Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
As you all know, Charles Murray's new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, has been getting a lot of buzz, and for good reason: Murray presents an important and provocative thesis about the growing disconnect in values between America's richest and poorest citizens, a rising "cultural inequality":
Over the past 50 years, that common civic culture has unraveled. We have developed a new upper class with advanced educations, often obtained at elite schools, sharing tastes and preferences that set them apart from mainstream America. At the same time, we have developed a new lower class, characterized not by poverty but by withdrawal from America's core cultural institutions.
He then lists a variety of alarming statistics that prove the growing cultural divide among the top 20 percent of Americans and the bottom 30 percent of Americans when it comes to marriage, single parenthood, industriousness, crime, and religiosity. In the 60s, the two classes were nearly indistinguishable in these regards, but by 2008, the gap widened starkly. For the bottom 30 percent, the American way of life is "coming apart," while it's in good working order for the top 20 percent, who have embraced civic virtue and "shared assumptions about central American values involving marriage, honesty, hard work and religiosity."
Murray's solution is for the top 20 percent to preach what it practices:
The only thing that can make a difference is the recognition among Americans of all classes that a problem of cultural inequality exists and that something has to be done about it. That "something" has nothing to do with new government programs or regulations. Public policy has certainly affected the culture, unfortunately, but unintended consequences have been as grimly inevitable for conservative social engineering as for liberal social engineering.
The "something" that I have in mind has to be defined in terms of individual American families acting in their own interests and the interests of their children. Doing that in Fishtown requires support from outside. There remains a core of civic virtue and involvement in working-class America that could make headway against its problems if the people who are trying to do the right things get the reinforcement they need—not in the form of government assistance, but in validation of the values and standards they continue to uphold. The best thing that the new upper class can do to provide that reinforcement is to drop its condescending "nonjudgmentalism." Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn't hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.
The upper and lower classes may be pulling away from each other, and living in two different American subcultures, but there is world of experience they continue to share: that of popular culture. I find in interesting that Murray thinks that the elites should start practicing what they preach because one set of elites, those in Hollywood, have turned the experience of being in the bottom 30 percent into a kind of stardom.
Think of the MTV shows 16 and Pregnant and True Life, or these prison reality shows, or movies that glorify the experience of being unemployed, unmarried, and lazy—of being a slacker—like The Big Lebowski and Step Brothers. Then there are shows like Jerry Springer, Dr. Phil, Maury, etc, which are fueled by the "coming apart" of the bottom 30 percent; they dramatize single parenthood, paternity tests, family dissolution, drug use, criminality, unemployment, etc.
In the case of the television shows I mentioned, they may have been conceived as cautionary tales—look what happens when you get pregnant out of wedlock—or, more likely, they were created to appeal to the culture's lowest common denominator, that part in many of us that wants to read the tabloids when no one is looking or can't help but watch the car crash (metaphorical or literal). Regardless, they have turned their subjects into celebrities, aggrandizing their less-than-exemplary experiences by the simple act of televising them to millions of viewers. The Big Lebowski, which is admittedly a hilarious and entertaining movie, has a cult-like following. But its antihero, the Dude, is a jobless slacker who does drugs, bowls, and ends up tangled up in crime.
If the upper class is to practice what it preaches, the pop culture is a good place to start. "Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn't hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms," Murray writes. That sounds like an awfully moralistic and righteous message for television, film, and music. But is it, truly?
Maybe not. Take the show Modern Family. It's the perfect example of "married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids." And it's a hit, which shows there's a market—a yearning—for this kind of TV. Everybody Loves Raymond is another show in this vein, as was Family Matters, one of my regular childhood watches, which is about a middle-class African-American family from Chicago. In fact, there's a whole history of comedies that celebrate American values: I Love Lucy, The Beverly Hillbillies, The Honeymooners, and more recently, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, which bridges the cultural gap that Murray writes about, albeit in black America, not white. The show is about an African-American teenager (Will Smith) from inner-city Philadelphia. At the prodding of his mother, who wants him to have a better life, he moves in with his wealthy uncle (a judge), aunt, and cousins in Los Angeles, where he absorbs their family values and ethic of hard work.
This theme was covered in an excellent essay by Modern Family co-producers Brad Walsh and Paul Corrigan titled "The American Dream: Twenty Two Minutes at a Time." The essay is in the book Acculturated, and here is a short excerpt:
. . . sitcoms reflect something unique about Americans and American culture. We are an aspirational people—just like our favorite sitcom characters. In life, we’re aware that repeated failure can be a deterrent; it can undermine our sense of purpose. It can defeat even the most entrepreneurial among us. But in comedy it doesn’t have to be that way. Failure is something to laugh off, to forget. Tomorrow will be another day . . .
Sitcoms, whether we’re writing them or watching them, bring Americans a certain degree of comfort. While our worlds are in constant motion—particularly thanks to modern technology—and we often feel as though the rug could be pulled from under us at any moment, sitcoms promise stability. The characters will largely behave the same from week to week. The sets will not change much and neither will the setups. That they’re on at the same time every week is even a way to mark time. They're a reason to gather with family and friends on a set schedule.
But the fact that the characters are always trying to break out of that world—that Ralph Kramden is always trying to be a better husband, that Michael Scott is always trying to be a better boss—to bring about some fundamental change is touching. One man’s aspiration is another one’s inspiration.
So . . . maybe it's not all bad news after all.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Aug '11
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
I haven't seen Modern Family, but my wife and I have been enjoying the show Parenthood, which seems very unique among series television in how it portrays the importance of not just the immediate family, but all the extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents.
Oct '11
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
I got Murray's book on Tuesday and am just venturing into part II, so I don't know the full extent of his argument regarding how the lower class got into their current straits. But this makes some sense to me, and I am finding myself making choices about my TV viewing based on a personal "wholesomeness" assessment - something I didn't do even a couple of years back. Probably why I scored a whopping zero on the TV viewing question on his quiz.
I can also recall my Dad's being quite opposed to the 70's sitcom, One Day at a Time because he believed it glorified divorce. Looking back, and in light of the pervasive influence of TV on the culture, I tend to think he had a point. And that, as I remember it, was pretty darn innocuous by comparison with what's on offer today.
May '10
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
I liked the Charles Murray essay.
My main point on this topic is that it is liberal social values that have led to the breakdown of the lower class. The upper class has prospered, relatively speaking, by living conservatively, even while many of them profess and parrot the liberal values popular in the culture.
Tearing down those who are living correctly will not help those at the bottom get their lives together.
As for popular media, I try to stay as far away from it as possible. It's corrosive. If that puts me out of touch with "American" "culture" (two sets of scare quotes intended), so be it.
Edited on Feb 2 at 11:57amJun '10
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
What Communist-era Romanian orphanages did to infants is what the American government did to poor urban neighborhoods using our modern welfare system. They removed the moral education requirements and the close human interaction (provided before by churches and other private charitable organizations) and just left the porridge. So, you end up with kids who know how to eat porridge (collect checks) but they don't know how to act like civilized human beings. In many cases they don't even know that they're missing something intangible. They only know that they want more stuff...more porridge.
Oct '11
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
Emily Esfahani Smith:
Murray's solution is for the top 20 percent to preach what it practices:
If the upper class is to practice what it preaches, the pop culture is a good place to start.
I think, Emily, you reversed key terms as your post went on; Murray's is the first I highlighted above; Chris seems to be arguing against the second (I would agree with him - that's no way to solve things).
Chris Deleon: I liked the Charles Murray essay.
My main point on this topic is that it is liberal social values that have led to the breakdown of the lower class. The upper class has prospered, relatively speaking, by living conservatively, even while many of them profess and parrot the liberal values popular in the culture.
Tearing down those who are living correctly will not help those at the bottom get their lives together.
What I think Murray is getting at is that those of us who are living conservatively should speak out and condemn practices that are breaking down the lower class, rather than exercising tolerance.
Edited on Feb 2 at 12:25pmMay '10
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
Why did Murray name one of the two towns after Mitt Romney's home town, Belmont (MA)?
Dec '10
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
Bring stigma back.
The PC folks are right: stigma is bad, even unfair at times. But it's a hell of a motivator. In the name of compassion, we keep trying to make people comfortable in their poor choices. Nothing could be less compassionate.
Nov '11
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
As with the previous post on this subject, I found myself just balking at the terms & the grading describing the huge middle class majority of this country. (by our histories most of us move in and out of those proposed grading schedules throughout our lives, and usually by choice). We know there are very poor and not too many in this country really, the majority of us in between, and a few very rich. I had heard my 15 yo granddaughter said awhile back she was embarrassed to bring her boyfriend home. The night of the first post she was doing her (too well paid minimum wage, weekly job) cleaning our shop office, breakroom, and bathrooms and I thought, no wonder she thinks she's 'working class'. Snort. Sounds like to me like the middle class (almost everyone in other words) is falling for the class warfare spin even if they're against it-acting like 15 year olds? See the occupy movement. There have always been the few very rich and as the saying goes they've always been different. Perhaps it's not what economic bubble you're in but what values you have at all levels.
Oct '11
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
In Modern Family even the gay issue is treated beautifully..wonderful example
Feb '12
Re: Charles Murray's "Fishtown" in Popular Culture
I think Murray's attempt to focus on the individual is the right one. As I look out my window at the operation of life in nature, I see no animal surviving without daily doing lots of work. We are not whole without work. We have designed so many social programs which really compete with work, coupled with the loss of many manufacturing jobs
What we have are millions of service jobs. We also have immigration policies which imports workers .
We need to slow or stop the immigration of low skilled workers and take on a major policy shift in the private sector to infuse the service jobs with training, with reasons to be proud of the work, with interpersonal skills to enhance the lives of people served (many elderly) and encourage careers in that field. The knowledge classes should encourage this; they could share some knowledge ((nursing,medicine, teaching, etc.) and provide more substantive roles for the most experienced. We can and should make work more attractive in the service sector when the jobs are; not just pine away for the return of the mega factory with thousands of domiciled workers who can turn an apple product over night.