IV + Three. Wealth, Skin color, Education
Rightly or wrongly, and in no particular order, those three aid in class assortment to one degree or another in all societies. I realize you referred to wealth and your reference is correct but wealth also can be a determinant in some societies.
Avoid purely western thought in your effort; for example, it is often said that in the west, persons amass wealth so that they may influence power; elsewhere in the world men seek power so that they may amass wealth.
Skin color is not purely racial difference, it applies as well, perhaps more pointedly from your analytical standpoint, to stratification within groups.
Education is a determinant throughout the world -- and, in different parts of the world, the type of education can make a significant difference. Stratification on educational lines is more severe in the west than elsewhere.
And to confuse the matter even more
How do you work in the "artificial" classes created in each and every society through Fame, fortune, skill, fortitude, strength.
Actors/Actresses
Athletes
Artisans
etc
Each with their own select set of problems derived from the greater focus placed on them then the average citizen
And or the influences they have on a given populace for various reasons
Your work, so obviously your choices.
Re: Education, we can disagree on that. I think you'll find the in many nations it is difficult to pin down the role education plays. Take the US as an example, consider hiring practices and ponder Richard Florida's thesis just as two quick examples. You may or may not know a family where a son was expected to go to college and do great things and elected not to go. Is he still a member of his parent's 'class' -- I suggest most may be, some will be -- and some will not be. For that matter, look at the Army... :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
As for skin color, I would include that in a broad definition of 'race' (where I would also include ethnicity, tribal identity, and other such relationships).
You could but you'll also find that skin color within races, ethnicity, tribes and even families can make a significant difference in the class to which a person might aspire, might reach and/ or from which one might be excluded. Thus my comment was worded as it was: "Skin color is not purely racial difference, it applies as well, perhaps more pointedly from your analytical standpoint, to stratification within groups."(emphasis added / kw) That applies to an extent in this country but that issue is quite significant in some others. Check out Brazil -- or Panama.
"Counterinsurgent," perhaps, but "counterinsurgency," no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
That's not what I take from CvC. The destruction of the enemies forces has political effect on the other elements of the trinity - Leadership and people. All useful military acts have political effect at some level and for some duration. In fact I would submit that is how you judge the usefulness of military action, and I think CvC makes this point.
An insurgency exactly mirrors CvC's trinity. If it doesn't it's not an insurgency. Destroying the military capability of an insurgency, is one way to defeat the insurgency. - and this alwasy makes me wonder why all the great and good are trying to examine insurgencies as some kind of exclusive case, instead of starting from the premise that COIN is warfare, and not "social work with guns," or some other post-modern take on a very ancient problem.
While I will certainly agree, and history supports, that the defeat of the insurgent's military capacity within ones populace will effectively suppress an insurgency, often for years. But it has not to my knowledge ever truly resolved an insurgency. So long as the conditions giving rise to insurgency exist, the insurgency will re-emerge. It may come back with new leaders, or a new ideology, but it will come back.
Make defeat of the insurgent a supporting effort, but do so while understanding that he is a part of the same populace who's support you are trying to regain as the counterinsurgent and tailor your defeat mechanisms accordingly. The main effort must be upon reestablishing conditions of good governance with the populace writ large. This is not social work with guns, but simply a recognition that when governance fails, it often has to use force in its efforts to re-establish itself with the populace.
To hold that one size fits all, that the solutions that one seeks with ones own popualce are the same that one seeks with a competing state is a concept that I have not seen any convincing arguments made to support. Frankly, I suspect CvC would scratch his head at the concept as well.
AP, be careful in how you define/redefine
class. The classical definition of social class depends on a relationship of income and occupational prestige. This is often predicted by - often determined by (but not always) level of education. So, if you define class differently - and operational definition is always your right - be prepared to be challenged and to need to keep reasserting your definition.
That said, there is much evidence that societies do not simply organize themselves in terms of class - I/O class. Culture is often seen (particularly by anthropologists like MarcT) as determining social organization. Of course, it may be that individual actions determine both culture and social organization.:rolleyes: My point here is to suggest that you not get overly committed to one form of explaining complex human phenomena. As Hamlet said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." :D
Cheers
JohnT
Thats much closer to where I was coming from
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
I think a better analogy is to the gladiators of ancient Rome or the Charioteers of Byzantium. I suspect that members of the "entertainment classes" in many countries have a much stronger affinity with the common people than with the wealthy. (BTW, I think this is true in the US.)
How does one explain that pro sports figures and actors/actresses get away with the kinds of scandalous and down-right illegal behaviors that would put the common person behind bars for a long time? I suspect it is allowed as a form of anti-hero behavior that gives the great mass of folks an opportunity to be vicariously "naughty" without fear of reprisal.
IMHO there really needs to be a recognition of the fact that technological, social, monetary, and other changes in the global society as a whole have led to a plethura of newly designated "class" like groups within which the entire spectrum exist. Aside from the examples you referenced consider Geekdom for one. Groups built on relationship to a given skillset, you have your hero's and villains, your rich your poor, highly educated and not so educated, etc.
Or how about the socio-political implications from fame developed through new media?