Rating: 
Summary: Still current, still very funny
Review: I read this book some ten years ago, and it struck me as most humourous and overall correct.Although I was born in South America, I have lived and studied in the US, and I have studied and worked in France and the UK. My experience in all these geographies supports Fussell's conclusions. It is true that the higher the social class, the taller and slimmer people tend to be. It is true that the traditional lower (rather than the underclass) and the higher classes have many things in common, among them a deeply ingrained conservatism and a fierce pride in their way of being. In the UK, working class men's clubs are fighting the same fight which was lost a few year's ago by the gentlemen's clubs: the right to keep women away from at least some parts of their premises. Many working class people all over the world deride attempts by others of a similar origin to "pass themselves out" as middle class, and regard middle class dress, speech patterns and social habits as feminine and unsound. There is probably no significant difference in the prejudiced, deeply uncurious mindset of Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh
and that of a pensioner his age living in Yorkshire. It is true that strident religious opinions, big hair of unnatural colour and painted nails, or toupees and poorly-fitting jackets are usually the predictor of lower-to lower middle class background, or that high professional qualifications, gym memberships, affiliation with environmental organizations and career ambitions normaly denote urban middle class. It might be seen as cruel, even evil, to remark on it, but don't the following terms clearly conjure a mental image of a particular order of things? (a) barcalounger, (b) trailer park, (c) WWJD, (d) community college, (e) Tom Jones, (f) spam, (g) gin and tonic, (h) dinner jacket, (i) pesto, (j) 100% polyester, (k) white supremacy, (l) homemaker, (m) National Enquirer, (n) The New Yorker, (o) Nantucket, (p) Detroit, (q) credit card debt, (r) bodice-ripper, (s) short-sleeved dress shirt, (t) pocket protector, (u) hunting dog, (v) dinner jacket, (w) Armani, (x) Ivy League, (y) inner city, (z) Dairy Queen. Think of words like individual (pronounced "individjal") or expressions like people of colour. Those who disbelieve Fussell's arguments to identify social classes just haven't been paying attention, for there are signs everywhere that they are still alive and well. Fussell is very perceptive on many points. He notices that English spelling and mock-old-English words (parlour, kippers, jolly good) are short-hand for the higher social orders, and that this is used by real estate developers to get homebuyers to pay more just to live in a posher sounding address. He sees that many people seem to believe that college education irrespective of the actual college places them on a par with Ivy League graduates, and he sees it as a cruel ruse on the gullible and insecure (this is true everywhere: in the UK, many years after the polytechnics and teachers colleges were turned into universities Cambridge and Oxford still top the lists and "a group of fewer than 20 universities attract 90 per cent of the resources available for research and take the lion's share of money for teaching", according to The Times; in France virtually the entire business, political and intellectual elite comes from a handful of institutes, notably ENA, HEC, Insead and the X), in spite of the fact that truly desirable employers, such as consulting firms only hire people out of a handful of institutions (for example, Accenture, with 70,000 employees, only recruits MBA graduates at 5 schools in the US and 3 in Europe). He notices that most people confuse the more visible upper middle class (called in the US the Preppies, in the UK the Sloane Rangers, in France les BCBG, in Latin America la gente bien, o la gente fresa) with the much more reclusive upper class, which one rarely sees, perhaps luckily, for they tend to be troublesome and violent (cfr., "The House of Hervey", by Michael de-la-noy: party girl Lady Victoria Hervey has had a high profile dalliance with gangster rapper P. Diddy). He sees the clear difference between the upper middle class "Patrician" mindset, and the upper class "Aristocratic" one (in order to tell them apart, when you think of the upper middle class, think XIX century, Victorian, prudish, earnest, hard-working, dark, and when you think of the upper classes, think XVIII century, Augustan, idle, colourful, cynical: it's Dickens, Balzac and Jane Austen versus Lord Chesterfield, Boswell and Saint-Simon, or the Novel versus the Diary). This is indeed a key difference between the American North and South. The North's upper class (Saltonstalls, Cabots, Lodges, Ameses, Eliots, Adamses, Biddles) is distinctly Patrician, due to its deep Calvinist influence, whereas the South's (traditional California Land-owners or Alabama cotton-growers) is clearly Aristocratic (which is why only the South could produce William Faulkner's "Absalom, Absalom", and only the North could give forth "The Education of Henry Adams"). The US Civil War, seen in this fashion, is a re-play of the English Civil War between roundheads (Patricians)and cavaliers (Aristocrats). Fussell also sees that economic development will not swell the ranks of the upper classes, but just create richer proles and lower-middle class people. While some people may think that because they are rich they are upper class, virtually no one else is fooled. Raul Gardini, formerly one of the richest men in Italy (who killed himself a few years ago) once said that he and Silvio Berlusconi were just very rich stiffs, whereas Gianni Agnelli was a prince. If we look at the people who benefitted the most from the bubble economy of the 90s (such as software experts, web designers, telemarketers, singers and dancers and sport idols), we will see that most of them don't even try to appear upper class by wearing Armani or Ralh Lauren clothes, driving Bentleys, taking up polo or hunting or buying a yacht. They are just happy to live it up, and don't much care to be seen as upwardly mobile. Fussell was right when he wrote that Class was a very contentious subject in the US, that many more people thought of themselves as middle-class than was actually the case, and that simply discussing this matter was thought of as offensive. Reading some of the ratings for this book I have no doubt that this is the case. Some of the commentators appear personally offended by Fussell's opinions and think that "he's just a guy setting himself up as the standard for class, so we'll bring him down a peg or two". He does nothing of the sort. The only class with which he seeks to align itself is Class X, which is a bit like David Brooks' BoBos (Bourgeouis Bohemians), and he argues that only by stepping away from the class structure can we be totally free. Some people may think that the social class structure is so undermined as to be nonexistent. That's not the case. Social classes are very robust, and, in way or another, manage to survive all economic or political upheavals (remember Milovan Djilas' book "The New Class", on the dominant bureaucrat/military class in Tito's officially Socialist Jugoslavia"). In the US many people seem to think that money grants class. That is largely a deception. As Fussell says, it takes at least three generations to produce a middle class person, and many more to produce an upper class one. Readers, do not berate the messanger for the message. To paraphrase Goldwater, "in your heart you know he's right".
Rating: 
Summary: A Curmudgeon Classic
Review: One hilarious, unforgettable romp through the enduring system and symbols of class in America. As Professor Fussell's "Class X," you can trust my objectivity about that. ;-)
Rating:
Summary: American Version of J. Cooper's Class
Review: Utter truth thinly disguised as "humor". A similar book, "Class" by Jilly Cooper, is the british version of this book which preceeded Fussell's version. Fussell's book should be preferred to anyone living in America. While fussell borrows heavily the format and ideas from Cooper, nevertheless his concept of changing the scene to america and ripping apart human pretentiousness is effective. While he borrows some quotes from Cooper, he takes only the best.
Rating:
Summary: Fussell's Paradox
Review: I first read "Class" in the mid 1980's, and the book remains memorable because of Paul Fussell's incisive, but often mean spirited wit. Fussell writes from the stereotypical Anglophilic perspective of a northeastern snob conditioned to denigrate ethnics, upward strivers, and technology. I believe that Fussell's 1983 book now seems dated, particularly since it has become evident that the old Anglo Saxon elite has been largely replaced by a meritocracy. In his chapter on higher education, Fussell emphasizes that upper middle class students tend to go to the good colleges, while proles and middles get relegated to dopey schools plagued by verbal inflation. While Fussell laments the emergence of many bad schools after World War II, he doesn't mention that during the 1950's and the 1960's, the ivies and near ivies focused more on recruiting kids who were smart, rather than merely rich. As a result, many students from prole and middle class backgrounds who happened to be highly intelligent (and often non-Anglo Saxon) acquired the cultural capital associated with the upper middle class. These new upward strivers who understood the cultural forms of both the upper and lower orders could not be dismissed as shallow arrivistes who lamely mimicked the elite. Rather, their rigorous educations combined with their experience of ethnic, working class cultures gave them a unique, energetic perspective, which they brought to the professions. Fussell's final chapter on the "X people"-- those who choose more "bohemian" paths-- seems more like an afterthought to his more dominant exurban, northeastern, and hopelessly preppy point of view. On the one hand, Fussell ultimately claims that the boundaries of class are escapable through creativity, nonconformity, and artistic achievement, yet for most of the book he makes a case for the superiority of WASP culture. Fussell's lack of awareness of this paradox is the book's major weakness, since, given his main argument, it seems unlikely that one could both support a rigid class system and reject it. In the more recent "Bobos in Paradise" (2000), David Brooks argues that the new meritocratic elite has, in fact, synthesized a bourgeois sensibility with a bohemian one. Some readers may find the term "bourgeois bohemian" a troublesome oxymoron, especially if they believe that bourgeois capitalism and bohemian intellectualism simply don't mix. While time and space prevent a discussion of this valid point, Brooks makes a strong case that the meritocrats have appropriated the cultural perspective of bohemians or "X" people, as they also earn high salaries in bourgeois professions. "Bobos in Paradise" presents a more contemporary analysis of upper middle class tastes and values than Paul Fussell's "Class." Nonetheless, "Class" remains interesting and entertaining because of its exposure of a dying breed's social biases.
Rating:
Summary: Reality Based
Review: Reading this book is like taking the Red Pill, you will never see society in the same way again, you will see it for what it really is. The mark of a good book is one that challenges your assumptions and changes you. This book does just that. It will change you and/or confirm ideas you already had about classism in America. A must read indeed.
Rating:
Summary: Class
Review: Increadible Insight Class, by Paul Fussell, dealt with some of the visible and audible signs of social class. The visible signs discussed in Class include a person's house, lawn, driveway, car, clothing, weight, television, and eating and drinking habits. The audible sign of a person's social class is their speech. To many Americans, class in itself is deemed offensive. Socialists want one uniform class, while the middle class is extremely class sensitive, and while the upper classes love the topic of class. Commonly, the number of social classes is five: 1. Upper 2. Upper middle 3. Middle 4. Lower middle 5. Lower. Through his research, Paul Fussell has concluded that there are nine social classes starting from Top out-of-sight to Bottom out-of-sight. However he only ever discusses the three major classes in Class: Upper, Middle, and Lower (Prole). The appearance of a person is the first clue to their class. Paul Fussell has concluded that overweight people are usually of lower class. Clothing and clothing color, also expresses class. A scarf is considered upper class, simply because it is useless. A person wearing a white shirt and white pants can be considered to be upper class while a person wearing blue is thought to be middle class, and a person wearing purple is considered to be of lower class. Too much jewelry can also lower a person's class. Flashy jewelry represents middle to lower class, while simple, elegant jewelry represents the upper class. An upper class watch is very simple but the more the watch does, the more middle to lower class the watch becomes. Also, simple accessories such as neck ties and hats can raise or lower one's class. A necktie, is upper class while a bow tie, is lower class. Hats that have adjustable straps and brand names are lower class hats while simple, leather or white hats are upper class hats. A house's surroundings, accessories, and architecture represent a person's class. A driveway that is longer and the harder to find is upper class. Next, the way in which the number of the house is presented, can raise or lower class. A simple display of the numbers are considered by Paul Fussell to be middle to lower class. However, a house with the numbers spelled out represents upper class. A person's lawn also determines their class. The upper class will have trees in their lawn, the middle will have an immaculate lawn and the lower will have a discolored and unhealthy lawn. Also, the larger the windows the person has, the higher up they are on the class hierarchy. Paul Fussell, also describes how a television represents one's class. The lower class might have one or two small televisions, the middle will have five televisions, and the upper will hide their televisions. Paul Fussell, also explained the drinking habits of the classes. The lower class will drink beer, the middle will consume bourbon and ginger, and the upper will drink white wine or other light alcoholic beverages. The upper class will have a cocktail hour in which they drink and talk prior to the dinner. The middle and lower classes will simply have their drinks during dinner. The automobile also represents a person's class. The lower class drives dated Fords, Plymouths, Cheveys and Crystlers with bumper stickers stuck to the back of the car. The middle class drives new Fords, Plymouths, Cheveys, Crystlers, and S.U.V's. The upper class drives BMW's, Mercedes, and any other expensive car. The only audible reference to class made by Paul Fussell was that of a person's speech. A person's vocabulary is a marker of their class. The lower class will use expressions such as "Golly!" or "Oh my Lord!" The middle class speaks very intelligently using complex words every now and again. The upper class speaks with complex words continuously integrating them into their speech. Also, little variances in a person's speech can express their class. The upper class tend to use less syllables. When saying beautiful the upper use three syllables while the middle and lower use four. The names given to clothes by people also can represent their class. The upper class call a tuxedo a "formal dinner jacket," the middle call a tuxedo a "tuxedo", and the lower call a tuxedo a "tux" In conclusion, Paul Fussell discusses many aspects of class. After reading Class, one can easily judge their own social standing as well as the class of others. Class, correctly depicts the signs, symbols, and customs of the American class system. Thus, by describing what class is, Paul Fussell provides the reader with a description of America.
Rating:
Summary: Good, though limited in some ways
Review: I read the first edition of "Class" and it seems to be a good guide to American class signals, though it is probably biased toward Northeastern white non-Jewish urban culture and a bit out of date. But I keep coming across examples of the paterns of behavior and status signals that Fussel describes. Fussell occasionally seems to genuinely look down on the groups he is describing, as well as their class aspirations. By comparison, Jilly Cooper's "Class" seems to admit both her fascination with the English class system and her realization of its fundamental absurdity. The most serious lack of the book is Fussell's definition of an "X group" that is supposedly outside of the class system. But having grown up in academia, it's quite clear to me that the X group is simply a parallel class system for the people who consider themselves "intellectuals", with class signs to show that one is an intellectual and class signs to differentiate sub-classes of the intellectual class. And it is not that Fussell does not understand these signs, because he describes them directly! See Tom Wolfe for more on this phenomenon. It would be interesting if Fussell could give an account for the formation of the classes themselves and how the class signs arise, but that is probably not known. But since the class boundaries are more porous and less obvious in the US than elsewhere, it is very convenient to have a guide to making one's self over from one class to another.
Rating: 
Summary: Must-reading for the class clambering Middle
Review: I read snippets of Fussell's little tome as I made my way through theAtlas Mountains last year, and while I thought it wry and amusing, Ialso thought it a little too...earnest. I can only imagine this booktargets and succeeds with high proles and middles desirous of upwardmobility, because anyone of a higher station couldn't [care less]about some...college prof's notion of what constitutesclass in this country or any other. So---Fussell's class taxonomyis pretty much spot-on, but the very writing of such a book as Classsuggests a lack thereof. .... My advice: stick to StanleyBing for studies in class skewering.
Rating: 
Summary: On the lame side
Review: If I were Jilly Cooper, I would have been rather upset with this book, which borrows exceedingly heavily from her book of the same title. Fussell quotes it extensively, borrowing much of the format and most of the ideas from her book, which predates his. If you want a book on class, get Cooper's, which was just released in a new edition. It's just as funny and not nearly as rude. Fussell says no class is better than another, but Cooper clearly believes it. One gets the impression that Fussell read Cooper's book and thought to himself "Gee, somebody should write one of these about the United States!" And did. But Cooper was first and better.
Rating:
Summary: Oldrer,Wiser, Better Sense of Humour
Review: I first read this book when I was 15 and began categorizing everyone I knew. They were not amused, Reread at 22, vowed to be X, read again at 39, just laughed and recognized that my class (and the rest of me) has spread.
|
