>but the technical complaint you had missed the point. and he didn't
>actually misrepresent anything. and no matter, it's not a
>productive defintion of class he's after, as was evident by the
>paragraph within which the claim you criticized was couched.
Of course he's not after "a productive definition of class," since it would undermine his campaign to middle-ize everyone.
Let me quote myself quoting Wolfe again:
>On the first page of his awful book, One Nation, After All, Alan
>Wolfe writes, "According to the General Social Survey, at no time
>between 1972 and 1994 did more than 10 percent of the American
>population classify themselves as either lower class or upper
>class." He says this to prove that the rest, 90%, are middle class.
>But theye're not. Wolfe forgot to say that over the same period,
>half the unnamed rest called themselves, quaintly, working class.
I say that not to disclose what the other 90% said, because the reader would probably supply "middle class" as the missing alternative, is devious. Evidently you think it's ok.
You live surrounded by people who have little in common with Wolfe's sample. So do I, for rather different reasons. Why ignore our neighbors, other than to promote mystification?
Doug