations almost always have to make a choice between staying true to their art or sell out by creating content that will sell. But then they also explored him becoming a journalist, and the necessary balance between journalistic integrity and the news company as a business.

So a life of virtue could mean being an artist or doing work to make the world a better place for people other than yourself.

Because two options always provide sufficient coverage of any moral or philosophical question. How is creating pop literature for thousands/millions to willingly spend their money on and enjoy any less virtuous than creating art for ones own self-fulfillment?

 

[Ghiddy]

Spoiler alert:

In the end their conclusion seems to be that to make the world a better place you have to be "in", and that it is better to be in than to be out. One of the politician/tycoon types interviewed (forgot who he was, but a Texas based national figure) said that the US was the only country that could successfully and "responsibly" project its power in places around the world. They showed the footage of him saying that a 2nd time at the end of the video after the kid decided to go work for Goldman and sits for the orientation at Goldman. The kid looks at the camera with a look like he was questioning his decision, and then they cut to that Texas guy saying that about the US being responsible with it's use of force. The entire course of the documentary you get the sense that a lot of what Lapham (the old dude who chaperones the two graduates and narrates the movie) says is tongue in cheek, so I'm hoping that he was poking fun at the Texas guy's statements by emphasizing his interview footage.

That Texas guy tried to make the case that the US has to decide between supporting regimes that agree with our ideals and values, but has to only do so when it's in our national interest. THis makes sense and I think it's hard to argue against such a policy, but I think it's totally BS because it cherry picks the cases where we partner with regimes that do share our values. It ignores cases where we partner with countries in the middle east that are not democratic and that suppress their people's rights, and also countries like Pakistan. I'm sure there are a lot of other examples as well.

 

[Ghiddy]

Arn't they already living a life of power? Going to Yale isn't exactly cheap and not many people have that opportunity.

Not everyone there has money, a lot of people get aid to go there, and scholarships. Even the ones who have money aren't necessarily in power just by being there. The profession they choose determines their path in life. You're right in that they do have a lot more options open to them, and thep ath to power is more accessible to those who graduate from there, due to the many correlations a Yale degree has with having money, having friends and family who have money, and being smart and educated.

 

[Ghiddy]

Because two options always provide sufficient coverage of any moral or philosophical question. How is creating pop literature for thousands/millions to willingly spend their money on and enjoy any less virtuous than creating art for ones own self-fulfillment?

It isn't less virtuous, and I didn't say it was. I had a sense right off the bat that your question was a setup for an argument you wanted to have.

The dichotomy in the documentary between art and selling out was not about making pop music vs. making your own crappy hippie music that only you enjoy. I can't dictate to you or anyone else what constitutes "true" art, so I can't answer your question for you. But there are some artists out there who have a strong sense of "selling out". These people view this as when an artist stops making art that pertains to their own interests, and starts making it because a company pays them to make it. I think it's subjective and there are many sides to it. I think it's an interesting topic and this thread isn't the place to talk about it.

The documentary mainly referenced the struggle where writers want to sell their books about the things that interest them, but publishers don't want to publish it because it doesn't make money. But the publishers will pay them to write things that the writers feel are beneath their talents, or are devoid or art. Think someone who wants to be a writer but has to write shitty articles for Maxim and GQ to pay their rent.

I do know a guy who is a musician and he wasn't making it, and his music changed a lot in efforts to make success. He put out one album but I don't think it did well at all, but he is now in his early 30's and works writing lyrics for pop artists. Catching up over beers I noticed that he no longer talked about his art, no longer seemed passionate about it, but he did tell me "I'm not selling out, I'm buying in!" I think he was trying to convince himself, even though I wouldn't judge him either way. Everyone has to put money on the table and he can continue pursuing his real art on his own time, and pay rent and help support his family by writing the pop lyrics that he would have scoffed at in his early 20s. I see nothing wrong with it. If it sells people want it, and that might be seen as one measure of its worth as art. But, I don't like that pop music panders to the lowest common denominator of intellect, and has very little true creativity.

 

[Ghiddy]

Because two options always provide sufficient coverage of any moral or philosophical question. How is creating pop literature for thousands/millions to willingly spend their money on and enjoy any less virtuous than creating art for ones own self-fulfillment?

You're also right that if people spend money on it willingly there is nothing wrong with it. Even if it's shitty Maxim. But I think the fact that artists have to compromise their integrity is bad, and "virtue" is lost because the availability of truly original content in the world is decreased simply for the fact that very few can make money producing that. All the content that is produced is chosen in a sense by publishers and corporations. The public deserves that. and the less the public has original content, the less they realize that they don't have it. They are pacified by the fact that their energy is expended in their daily work, and the optiosn of entertainment and reading available to them are greatly filtered down when they go into a store or turn on the TV.

Yes, on the internet there is a lot of material but it is harder to find, and you still have the fact that most people don't put that much effort into looking for original content. Most look for hulu, netflix, or what's on their cable channels.

The other big problem with the idea that "voting with dollars is a validation of content" is that most people don't understand the implications of this. Most people don't make an effort to be aware of their surroundings and to question the information that is presented to them, and to question the makeup of their government, businesses, and society.

The pictures that came out of Vietnam played at least some role in making public sentiment about the war very negative. You didn't really see the same things from Iraq or Afghanistan, at least not in the mainstream media. Most of the information and pictures coming out of America's military operations in the past couple of decades has been highly chaperoned by the military, which has the effect of neutering the media. The average american doesn't really seek out "real" news because they don't know just how filtered what they see is.