Money And Class In America Analysis
In the book Money and Class in America, Lewis Lapham claims that American culture idolizes the wealthy, believing that wealth is necessarily belied by quality of character and wisdom. He gives both cross-cultural and cross-historical examples to show that other cultures and at other times the highest esteem was given not only to the wealthy, but also to the intellectual, the powerful, and the artistic individuals of those societies. In contrast Lapham discusses Americans’ idolization of the wealthy, as well as their conflation of wealth and individual merit and worth. He then questions if Americans -- a supposedly egalitarian people who are all created equal. Nonetheless, this cult of wealth still pervades, though seemingly there is nothing to cause it, as similar nations are not afflicted by such an absurd ardor.
The ranks of the wealthy, though largely populated by, as the saying goes, “old, angry white men”, are nonetheless not a homogeneous group, as all of them are individuals. Surely then, it is impossible for such a narrow cross-section to yield the absolute best of all citizens, as well as be the ideal source of all our leaders? To take such a tiny sample of one in a thousand citizens and yield such perfect results is not only not likely but mathematically impossible to produce all of the best citizens in a society. Clearly, then, it is impossible for the great american fatuation with the wealthy to be based in sound reason. What then, can cause it?
Lapham’s basic contention that Americans base their self-identity and societal worth on material wealth -- money -- has also been my observation. This is also one of the few reasons that Donald …show more content…
The Hoi Polloi hold a special adherence to the wealthy not for any rational reason other than the fact that they believe that due to good luck and hard work the upper echelons of society are intrinsically superior to
The ranks of the wealthy, though largely populated by, as the saying goes, “old, angry white men”, are nonetheless not a homogeneous group, as all of them are individuals. Surely then, it is impossible for such a narrow cross-section to yield the absolute best of all citizens, as well as be the ideal source of all our leaders? To take such a tiny sample of one in a thousand citizens and yield such perfect results is not only not likely but mathematically impossible to produce all of the best citizens in a society. Clearly, then, it is impossible for the great american fatuation with the wealthy to be based in sound reason. What then, can cause it?
Lapham’s basic contention that Americans base their self-identity and societal worth on material wealth -- money -- has also been my observation. This is also one of the few reasons that Donald …show more content…
The Hoi Polloi hold a special adherence to the wealthy not for any rational reason other than the fact that they believe that due to good luck and hard work the upper echelons of society are intrinsically superior to