Wealth, Sophistication and Worldview

[A.Joseph]

I know this is going to come out wrong. I’m sure my perceptions are too simplistic overall but here I go.....
I‘ve noticed and perceived commonalities in attitude and personality type possibly related to a certain level of wealth and sophistication. I’ve come across certain people via social media, a few examples would be
Peter Enns (liberal theologian) @peteenns
Dan Haseltine (Christian singer) @scribblepotemus
Dustin Kensrue (former Christian singer) @dustinkensrue
and a lesser extent Tim Keller @timkellernyc
who seem to carry a more enlightened view of the world and even scriptures (at least I perceive they believe they do - I’m sure it’s more nuanced and well shaped by experience to a certain degree). I think all these men have reached out to disenfranchised communities and engaged in advocacy and activism to a certain degree in both word and deed - they all happen to be very bright, talented, articulate and accomplished men. I also work in a wealthy area where those ‘Hate Has No Home Here’ signs abound. I would place Barack Obama in this category to a certain degree. Maybe it’s an elite mindset, I don’t know. ... maybe that’s an unfair characterization.

.... But I’m sure even on this board, there are certain cultural and class distinctions that shape how we individually view the world and even carry ourselves to some degree. I believe we are well unified in faith, hope and love, but I think Ive awakened to the idea that certain personality types are formed by a class and wealth culture that creates a real disparity of emphasis and concern outside First Things. I know I gravitate toward more liberty- minded concerns for myself and fellow man. I consider my own upbringing lower-middle class. This is why I’m partial to personalities with a harder edge if I sense they are more sincere and transparent. I think there are some personality types who find Trump, for example, so far out of bounds due to his less thoughtful and refined speech (even if it’s exaggerated to a certain extent), where I may find his (projected?) simplicity and hard-nosed character more identifiable or refreshing. Anyway Im just noticing certain distinctions and commonalities that make some more guarded and distrusting and others more open and action-oriented. Some are eager to work within certain social and economic systems and there is a comfort level that drives them which may be related to being born with a certain level of wealth and sophistication and maybe acceptance. It’s an attitude that leaves them open to forward thinking and progress-oriented achievement and overall vision for the world, collectively and a perceived best course for a majority of individuals.


Im not sure exactly where I’m going with this and I acknowledge that these boxes are way too small. Maybe somebody with more insight can identify with what I’m trying to work through here.

 

[RamistThomist]

Are you talking about champagne/country club liberals who are wealthy and educated but generally avoid people of color?

 

[A.Joseph]

Are you talking about champagne/country club liberals who are wealthy and educated but generally avoid people of color?

I think so

 

[A.Joseph]

But their optimism is admirable. Sometimes they seem so secure in their beliefs. They rarely display any slight crisis of their convictions. I guess if a portion of utopia is realized (even if only in their minds and convictions) in this life, they feel pretty secure and satisfied in that.

 

[py3ak]

You're not wrong, Anthony. People's socio-economic situation certainly has an impact on many aspects of their outlook. It's partly a function of community. "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise; but a companion of fools shall be destroyed" (Prov. 13:20). The assumptions and expectations of the people we spend most time with will almost inevitably filter into us in one way or another.

Your experience of life in this world is very substantially shaped by what role you play within it, and naturally that influences how you think about things. People's worldviews often have large areas that are internally fairly coherent and hold together if you grant some initial presuppositions. From a worker's perspective, the "problems" of management might seem largely fictitious or self-created; and vice versa.

From a standpoint of considerable success, the system usually seems fairly reasonable. It rewarded me according to my merits, didn't it? It can't be too bad, and it's likely the fault of others if it didn't work out as well for them. If you're disenfranchised it likely doesn't seem quite as nice. If you belong to the elites, it likely makes sense to you that you're there and that the elites should be in charge of many things; if you don't, it likely doesn't.

I personally believe that most of our elites (whether in state, church, academy, or elsewhere) are thundering mediocrities, although it would be easy for them to dismiss that opinion as sour grapes. It seems blatantly obvious that the emperor has no clothes, and yet it's hard not to think that if it were true someone else would say it. There are many people with exceptional talent in one area or another, and many also with good and useful combinations of talents in less exceptional measures; but many institutions seem to be running on pure legacy prestige, rather than any ongoing constructive accomplishments.

Part of the animus against President Trump is that in his affect he does not conform to the expectations of the elite class. In their assumed superiority, this means that they must be more intelligent than he is. And yet they have not exactly had the resounding victories they "deserve." Rather than question the hollow foundations of their prestige (which would involve updating and downgrading their self-perception), they shift the blame elsewhere -- evil foreign geniuses, evil domestic racists, and so forth.

 

[A.Joseph]

Thank you for that. Just to add, I also guard against false equivalencies and generalizing. I’m not equating wealth and sophistication with theological and biblical indifference per se. Obviously, I’m not trying to paint Trump as any model or ideal. And I’m obviously not certain what goes on behind the scenes.

You're not wrong, Anthony. People's socio-economic situation certainly has an impact on many aspects of their outlook. It's partly a function of community. "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise; but a companion of fools shall be destroyed" (Prov. 13:20). The assumptions and expectations of the people we spend most time with will almost inevitably filter into us in one way or another.

Your experience of life in this world is very substantially shaped by what role you play within it, and naturally that influences how you think about things. People's worldviews often have large areas that are internally fairly coherent and hold together if you grant some initial presuppositions. From a worker's perspective, the "problems" of management might seem largely fictitious or self-created; and vice versa.

From a standpoint of considerable success, the system usually seems fairly reasonable. It rewarded me according to my merits, didn't it? It can't be too bad, and it's likely the fault of others if it didn't work out as well for them. If you're disenfranchised it likely doesn't seem quite as nice. If you belong to the elites, it likely makes sense to you that you're there and that the elites should be in charge of many things; if you don't, it likely doesn't.

I personally believe that most of our elites (whether in state, church, academy, or elsewhere) are thundering mediocrities, although it would be easy for them to dismiss that opinion as sour grapes. It seems blatantly obvious that the emperor has no clothes, and yet it's hard not to think that if it were true someone else would say it. There are many people with exceptional talent in one area or another, and many also with good and useful combinations of talents in less exceptional measures; but many institutions seem to be running on pure legacy prestige, rather than any ongoing constructive accomplishments.

Part of the animus against President Trump is that in his affect he does not conform to the expectations of the elite class. In their assumed superiority, this means that they must be more intelligent than he is. And yet they have not exactly had the resounding victories they "deserve." Rather than question the hollow foundations of their prestige (which would involve updating and downgrading their self-perception), they shift the blame elsewhere -- evil foreign geniuses, evil domestic racists, and so forth.

 

[PezLad]

Yeah their is a class of folk who believe "we are the nice people," the anointed ones, the visionaries, and whatever we agree on is above reproach and criticism. Unfortunately, their ego runs upon their high position in the world, and i agree with py3ak insofar as they are more ambitious socialites, than systemiticians, having forsaken Gods law, their rationale for their liberalism is empty; it has no principles; you cannot say to them give me your principles so that i can apply them to a given situation; they cannot. Take for example, increasing government spending; their arguement for spending on education, hospitals, etc is this; MORE ! And the next year, MORE! We are the nice people, we want MORE funding for schools now matter if their results go backwards. If you question us, then you must are cruel and unfair. The leftist party in Australia, the labor party, which is no longer for labor, but inner city liberals, is run by women, and wants more spending on everything, less freedom from, and more freedom to.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The foolishness of the learned shall forever exceed that of the ignorant. Many are educated beyond their intelligence. They're too clever by half. The experienced Christian knows this and learns the wisdom of the Apostle's admonition—Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. (Rom. 12:16) Thereby he learns the vanity of so much that passes for "erudition" and the value of homely wisdom and common sense.