I'm about to leave Montecito, and I realize what makes me uncomfortable about this town: it's very much divided by class. It's not that I've suddenly become a socialist; it's just that it's uncomfortable to be in a place where the divide between haves and have nots is so stark. (It's a little like Latin America or the Hamptons that way.)
My hometown in Connecticut is mostly upper middle class. There are a few very wealthy people there, and also some who are struggling. But for the most part, it is upper middle class. The biggest social activities tend to center around childrens' sports, and people drive their own kids around town. You see some nice cars and houses, but most do not scream money.
In Montecito, in the brief time I was in the hillside shopping center, I saw an Aston Martin Vanguard and two Ferraris. But it's not just the cars that are flashy. It's the mansions secluded behind tall hedges, the arty little shops, the beachside Coral Casino, and the ultraluxurious Biltmore. There are also the ever present servants. By "servants" I mean those whose jobs it is to cater to the rich in one way or another. There are guards at gated compounds, valets, and doormen, as well as lots of gardeners.
In my hometown there are people whose job it is to work on houses in various capacities. But there are no gated compounds, and people park their own cars.
Personally, I'm just not comfortable around "servants." It simply means more people to be polite to. For instance, I've never understood the appeal of a chauffeur. I'd rather drive my own car and not have one more person with whom I have to exchange forced pleasantries, someone who's going to know more about me than I'm comfortable with. It's simply more relaxing to be by yourself in your own car.
There seem to be a fair number of rich people who are very comfortable being surrounded by paid assistants. I can't help but suspect that some of that comfort derives from not really thinking of those assistants as fully human, and not feeling any need to be polite to them. Which says something about those rich people.
People who become upper middle class tend to get that way by being quietly responsible, intelligent, competent, and hard working. (Think doctors, small town lawyers, middle management types, engineers and teachers.)
People who become super wealthy sometimes get that way by being brilliant, but far more often they arrive by being aggressive, backstabbing, entitled, and even corrupt. (Think of hedge fund managers, Hollywood producers, corporate CEOs, and real estate moguls.) And once they become rich, they become even more entrenched in their narcissism.
I tend to get along with the former. I often end up despising the latter.
That said, I don't usually enjoy the company of poor people either. They are more likely to be irresponsible, chemically addled, not particularly intelligent, and resentful. Sometimes, they're even dangerous.
There are certainly both rich and poor people who are perfectly pleasant, as well as plenty of noxious members of the middle class. But the general correlations hold.
Anyway, today I say good-bye to this striated enclave -- heavenly as the scenery and weather are -- and head back to my middle class town, where I'm more comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Very good article John. Once again, I've often thought of a lot of that stuff but just never articulated it consciously. Thanks, Brian
Thank you Brian.
I've never experienced such affluence although I do try to stay away from poorer a people.
For instance you may get drunk with a poorer person and they seem good fun and interesting but with conversations and being witty you can push the boundaries and often with a poor person you do not know their limits and potentially they may over react impulsively.
Wodgina --
Good point. Impulsiveness is another trait that the middle class does not have as much.
Chauffeurs are an indulgence (some would say necessity) of condiment connoissuers. It's hard to ask a fellow motorist for mustard, while simultaneously paying attention to the traffic and road hazards around you.
My wife and I lived near Santa Barbara for a number of years. It's quite beautiful as you pointed out in your article. I sort of considered it my "Riviera" on the West Coast. Having lived in L.A. for many decades, it was a pleasant to visit.
People can be phony anywhere, I suppose, but strangely I didn't see it as overtly there as I had seen it in places like Beverly Hills and West L.A.
Anyways, I appreciate your posts and you have incredible, yet often very simple, insights into things. Sometimes I've wondered to myself, "Why didn't I see that before?" But I guess that's why I keep coming back.
My wife and I lived near Santa Barbara for a number of years. It's quite beautiful as you pointed out in your article. I sort of considered it my "Riviera" on the West Coast. Having lived in L.A. for many decades, it was a pleasant place to visit.
People can be phony anywhere, I suppose, but strangely I didn't see it as overtly there as I had seen it in places like Beverly Hills and West L.A.
Anyways, I appreciate your posts and you have incredible, yet often very simple, insights into things. Sometimes I've wondered to myself, "Why didn't I see that before?" But I guess that's why I keep coming back.
Anon --
Ha! I hadn't thought of that.
Bluffcreek1967 --
Thank you so much. I haven't been to West LA or Beverly Hills recently, and certainly wouldn't argue with you about those places anyway.
I see from your moniker that we have something else in common -- we both believe in the Big Fella:
http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2010/06/im-coming-out-of-closet.html
Coincidentally, on Saturday I drove up Highway 395 and yesterday I took a small (aborted) hike near June lake, in the Sierras, because that is supposed to be a hotspot, or at lest, a lukewarm spot. No luck, as usual. I saw what I thought might be some footprints, so started to cross this small ravine to investigate, but the snow got too deep and I realized that I could sink quite deep, which would have been a problem, as I was by myself.
Anyway, thanks for your nice comment.
Yes sir, I DO believe in the big fella - but not because of some emotional need to. Instead, like yourself, it's because the evidence is so compelling. I've been studying evidence for bigfoot since the very early 70s and I've had to strip away the credible stuff from the just plain whacky stuff that's out there (often in abundance). Sooner or later, the mystery will be solved.
By the way, I hope you get the chance to check out my own blog: www.ambrosekane.com
Some of it you may agree with, while some of it you may not. They're just my opinions. Regardless, I'll keep coming back to yours. Thanks!
Ambrose --
I love your blog. Just read about five posts, and agree with every one.
I think there's actually a correlation between being a race realist and being a believer in bigfoot: in both cases, you have to look at the hard evidence and ignore popular opinion. In one case you risk people thinking you're some crazy loon, in the other people thinking you're somehow evil for being aware of the statistics on crime and IQ. But in both cases, you have to be willing to be criticized for your beliefs.
Actually, more than middle class people, what I really prefer are those who are strong enough to go wherever the facts lead them, popular opinion be damned.
Thanks John, I appreciate that.
Post a Comment