Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Paul Tough profiled her in a recent New York Times magazine. It’s news to a lot of people (many in her adoring audience are teachers) that there are unspoken rules about how upper-, middle-, and lower-class people behave. “In a few words, Payne explains how each class sees each concept. Humor in poverty? About people and sex. In the middle class? About situations. In wealth? About social faux pas. In poverty, the present is most important. In the middle class, it’s the future. In wealth, it’s the past. The key question about food in poverty: Did you have enough? In the middle class: Did you like it? In wealth: Was it presented well?” Sure, it’s almost as crude as a series of Dave Barry jokes. But you’ll remember it because it ties together a bunch of previously uncategorized experiences make a lot more sense when fit into Payne’s framework.
Note that it’s perfectly possible for there to be social markers of class AND for the current class hierarchy to be heavily and systematically stacked against people trying to rise in it. I reported on some of the evidence that American society is less mobile than we think in the Reader November 1, 2002; Clive Cook tells the story smoothly in the Atlantic (alas, also behind a pay wall). It’s a factual question; if you don’t like the facts, go change them.
