H.E Pennypacker: Wealth American Industrialist, Phianthropist, and Bicyclist

Is being working class represented as a lifestyle choice?

Class Dismissed (2005) touches on many key points that we should be aware of when looking at how media effects our perception of class. The model for today's sit-com is based on the family unit as the source of prosperity and economic-free struggles; in order to be happy and live a successful life you must have a family.

The jobs of the mother and father are used as plot points to explain things like "how did this couple afford this house?", "Why couldn't mom and dad afford piano lessons for so and so?" Their jobs are not functional, in other words, their work doesn't affect the outcome of the plot of the show, whether or not the family can afford to replace the window Billy broke, or go on vacation for an extended two part season finale. 

The life of the viewer is the opposite of the sitcom character; while the individual's lifestyle is determined by social/cultural factors as well as class, such as type of career and employment, the character on a sitcom's lifestyle determines what line of work the character would be in to justify say having a butler or having a mini-van as opposed to a compact car.  

Also sitcoms are based around one set as the main stage (home, bar, etc) where all conflicts take place, evolve and resolve across the span of the series. This focus on the household for example as the center of conflict leads writers to explore plots of moral consequences and family values; such as "can the children show they are responsible enough to have a dog?" and "Is Billy jumping off all these bridges because his friends are doing it and his parents have been fighting over where to best spend their vacation for the two part season finale (because the rating have been down and they really need a come back) to instruct him on peer-pressure?"

These issues appear to be lessons in "how to have the perfect family in six seasons or less" and put the focus of conflict on the fault of the individual rather than the system they are apart of. So while Billy is jumping off bridges with all his friends cause his parents are too busy fighting over the plot we need to take into consideration the big picture--class. 

I don't think I've ever seen a plot for an episode of a sit-com be determined by factors outside the nucleus of the family; "Billy's been doing poorly in school because the education facility in his area is out of date and lacks funding" or "Mrs. Billy struggles with trying to increase her pay wages so she can gain some class mobility." 

The closest thing I've seen to dealing with class issues is that one of the middle class family members tries to appeal to their "rich friends" and live their lifestyle of fur coats and fine wines. At the end of the episode the naive middle class family learns that having nice things doesn't make you happy and the credits roll. This discourages class mobility among the middle and working class and portrays having money equates to having more stuff and is not about financial stability; thus working/middle class workers who wish to move up in class are seen as greedy because they already have everything they need when that is not the case at all. This "lifestyle" of Ferraris and furs is portrayed as a choice of the individual to participate in a culture of over the top luxury and greed that to have more money is unmoral. When in reality, the working class and middle class families watching these shows are just looking for more financial stability and job security. 

I haven't been watching a lot of sitcoms lately, but Seinfeld (1989-1998) has always been a classic that is in a way an anti-sitcom sitcom. For example Kramer is unemployed before the series has started up until the middle of the 9th and final season where he gets his job back at a bagel shop after the strike for raising pay wages is over (because minimum wage went up). He ends up loosing this job over the course of the episode. BUT my point is that, we suspend our disbelief for the sake of the show and just accept that this 35 year old man can so how afford a New York City apartment with no job and still manages to get food on the table. One of Kramer's characters, "H.E Pennypaker" I think exemplifies how we perceive class as a lifestyle choice because even in the show people believe he is this philanthropist industrialist because of the way he acts and dresses.

Here's a link to Kramer coming off strike

Here's the best of H.E Pennypacker
      
Here's another one just for fun, It's not mentioned above but worth seeing 
 

Amazing Grace by Jonathan Kozol (1995)

Kozol's collection of anecdotes from various people living in the South Bronx is truly heartbreaking. My initial impression was to take the statistics with a grain of salt since Kozol's book was published twenty years ago. Although after reading the first chapter in full, I highly doubt that there has been significant change in the environment these people live in.

I guess my biggest issue with trying to break down and examine the class struggles these people face on a daily basis is that there are just so many issues and social factors that these people are struggling with that are so essential to daily life it is nearly impossible to relate to the South Bronxian person's perspective because we are so accustom to idea that in America everyone can "succeed" and that even if someone is down and struggling they can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and suddenly escape poverty and "be somebody." And even recognizing this privilege still makes it difficult to understand because personally I just want to believe that there is some ray of hope, that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow; that the situation for these people "can't be THAT hopeless." There is this sense of denial that places like this exist in America because be pride ourselves on the idea that hard work equals success.  

What made this excerpt feel much farther than an 18minute train from Manhattan was the lawlessness that exists within the community with virtual no consequences. Kozol retells stories of children being shot, raped, overdosing on drugs, participating in gang violence, and struggling with medical issues ranging from Asthma to AIDS. The narrative structure focuses on the lives and experiences of the people with in this community, the burdens they bear and how it seems at every turn they are kicked down time and time again. The only issue I see with Kozol's narrative is that he only briefly discusses the police's role in the community. Now I'm just curious if this omitted because the police don't have any role in enforcing the law in the South Bronx (as Kozol mentions in the story of the continued drug ring at Children's Park) or if its omitted to emphasize the lack of justice served to these people and the bloodbath that is Mott Haven. Kozol also gives us a few stories of people seeking justice on their own such as Sylvia (better know as Angel)'s grandmother killing of her son in law. Again, its not quite clear whether or not the police will investigate because South Bronx's lack of importance to the system, or the issue of rape accusations and an insufficient evidence to warrant an arrest/investigation. Either way, the situation is horrid nonetheless, my focus is on Kozol's lack of law enforcement because he covers the other points key to class struggle very thoroughly, and it surprises me he didn't go into more detail.

Kozol's other excerpts really do help to paint the picture of the bureaucracy of the medical system and the constant filling out forms and trying to get letters just to get medical care and food on your plate.  The descriptions of the hospitals really do convey that the lack of resources these people have, as well as the medical waste incinerator that was placed in the South Bronx because the Manhattan district rallied and protested it being built in their area on the grounds that it may give the children cancer. And because so many people are sick and/or homeless in this neighborhood, very few people have jobs they are able to maintain and thus they have no money to put food on the table and/or time to form a community to make changes in the district.

      

Quotes from "Forest and the Trees"

"When the subject of race and racism comes up, for example, white people often withdraw into silence as if paralyzed by guilt or other feelings they don't dare express. Or they push back angry and defensive, as if they are being personally attacked and blamed for something they didn't do" (Johnson).

I feel this quote contains the primary issue when attempting to address class issues. People with privilege interpret the argument of racism and class struggle as a personal attack. We feel that we are being blamed for racism and that we are personally responsible. As a result we focus on defending our character than actually addressing the issue; Johnson's example of this is 2005's Hurricane Katrina. When federal officials addressed the disaster publicly they focused on defending white privilege and denied the lack of response time had anything to do with race. Since those with privilege do not like to acknowledge they have privileges over others, the issue of racism is cast aside and the focus of the conversation become defending the character of white people.

"The fact that I benefit doesn't make me a bad person, but my participation in the system does involve me in what happens to them" (Johnson). 

 Those with privilege tend to feel that having privileges over others equates to being a bad person; when in fact this is not the case. But having privilege effects the influence one has within their class to promote change. Although one person cannot suddenly make the world 'nonracist', one can choose to be part of the solution rather than the problem and help to influence the smaller circles in which they participate such as the workplace, family gatherings, and the local community.

"The only way to get past the potential for guilt and see how I can make a difference is to realize the system isn't me and I'm not the system" (Johnson 16).

The key argument that Johnson wants us to takeaway from this chapter is to recognize the difference between the role of participating within a system and how the system functions. Although the path of least resistance within the system may urge us to exert our privilege over others in order to succeed, our actions do not necessarily correspond to those values. In order for a racist or sexist act to happen one has to act a certain way within a social system. Society may be racist/sexist but our individual actions determine whether or not these values are perpetuated.