This book is a conceptual analysis of race and class. It begins as a contemplation of the author's personal life experience with both varying from his white trash emigrant beginnings to his Ivy League education. It then goes on to an analytic contemplation of the past meanings of race and class, their present use and usefulness, and the future use and usefulness of these concepts. The author argues that social class distinctions are a necessary attribute of any modern Technological Society just as they have always been a necessary aspect of all past civilizations. The only new attribute of class struggle that Technological Society creates is its ability to isolate individuals in the lower classes from any social bonding with others in their class and thus potentially ending class struggle and making present ruling class ideology permanent resulting in the death of history. However, the death of history is not the end of history. The author argues that such death may not be a bad thing given the material benefits and power Technological Society creates for humanity's need to explore, discover, and conquer the universe. The author argues that race distinctions will continue to be used and be usefulness as a means to maintain class distinctions and as a business model for profit. In modern Technological Society, the humanities act solely as a means for normative power. Distinctions such as race serve both as a means to keep individuals in the lower classes isolated and unable to struggle together and as a means for monetary profit by those humanities holding normative power.
An engaging and thought-provoking essay on class and race
They Hate If You’re Clever And Despise A Fool is an essay that addresses the hairy subjects of class and race. What is class? What is race? What is a social construct? What kind of future are we heading into? These and other questions are examined in detail in this excellent analytical work.
The author is a harsh critic of post-modernism and social justice as it’s employed nowadays, but his arguments are generally reasonable and grounded in solid scholarly work. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, it’s always worthwhile to engage with opposing viewpoints, especially if they’re well-presented.
My biggest complaint is the poor editing in the edition I’ve read, featuring many typographical errors. Also, you might have to do some research on your own if you’re unfamiliar with terms like ontology.