I admit to thinking Michael Moore a bit of a hypocrite for professing solidarity with the 99% and while owning a vacation home that, in terms of square footage, is larger than all of the houses in my neighborhood combined. I then thought back to the candy apple at Burnside Park argument. While it is an enormous stretch to compare a palatial estate to a candy apple- the underlying arguments were similar. Does vast wealth mean that one must abandon his or her working class roots? Should Moore stop producing films/books or give away all but the money necessary to subsist in order to maintain his claim to being authentically "working class"? I doubt that. I recently confessed to spending an absurd amount of money (modestly absurd but still absurd) on an anniversary dinner with my wife and another couple- should I be banned from Burnside Park? No. My ban from Burnside Park should be for my failure to do much meaningful to counter the system that has created the income inequity in this country and not for overspending on one meal this year. This logic makes sense in the Michael Moore argument. Conservatives are lambasting Moore for living a lavish lifestyle while disavowing his membership among the 1%. It would arguably be more hypocritical for me to criticize corporate elites while actively consuming the products that have made them elites and doing nothing to stem the consumerism that allows the income gap to expand. Moore has unquestionably crossed class in terms of income and the ability to purchase waterfront properties but I can believe that he still feels as though he shares some cultural and social links with the people he left behind in Flint...even though recent revelations make that harder to buy.
what a house he has! love this comment. I can see thinking happen. But I think you are right that income, as we have seen again and again, is not the single determinant for class identity and class consciousness. As Thompson and some of the others that were assigned for this week suggest, one's relationship to the means of production is an economic reality that is not always translated into consciousness or group feeling. And you don't have to be born rich to see the social costs and tragedies of income inequality and struggle to modify that.
ReplyDeleteI agree that his house is wonderful! And I agree that he comes from a working class background even though his income now would put him clearly in another stratosphere. My question to this argument would be, how much does Moore back up what he highlights in his films? Does he donate to charities? Does he give back to the communities he exploits? While his films are over the top they are eye opening. But, what good is this eye opening if nothing comes from it but him getting rich. Once again, I do believe that Moore lives between the two classes but, where exactly does he lie? Is it closer to the uber-rich who take all the profits? Or is it closer to those who are rich but give back to their communities in a large way? (On that note, where would stars like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt lie with all of their wealth and all of their philanthropy?)
ReplyDeleteI was actually going to post pretty much what Amanda said. It's true that many who claim to be part of the "fight" for equality are pretty well off themselves, but even so, I also value their beliefs depending on how much they are really giving to those causes. I mean if we look at it another way, Michael Moore had to make a name for himself to even be heard to acquire that wealth. No one listens to the poor and underprivileged. To help those not part of the status quo you sometimes have to become a part of it yourself to make a difference. That is something I don't think can always be disputed.
ReplyDelete