On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Doug Henwood wrote:
> The college audiences I found most exasperating weren't the ones from
> nonelite groups - they were at places like Bucknell, which processes the
> dimmer offspring of the upper middle class
This sounds a little like Bourdieu's opposition of
high cultural capital/ vs. low cultural capital/ low economic capital high economic capital
or: really smart guy with not much money pissed at stupid kids who will grow up to have lots of money :o) Or what used to be called the ressentiment of the intellectuals. I fully identify.
As for something you said earlier, i.e., "how do you run the world with managers like this?" I think the answer is: easy -- that's what the Division of Labor is all about. It's possible to be smart and narrow -- think chess whizzes or musicians. And it's just as easy to be mundanely competent and narrow. Kids that can parrot back papers and solve word problems and get A's can internalize their superiors' wishes and analyze beta and make big bucks. It's not a minus for the system if they don't know enough about the broad world to question it -- it's a plus.
It's true, you need a few people that know as much as Rubin or Greenspan. But it's easier for the system of rule if it's just a few. No?
Michael __________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com
I have seen the best minds of my generation, crawling in the gutter,
and then standing up and getting a job in computers. __________________________________________________________________________