snit snat wrote:
>
> this reminds me of when I was asked to speak at a conference. They wanted
> me to talk about white working class women and the problem of sexism and
> gender violence among our men. I showed up in polyester slacks, pink foam
> rollers, a pack of smokes, snapping bubblegum, and slinging a six pack of
> genny screamers.
>
An attempt to visualize "the working class" (however it is done) necessarily distorts the reality, and dangerously so. A suit & tie would 'catch' or baggy shorts and torn shirts or the costume you describe are all equally good visualization of "the working class," and all equally distorting.
The working class that counts is that proportion of the working class that at any time responds to developing struggles -- and that is not predictable on the basis of costume, entertainment choices, income strata, education, et cetera et cetera. At the level of social analysis class (working class or any other class) is not a collection of describable individuals but a process and a set of (changing) social relations. It can only be accurately discussed in either abstract terms or in analysis of those portions of the class in motion.
"X is a rabbit" or "X is a chemical engineer" tell us something about X in each case (less in the second instance), though not enough in the first instance to know if it is edible or in the second if (s)he is competent to dispose of a ton of sarin. "X is a member of the working class" tells you nothing whatever about X.
Carrol