*Rich Boy* the Shrinking American Middle Class and *South Park*

http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7


          There are multiple issues in the economy today that are resulting in the shrinkage of the American middle class.  The middle class is a topic that has not been covered in our class but is equally as relevant as the upper and lower classes.   *Rich Boy* exhibits upper class ambitions that result in a young man ascending to the upper class through receiving a first rate education.  Ambitions such as his are a part of the reason that the middle class is shrinking, but this article reveals the even greater issue of the competition for and the exportation of labor.  There are many of people in other countries far more desperate and willing to work for extremely low wages that middle class and even some lower class Americans cannot survive on.  The American dream is being exported to places such as India and removing the money from circulation in our own economy.  I'm no economist, and I can't say that I have a firm grasp on concepts of pecuniary circulation, but this article gave me a pretty concrete idea of what is going on in today's economy and why the middle class is decreasing.
          I wanted to briefly note the prolific ammount of references to this issue in pop culture, particularly in the show South Park.  South Park began as a generally crude-humored program, and although offensive and frequently inappropriate, it have grown to expose current cultural issues and satirize American values and events.  One episode is a parody of "The Grapes of Wrath", expect it mocks the loss of internet in one area resulting in a mass migration to Silicon Valley, California famous far and wide for its abundance of electronics and wireless resources.  An episode which directly addresses the issue of labor exportation is called "Goo Backs", a made up slur for an imaginary race of peoples that come to our time from the distant future, stealing jobs because they are willing to work for next to nothing and then returning to their own time where the minimal wages are worth millions.  This leaves the present middle class angry and out of jobs, breeding hate towards the "Goo Backs".
          This trajectory of thought brought me to the realization that class issues are not simply confined to our own country, but extend internationally.  This international competition due to the significant global economy generates negative feelings between many cultures let alone classes.  It is interesting to trace the root of many cultural tensions and discover that money has been the root.  Is money truly the root of all evil?  It creates divisions within countries and between countries, but can you really eliminate a class system, which would most likely result in the elimination of ambition and drive to work?   These are complicated questions that have occurred to me throughout the course and my cross-references between literature and media.  I'm not sure how many answers I have come to or will be able to come to in the future, but the examination and discussion of our texts have certainly made me aware of and sensitive to class values, monetary status and the problems that can ensue.

Osama Bin Laden....was also a "Rich Boy"

          http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?scp=8&sq=Rich%20Boy%20&st=cse

         My search for information on the release and public perception of the novel, *Rich Boy*, coincided with the overwhelming onslaught of media frenzy over Osama Bin Laden's death.  Typing "rich boy" into the search engine actually yielded results about Bin Laden's upbringing.  Although his wealth is not surprising I learned that he was born into one of Saudi Arabia's most affluent families, wealth that he later used as an adult to finance major terrorist attacks carried out by Al Qaeda.  In reading our most recent novel and in hearing about the past of one of the most evil figures of my own time,  I began to contemplate the concept of conspicuous leisure that many of our protagonists strive for or attain.
         In the novel Robert frustrated me;  his attempts to forge an entirely new identity in an upper class setting suggested his distaste for where he came from.  As he rises socially he begins to believe that being well endowed financially will somehow be fulfilling.  His dissatisfaction with his life as a child and young adult leads to his struggle to be someone and something more, which to him means becoming rich.  This gives him a sense of purpose, although it does not appear to give him very much satisfaction in life as he decays morally.  Osama Bin Laden is a severely emphasized case of the dangers of the idle rich.  Born with money, he too may have sought more purpose in life and his moral degeneration was advanced by a privileged life-style.  Throughout the course our novels have exemplified the dangers of wealth, and the evils that can take hold of affluent people.  Bin Laden is an excellent reminder that this sort of evil exists in real life.  Not everyone donates their millions to starving children in Africa like Oprah or Angelina Jolie.  Some dedicate their wealth to the mass murder of innocent people.  Many even make their millions from child labor, drug trafficking and human trafficking.
          This sort of corruption begs the question, what is it that we are striving for when we seek wealth?  There are people like Robert who are in the early stages of corruption and seeking empty goals, but eventually that can and does develop into people like Bin Laden who seek goals formed by an entirely warped perception of morality.  What do we hope to gain by becoming rich?  At first it might be the large house, the nice cars and the designer labels on our clothes.  However, for many this is not enough.  These material items become commonplace and unsatisfactory and what's next then?  What will be a person's new goal in life?  Feed the starving children?  Build the underprivileged a school?  Or finance massive terrorist attacks that shock and devastate human-kind?

Author of *Schooled*, What a Hypocrite

          Anisha Lakhani's book, in my opinion, was ridiculous and not in a good way.  Her message was too overstated, treating her reader like an idiot, and her writing style made me feel as though I was leafing through a less sexed-up version of Gossip Girl.  She trivializes the behavior of the affluent population in her novel, making them all stuck-up, ignorant, and entirely tacky.  The self-righteous character, Anna Taggert (who seems to be modeled after Lakhani, as is the overall Langdon experience), makes me want to punch a baby.
          After doing a little research on Lakhani I only disliked her more.  She is no better than the spoiled children and ignorant parents she writes about.  She used her wealthy husband's (now ex) money to back her book and become a "success".  A photo search shows her dressed in some incredibly obnoxious outfits and her shitzu is her primary and most prized companion.  Really?  I'm fine with people having monstrous amounts of money and loving their toy-poodles and Gucci bags more than life itself, but please, just don't be such a hypocrite.  Her entire book seems to be a judgment of this lifestyle and the ways in which people acquire what they want, but overall she is no better than her characters.  Hopefully she's aware of this, and hopefully she finds someone to dedicate her future writings to besides her 6 pound dog.

A Marxist Approach to *Schooled*

Throughout Lakhani's novel, Schooled, there is a discernable class distinction between Langdon's teachers and its students.  Anna, a recent graduate of the prestigious Columbia University, has decided to take the path of teaching at an elite private school in Manhattan.  She has every intention of educationally bettering the lives of her students but soon finds herself being manipulated by their millionaire parents who essentially control the school system.  This educational structure serves as an example of a Marxist perspective of capitalism.  Marx established his belief that capitalism is an entity comprised of the proletariat, the widely oppressed and manipulated majority of the populace, that works to the advantage of the bourgeoisie, the marginal but wealthy ruling class.  Within the school system teachers and tutors make up the proletariat, oppressed and manipulated by the bourgeoisie class of their student's parents.  This novel exhibits that capitalism and the elitist behaviors of manipulation that results are ultimately inescapable in any system where significant disparities between social classes exist.

                        In the beginning of the storyline the reader is presented with Anna's perception of corporate exploitation, which justifies her entrance into a world of teaching that she believes will contrast workings of economic organizations. She expresses her desire to escape corporatism and materialism, dejected by even the thought of having to drive her parents "luxury car that promoted the evil empire" to the train station (5).  Her friend Bridgette is presented as the type of corporate slave that Anna refuses to become, strutting in her Jimmy Choo heels and attending high-class functions that will only get her addicted to luxury and therefore the long hours that can afford it.  Anna accepts a position at Langdon to avert the fate of her friend and evade the depravity of capitalism. However, Anna's idealized vision of a pristine teaching job is exposed as a sphere of capitalist influence in which she is the proletariat.  On orientation day she is presented with a personal laptop, a token of her first bribe similar to the elegant dinners awarded to her friend Bridgette.  As she is introduced to her students she discovers that her position as teacher and the small luxuries she does have come at a price of subservience.  Her seventh grade English class quickly informs her that on certain days, such as bar mitvahs and Yom Kippur, she cannot assign homework and that they will not tolerate a breach of these privileges.  She initially attempts to resist the entitlement of these children, and brings it to the school's attention when she finds that her co-worker Randi has been doing student's work for them.  Despite her moral efforts, she is forced to push incidents such as these to the back of her mind at the request of Langdon's headmaster and subsequently conforms to the will of Langdon parents whom exercise their money as a form of power. 

                        Through her own acceptance of a role as an over-paid tutor that literally does the schoolwork of her clientele, Anna is swallowed up into a proletariat of teachers and tutors ruled by a parental bourgeoisie.  In her struggle to be more like the elite class in her material assets and conspicuous consumption she degrades her values as an educator for their benefit.  The bourgeoisie population of the school system exploits the minimal income of their teachers and uses their affluence as a tool through which their children can achieve high-marks.  These parents are thrilled with Anna as long as she is supporting their efforts at constructing academically artificial child prodigies.  They supply her with big fat checks and other material perks in addition to their undying gratitude for her dishonest undertakings on homework assignments and essays.  However, this friendly association is shattered when Anna eventually can't take the pressure of tutoring any longer and chooses to award grades fairly and not based on monetary assets.  It is at this point in time that the displeased parents grow hostile, sending Anna nasty personal messages and even complaining about her behavior to the administration.  Clearly this bourgeoisie assembly is only appreciative of the system when they are manipulating it.

                        Anna entered Langdon with hopes that a profession as noble as teaching would provide her with a safe haven from the morally poisoned domain of capitalism, quelling material obsession and class divisions.   Unfortunately she discovers that the realm of schooling encompasses all the competition and socio-economic ruptures she would encounter at any banking job.   The elite wealthy take advantage of the less well off; they simply wear the face of parents and teachers instead of CEOs and blue-collar masses.  The bourgeoisie manipulates a range of systems, which they arrange in a flawed manner skewed to their own advantage.  Anna's disapproval and struggle to amend these injustices displays the negative backlash that would ensue should the elite be challenged.  Overall, Schooled illustrates that even in small and seemingly innocent institutions such as schools, financial markers of class engineer omnipresent capitalist philosophies that permit the bourgeoisie exploitation of the proletariat.

                       

                       

                        

The Poorest Place in the U.S. ....Not Like the Beans

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/morning-buzz-poorest-place-in-the-u-s/?scp=1&sq=severe%20poverty%20in%20US&st=cse

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/05/ground-zero-civil-liberties-paul-harris

These little blurbs summarize the conditions of the poorest place in America, Kiryas Joel, NY.  Unlike the unfamiliar and disturbing lifestyle of the Beans the peoples of this area are not the picture of poverty.  They live in fairly nice apartments in the suburb of Orange County, NY.  However, 70 percent of the village's income falls below the poverty threshold.  What does differentiate their population from what we consider normal are the beliefs they practice, a large portion of the community are practicing Ultra-Orthodox Satmar Hasidic Jews.  Their lifestyle entails marrying at a very young age and producing large families as a result of birth control being banned.  Although it is depressing that so many people in one place live below the poverty threshold, it is a breath of fresh air to see an impoverished community that contrasts so heavily with the construction of the Beans.  The crime rate is non-existent in this village, suggesting little violence or immoral conduct, and the lack of wealth is not apparent in their style of dress or cleanliness.  It is important to remember that being poor does not necessarily mean a community is degenerate, and the town of Kiryas Joel provides an excellent example of the respectability of a group despite their minimal income. 

The Numinous and "The Beans of Egypt, Maine"

          This novel was demoralizing, to say the least.  However, I found its disturbing nature intriguing.  What is it about the squalor and degeneration of the human condition that captivates many people?  The effects of the numinous are what evoked my interest.  The experience of the numinous is comprised of two main components: the mysterium tremendum and the mysterium fascinans.  The mysterium trendum is  the concept of invoking fear, and the mysterium fascinans is the ability of a subject to fascinate and compel.  Both of these concepts appeal to the human psyche.  This sort of psychological approach to drawing an audience is often employed in horror movies and science fiction.   Chuter's novel depicts a population that is so unfamiliar and shocking to her reader that it draws on the mysterium tremendum and fascinans.  Amongst the Beans there are members that are murderous, incestuous, and lustful.  In addition, many of them have addiction, which I would not categorizes with the other traits that are considered immoral and or sinful.  The fact that these traits are part of the numinous and are unfamiliar suggests that they are not normal.  The numinous allows us to reflect upon concepts of normalcy and to deconstruct them.  This is certainly apparent in reactions to writings such as the Beans.

Single Mother's in "The Women of Brewster Place"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=1045649&page=1

I was doing a bit of research on single mothers after reading "The Women of Brewster Place" and I found this article from ABC News.  It's a really interesting piece which is definitely relatable to Mattie's difficulties as a single mother.  Some of these women can definitely empathize with her over-protective and worrisome nature because if some aspect of a child seems "off" the mother is usually blamed regardless of whether or not he/she has a father.  One term I did find interesting was "Momism" which is said to have been coined in the 1950s and refers to a mother who is so overprotective that she fosters selfish and spoiled tendencies in her child.  This sort of terminology could be applied to Mattie's treatment of Basil, especially considering his resulting behavior and ultimate departure from his mother's life.  The relationship between a mother and son and the correct conduct, particularly for single mothers, is extremely controversial and has historically been (falsely) assumed to be responsible for homosexuality, autism and even schizophrenia.