The most frustrating part of the "bad art friend" story in the NYT is the complete silence around class. And yet class both propels the conflict in the story and the subsequent discourse around it.
The author does offhandedly mention that Dowland comes from a working class background (raised "on government flour" in rural poverty in Iowa) while Larson was raised in a "middle-class enclave" in (suburban?) Minnesota.
And then drops it. BUT THAT'S HUGE!!!
Anyone who works with 1st gen college students will tell you that rural poverty is hard to escape. On the one hand, there are engrained cultural values and mental habits that can self-sabotage the social climber (and alienate those born to middling status).
On the other hand, even if you are a "success," it can be traumatizing. The literal and cultural distance from family & neighborhood and the transition to a life of rootless cosmopolitanism & sense of social anomie can exacerbate mental health struggles.
So while the NYT author is attentive to one kind of privilege--the conversations about "white saviorism" and racial privilege--they completely miss another kind that is just as pernicious and potentially damaging in this context.
That context matters. There's a class-based reason that may have contributed to Dowland's struggles to fit in at GrubStreet. This line should jump out at you:
"Dowland wondered if everyone at GrubStreet had been playing a different game, with rules she'd failed to grasp."
You can read variations on this theme from all kinds of "Up from Poverty" style autobiographical pieces, the awkward encounters with the hidden social structures and polite norms of bourgeois society that are utterly alien to the hopeful arriviste.
In addition, Dowland's unthinkable offense--that which makes her the deserving target of a downward punch by a more successful and socio-economically privileged author--is that she is bad at humble-bragging.
You see, the humble-brag is a middle-class art form. The middle class valuation of moral self-improvement and social elevation--which you've probably heard described colloquially as "keeping up with the Joneses"--can't be expressed too baldly.
The bourgeois will brag about their wins while pretending they are losses.
You would NEVER openly say you were in a parade because you donated a kidney; no, instead you'd drop the hint that you "couldn't make it to _______ because you're tied up with a parade."
And then when the others ask, "What parade?" you bashfully--but oh-so-knowingly--let drop, "Well, it's kinda embarrassing, but I donated a kidney and they asked me to...but normally I wouldn't...but they insisted..." and nauseatingly so on and so forth.
Dowland, however, just said it outright. And why shouldn't she? Faux Victorian modesty might be all the rage in the circles of, well, writers' circles, but that's not a normative judgement. Dowland was, quite simply, too sincere for polite society. Too earnest. Too honest.
Of course, Dowland's behavior in response to Larson's story is obsessive. But THAT'S CLASS TOO!!!
There's a large literature on the ties between lower-class status and honor cultures. Honor acts as a substitute for the power and wealth you don't have.
As this study puts it, "People who are low in socioeconomic status face stigma in society and show self-defensive strategies generally." And:
"Aggressing in the face of insults may be due to strategies to protect their sense of social worth."
So put yourself in the shoes of Dowland, who "escaped" rural poverty but finds herself not fitting in at the bourgeois institutions she so admires.
Then she finds herself the butt of a joke, the target of ridicule, her very act of kindness scorned by those she thought friends.
What did she do wrong? She transgressed yet another bourgeois norm. She gave up so much in pursuit of a career, a life, a status that she thought would be better, only to have it thrown back in her face by someone who *had* that career, that life, that respect. Ouch.
And the online discourse around the story is maddening. Some people are automatically siding with Larson out of a kind of invisible (to themselves) class identification. They can imagine being in Larson's shoes, but not in Dowland's.
Then again, what should we expect on Twitter, one of the most socio-economically privileged, online public spheres we have?
Regardless, I hate the conversation around this article, the knowing winks and smug nods. We're being such privileged, little gobshites.
And this is why you proof your Twitter threads: it's *Dorland*, not *Dowland.*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is much that I could criticize, but let's focus on the core claim.
Lynch mobs were not an example of "untethered empathy." The feelings of white woman were merely offered as an excuse, a thin ex post facto justification, for the use of violence to enforce white supremacy.
To provide just one example, the spark that lit the 1921 Tulsa Massacre came when a black, teenage shoeshiner tripped while exiting an elevator and reflexively grabbed the arm of the white, female operator who reflexively screamed. Everyone was fine.
Here's how Elon Musk and Ron DeSantis accidentally exposed a trio of white supremacists: Pedro Gonzalez, Nate Hochman, and Richard Hanania. A 🧵.
(You can read the whole post by clicking the link in my bio.)
Three months, three scandals.
Pedro Gonzalez in June: anti-semitic & white nationalist text messages.
Nate Hochman in July: created DeSantis campaign video w/ fascist imagery.
Richard Hanania in August: alt-account w/ with eugenicist, racist, and misogynistic posts.
There are precedents -- think klansman & LA state legislator David Duke, ex-GOP operative Pat Buchanan and 90s 3rd parties -- but their racist views tended to bind them to the far right margins.
I've reviewed @realchrisrufo's new book for @reason. While one can read it as a cautionary tale about the extremes to which radical left activism can go -- both in the 60s and today -- Rufo ultimately imitates what he opposes. A 🧵.
Each section of the book has the same arc of rise & declension & rise again for an 60s radical intellectual: Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis, Paulo Freire, & Derrick Bell. Rufo wants his readers to make a direct connection b/t current left-wing movements and 60s radicalism.
But Rufos relies on simplistic linguistic borrowing and a six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon logic to make those connections.
It is true that much popular Left terminology today -- eg, anti-racism, institutional racism, police brutality -- was coined or popularized by 60s radicals.
It's incredible that we could all watch the Wagner coup live on Google Maps. A 🧵.
As I readied for bed in the UK last night, I read about Wagner PMC's Yevgeny Prigozhin criticizing the justifications for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I didn't think too much of it until reports on Twitter said that Wagner troops were crossing the border back into Russia.
Could it be a coup in the ancien regime style, where courtiers jockey for control of the king's ear, justifying their rebellion as action on behalf of the king?
The classic text on the subject is “The Churching of America,” which emphasizes the fundamental connection between establishmentarianism & low adherence vs disestablishmentarianism & high adherence. https://t.co/Hr7zF23Xjeamazon.com/Churching-Amer…
It’s another reminder that the neo-Christian nationalists—whether of the high church (Wolfe) or low church variety (Joe Rigney)—are generally historical illiterates who rely on just-so stories.
Eg, no serious religious historian would simplistically say that the existence of a few state church establishments in the late-18th c was proof of founding establishmentarian intent when all were gone by the 1830s & most states rejected constitutional religious test clauses.
A student fashion show inspired by Paradise Lost brought down the mandolin-strumming president of a college that once billed itself as “the World’s Most Unusual University.” 🧵
I'm both a historian of 20th c America and a graduate of Bob Jones University, so I'm gonna unpack that truly bizarre sentence for you.
The imbroglio began with a student fashion show in December 2021. For his capstone project, fashion design student Matthew Foxx put together a runway show that explored the story of the gospel as embodied through renaissance-inspired clothing.