Sunday, April 11, 2010

Working Class Blog #3

I really don’t see a connection between Mike Lefevre in Who Built the Pyramids and the young people in Born Rich. Mike talks about his experiences as a steelworker as dying bread, how he would like to take pride in his work that he’d like to show his kid “you see that, I built it”. He works hard and fantasizes about living it up in Miami like a college kid, with a sports car! Marijuana! Wild sexy broads, he’d love that, but then he goes on to realize the reality of his life, to work hard so that his son can go to college. Mike also says he’s like an old mule as he shows his black and blues from his hard work its always about his kid going to college so that his son can be better then him. That what working class is all about to Mike working hard so that you can provide a better life for your kids. The young people in Born Rich have no idea what working class means they have been raised in the “lap of luxury” they are isolated and socialize in their own little world. They are privileged most don’t know what to do with themselves and probably wouldn’t last a day in the life of Mike Lefevre . They are actually living his fantasy. Mike talks about the possibility of working a twenty hour week where I don’t believe some of the rich kids could work twenty hours it would be too much for them. And even when some of the rich kids work like Carlo who earns 50,000 a year he still receives a six figure salary in addition to working. They are completely different. The two texts clearly show a difference in the working class and the social world and the two rarely meet.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Ellen - Interesting reflections - I think the differences you point to *do* represent an interesting connection! The fantasy each group has about the other is interesting in terms of thinking about how the different sectors of our society interact - or perhaps how they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like this piece, but I think you underestimate yourself when you say that you can't see the connection. If you look at it from a different perspective, it seems like the "lack of connection" you point to is one of the most interesting things you could take away from the comparison between the rich kids and Mike Lefevre. Both of these sets of people are members of the same society, yet they have no contact: as you observe, their lives are completely separate and completely different.

    On the other hand, I think there are other kinds of connection that need to be considered in this case. True, Mr. Lefevre and the rich kids are not socially connected -- they don't know much about the conditions of each other's lives, and their lives are incredibly different. But can we really say there's *no* connection between them? What about economic connections, for example? What is the relationship between the work of people like Mike Lefevre and the wealth enjoyed by the rich kids? Where does that wealth come from? It may be that approaching the contrast from this point of view, the lack of connection that you speak of will take on more meaning and importance.

    ReplyDelete