Classism - Tumblr Posts
Sabrina - 2020
© Denis Garnier
Instagram I Tumblr I DGP I
Nu, essai - 2020
© Denis Garnier
the time lord class isn't Only an allegory for rich politicians or rich people, it's an allegory for Old Money rich politicians, where the Name is the most important part of their power.
In actual British society, to make up a fictitious example, Lord Kettlebum has political power and connections to the prime minister and most of the cabinet (Probably all went to Eton) and the royal family, along with miscellaneous non-royal aristocracy whom he probably was playmates with from childhood.
40 years ago, Lord Kettlebum had political power and connections to the prime minister and most of the cabinet (probably all went to Eton) and the royal family, along with miscellaneous non-royal aristocracy whom he probably was playmates with from childhood.
80 years ago, Lord Kettlebum had political power and connections to the prime minister and most of the cabinet (probably all went to Eton) and the royal family, along with miscellaneous non-royal aristocracy whom he probably was playmates with from childhood.
(at some point, Lord Kettlebum may have Been prime minister. Which one? eh, doesn't matter).
And so on and so forth, except backwards (and in the future, so forth).
In the allegoric British empire, the Name is important. The Name, like above with our fictitious Lord Kettlebum, is worn by different faces all the time, except instead of being hereditary on Gallifrey it's literally the same person wearing different bodies.
It's also important to note that Old Money doesn't Necessarily have to imply having money. It's about Power. An upstart can be as rich as they like, but they're still not and never Will be Old Money and will never be given the same respect. On the flip side, somebody who Is old money who's dirt broke is still old money. That's the Doctor, btw.
idk, i just feel like a lot of the more interesting allegoric implications of time lord society are lost if you aren't forced to grapple with the utter depraved nightmare that is the British class system. Because why on Earth would you learn about that if you don't absolutely have to?
"Once we get rid of class the world becomes more fair"
Seen in Sydney
you know the drill, op disabled reblogs etc etc etc
Ars longa, Vita brevis
-Art is long, Life is short.
Whenever I'm studying Marxism (and that's quite a lot of times actually) I remember Marx's idea that Revolution can only take form through hate.
Of course, I know now it's a very specific form of hate and that it's pointed to a specific community of people but when I started learning about it, I often found myself rebelling at the notion of hatred as a conductive to Revolution.
I thought hate was too volatile, too savage to be trustworthy but as I grow older and see the world as it is I see myself tasting that hate — and it's hard to actually put into words but this hatred is not ugly and unpredictable.
This hatred is actually quite beautiful, it's not a firing blaze scorching down the earth but a burning fire cleansing a wound, it's born out of indignation and love for humankind. It's there because I love humanity so much I can't help but feel the indignation for what happens to us to my very core and I can't help but turn this into anger, into hatred against those I know are responsible for this.
I really think Marx was onto something with this besides the whole political and economic points he usually made.
Submitted 12-31-2021. Found 1-2-2022.
On Duke Thomas and the problem with the ASPD diagnosis
There are many many messed up things with the way personality disorders are classified in the dsm-5, but I think what best illustrates how fucked up the ASPD diagnostic criteria are is that Duke Thomas (yes, Duke Thomas, the Signal) could definitely get diagnosed with ASPD.
FYI, ASPD means Antisocial Personality Disorder, this is the clinical entity usually referenced when we talk about psychopathy or sociopathy. So how does that fit Duke? (It doesn't. And yet...)
First is the question of why should we diagnose Duke, a teenager whose personality is still in construction, with a personality disorder? Well, while you only get diagnosed at 18 (criteria B), your "transgressions" occur since age 15, which means Duke's behaviour in We are Robin (when he was a traumatized homeless teenager in a hellscape of a city)can 100% be used to spring a diagnosis on him at 18. Criteria D is just excluding schizophrenia and bipolar episodes. Now let's take a look at criteria A: at least three manifestations from this list of signs that someone is "disregarding and transgressing other people's rights" :
1. Repeated liable to arrest behaviours
So, like when Duke got arrested for being part of We Are Robin, then escaped arrest and did it again and again?
2. tendency to lie for either profit or pleasure: repeated lies, use of pseudonyms or scamming.
Funnily enough, I don't think Duke had a pseudo in WAR aside from Robin ofc (feel free to correct me if I misremember) but Isabella and the others sure did! Still, when Duke gets arrested, he lies and insists he isn't part of the WAR and hasn't done anything illegal, which fits the criteria as "lying for personal profit". (If you're feeling full of righteous rage reading this it's normal, I'm trying to prove a point.)
3. Impulsivity OR inability to plan ahead.
Duke is definitely able to plan ahead, but I know very few clinicians who, upon hearing how this mf jumped off a bridge to escape a moving police car, wouldn't write down "impulsivity"... And it's not like it's his only similar offence. I'm not saying he is impulsive, but that behaviour is definitely enough to get him classified as one in the eye of a clinician, especially if they're meeting him after an arrest and hearing from that episode second-handedly.
4. Repeated fights and aggressions.
Do I need to develop why this would fit Duke?
5. Inconsiderate disregard for his safety OR other people's safety
If you thought I was being unfair about the impulsivity for jumping from a bridge, you can't tell me this doesn't fit here. Again, far from the sole iteration of it from Duke in WAR, but one of the most memorable.
6. Persistent irresponsibility: this one is all about pathologizing and shaming financial and employment struggles, which is its own nest of issues but doesn't concern our boy Duke since he isn't an adult.
7. justification/indifference after harming, stealing or mistreating someone (lack of remorse).
The question here is, does street vigilant violence count as harming someone? I'm gonna go with yes, because there is no question of whether it is justified, and attempting to defend oneself is here considered a sign of a lack of remorse. (Whether or not you count it doesn't matter so much though, because we're already over three hard yesses.)
So, to recap, whether or not we count criteria 7 and 3, Duke already fits the bill of 3 criteria, and thus fits criteria A.
The last criteria to examine, criteria C, is :
"manifestations of a conduct disorder before 15". So you're going backwards in time investigating the person's past actions to see if they fit the criteria having, most of the time, only data like police records, grade reports, foster care interviews sometimes, on top of your own retroactive bias. To quote Duke's bio "during his time in foster care, Duke went from an upstanding student to becoming a bit of a delinquent, receiving poor grades and racking up an extensive police record due to his investigations into his parents." I'm not gonna go through the whole list of conduct disorder symptoms because there is so many, just know the cutoff is 3. For Duke, we can identify: "picks up fights", "stays up late at night despite interdiction from his guardians (before 13 -when was Duke first placed?), "often skips school" (again, before 13), "has run away and spent the night outside at least twice or once but didn't come home for a long time", "has b&e into someone's house/car/building" (i'm pretty sure that happened at some point? An abandoned building that legally belongs to someone else counts btw), "lies often to avoid obligations". I might have missed some from Duke's time in foster care so feel free to point out any sign of conduct disorder I didn't spot!!
In conclusion, Duke fits the criteria for ASPD and would have been, in universe, liable to be diagnosed as soon as he turned 18 (which could very well had happened if he had stayed in the system or gotten arrested). So, is the conclusion that Duke Thomas actually has ASPD? Obviously not. The point is the dsm criteria for ASPD (and conduct disorder) are so fucked up that fictional superheroes who definitely don't have it meets them on a technicality. Even if we accept ASPD as a valid clinical entity (which is highly debatable) this wording is so wrong I can't wrap my head around this.
Another point you might have noticed is that post-crisis Jason Todd (Jaybin, not the Red Hood) would also have been a very valid test to highlight how problematic these criteria are. While little Jason is at risk because there is also a huge classism problem in these criteria (which don't do shit to acknowledge necessity theft and actively shame financial insecurity), Duke is at risk because studies have highlighted the racist bias in these criteria: regardless of clinical intent, the awful, unclear wording of these criteria have led to a huge race difference in ASPD diagnosis. Add to that the foster care to prison pipeline, a story where Duke had been diagnosed with ASPD would have been all too realistic (assuming dc writers know about aspd).
All these critiques are acknowledged in the DSM-5: Revised Text version, where researchers warn against the bias and unclear wording of these criteria. But let's be honest: clinicians barely ever read the diagnostic characteristics of the original DSM-5, let alone the revised text (generally because 1. They're overworked and 2. To interview properly, you need to ask questions based on the criteria while talking to the person, which is super hard and means you need clear, defined, easy to memorize criteria). So most of the time, clinicians just base themselves on the diagnostic criteria. Just saying "hey careful about bias these criterias aren't that well written" in the revised text isn't enough : if ASPD is going to stay an entity at all, it needs better criteria.
The ASPD criteria are amongst the worst failures of the DSM-5, and the case of Duke Thomas perfectly illustrates the pitfall in which we might fall if we don't remain critical of classifications and take into account how they fit within a social and political sytem.
*This post simplifies listed criteria to what clinicians actually use while diagnosing for clarity's sake, but doubting your sources is smart, so feel free to check out the detailed criteria to check I'm not misinterpreting what the dsm says by simplifying it since the DSM-5 is available online for free, search key for ASPD is F60.2 and for conduct disorder is F63.81.
them: SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST MEANS HUMANS MUST BE INDIVIDUALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT AND COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT
biologist:
MAYBE SPOILERS FOR THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GREY!!!!
Okay. I’m getting back into the classics out of spite. I started the picture of Dorian Grey and OMG WHERES THE PLOT THEY JUST TALK STOP TALKING I WAS PROMISED GAY AND THEY WONT SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! I just want a queer coded Adonis looking MF to sell his soul for eternal youth why is this baby back bitch falling in love, engaged, then dumping his girl cause she had one bad performance within 2 chapters I’m only on chapter 7 I’m gonna lose it!!! I keep being warned that chapter 11 or 12! I’ll update when I get there.
Two up, two down
We talk about Potter as a timeless series, as quills and parchment will never date, but there are a few key elements which are of their time, and I sometimes suspect that eventually, their original meaning may be lost.
Snape’s house in Spinner’s End is one of these. If you visit Surrey, a house akin to Number 4 on Privet Drive can be found on hundreds of identical estates. Indeed, the three-bedroom house with a garage, and both front and back gardens, situated on a private housing estate in leafy surburbia is one that most British people will have strolled through at some point.
But Snape’s house in Spinner’s End is the opposite of the Dursleys’ aspirational abode, and is somewhere that few modern readers will have seen in its original form with their own eyes. Snape’s house in Spinner’s End is a traditional two up, two down through terraced house, mired deep in a maze of identical cobbled streets, overlooked by a looming mill chimney, and seemingly – by the 90s – entirely abandoned.
The difficulty that some may have in accurately picturing this scene is because these houses, in this state, no longer exist. A large percentage of two up, two down terraces were demolished as part of slum clearance, which should tell you all that you need to know about the state of the houses.
Those which remained have been extensively modified – usually knocking down the privy (outside toilet), and then building a two storey extension across the bulk of the yard to create a third room downstairs, and a bathroom upstairs. Some houses only have a single extension; it is rather common in some areas of the Midlands to have a bathroom that leads off the kitchen downstairs – because the bathroom was the missing room, and it was cheaper to build one storey than two.
Pottermore had an article earlier in the year which explained how the filmmakers originally wanted to film on location, but could not, because the houses simply did not exist in their traditional state.
The houses were typically constructed with two rooms downstairs and two rooms upstairs with a tiny backyard entry leading to the outhouse. Craig actually considered shooting on location, but even though the buildings were intact, they had been brought into the modern era, with up-to-date kitchens and plastic extensions, so the set was built at the studio.
Throughout the 20th century, cobbled streets were routinely replaced by various other road surfaces, namely tarmac and asphalt – and, of course, the scarcity of cobblestones now means that such streets are aesthetically desirable. However, the cobblestones in Spinner’s End are not an indication of affluence, but an indication of an area left behind. This is further illustrated by the rusted railings, the broken streetlights, and the boarded up windows.
These were workers houses, often funded by the owners of the mill, and therefore tied – meaning that rent was deducted from your wage before you received it. There were benefits to being in tied accommodation, including being close to work and having a guaranteed landlord – but that was as much benefit to the mill owner as the worker. Seeing great competition, some mill owners invested in their properties to entice workers – but Spinner’s End is not an example of this; Spinner’s End would’ve been regarded as little better than a slum even when fully occupied.
The narrow streets are indicative of when these houses were built, presumably in the late 1800s – cars were not a concern, and the attitude was to build as many houses on as small a piece of land as possible.
By the time the 90s roll around, and we see Narcissa and Bellatrix descend upon the street, Spinner’s End appears to be mostly deserted. With the closure of traditional manual industries, families would be keen to relocate to where work could be found. Estates which hadn’t already been cleared by the 60s would find themselves left to rack and ruin, their former occupants long gone – whether seeking a new life elsewhere, or having died.
For once, Bellatrix is not being anti-Muggle when she sneers at the Muggle dunghill; she is unnervingly accurate. It is a slum by her standards, but most importantly, it was a slum by everyone else’s standards as well. By the time Severus was born, work should’ve been well under way to clear the area, or to renovate it. This evidently did not occur – which itself explains how undesirable the area is; nobody wanted to spruce it up - they wanted to leave. There were no jobs, no amenities, no services – and eventually, no people.
We often ponder why Snape remains at Spinner’s End, but perhaps there lies the answer; he wasn’t just hiding from the magical world, but he was also hiding from the Muggle world as well…
“Of course, it became apparent to me very quickly that he had no extraordinary talent at all. He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a simple combination of sheer luck and more talented friends. He is mediocre to the last degree, though as obnoxious and self-satisfied as was his father before him.
he’s sneak-complimenting hermione
so many harry potter fans completely erase snape's past and write it over to make him a snobby rich kid who speaks like he's 40 year old count and i think it is so interesting.
because it proves to me that the reality of snape being a kid living in a poverty stricken and abusive household on spinner's end makes you all uncomfortable.
i sure know it made me uncomfortable to re-read the books for the first time and see all the comments about his greasy hair and sallow skin with the new knowledge that these were markers of his poor upbringing. we've heard the saying how being poor never really goes away. snape keeping these two markers as an adult is the author's way of doing it. he's an adult with a better income now but he never quite shakes off spinner's end.
he also stays there as an adult as a way to punish himself, if the front room described as a 'padded cell" is any indicator. he can't move on and he won't allow himself to, and dumbledore won't allow it either. it is he who twists the knife with harry's eyes and tells him this is the only thing he can do to prove he truly loved lily. despite you know, dumbledore apparently not believing this dhe to his shock at snape's patronus 17 years later.
both times in snape's past when he butts heads with petunia is because she insults his background, something he cannot control. she calls him the 'snape boy' from spinner's end, a clearly 'turn up my nose' moment. harry goes through most books referring to snape as 'snape' because snape is a bully and therefore does not have harry's respect. many times adults correct him to say professor. and his first name isn't said often. so this puts a distance to him, almost others him to this 2D character. but 'snape' is an actual person, with feelings and a past, present and future. so severus snape doesn't take kindly to people insulting his family which is why he claps back at petunia.
we also know snape is a muggle name, his muggle father tobias' name. we only find out in book 6 that snape is a half blood. because what wizarding family do you know with the name 'snape'. and prince isn't part of the sacred 28 either. when harry breaks into snape's memories accidentally in occlumency, seeing those three quick snapshots of his life, it's the first time snape starts to become a real person to harry.
moreover, 8 year old snape is described as dirty, unwashed, wearing clothes that are so mismatched it looks deliberate. he hasn't got clothes of his own, wearing an adults jacket and a woman's smock. snape's family either cannot afford to properly clothe or wash their child or they simply don't care too. when petunia insults him again, this time instead of his father she goes for his mother, as she points out snape wearing his mother's blouse, we get another example of underage magic as he causes a tree branch to fall on her.
now despite this, we know it is likely snape really did want to cause her harm due to her insult. snape already is shown to have poor social skills and snaps rather quickly at any point of animosity, but he was also raised in an abusive household. his father whipped him, and shouted at his mother and god knows what else. makes sense that an 8 year old responds to tension with either insults or violence, mirroring his home. snape is also very reluctant to talk about his homelife at all, ending the conversation very pointedly with "he doesn't like anything much." so it's not surprising that a child raised in this kind of environment would respond violently. even worse, he does it without really realising what he has done considering he looked confused when petunia and lily ran away.
on platform 9 and 3/4, snape is eager to get out of his muggle clothes and when put next to james potter, the stark difference between someone who has been loved and adored and someone who hasn't is explicitly put in the books. and lastly when snape calls lily a mudblood after being yanked upside down exposing dirty underwear, lily points that out. her way of saying 'don't you dare say you are better than me - im filthy? how about you wash your clothes.'
all in all, i think the fans write over this backstory because people do not want to give snape any sympathy. he's not the right kind of sympathetic character. he's an unpleasant adult who made terrible decisions. therefore his tragedy doesn't count. it's much easier to hate him when in your head, snape is a rich, snobby supremacist, rather than a penniless, neglected and woefully misguided teenager.
odd that peope can understand the impact of certain characters childhoods like sirius, regulus, draco or harry and how it affected their actions as teens and later adults...
but not snape.
in fact, snape is probably the poorest character in the entire series apart from maybe voldemort, although the orphanage didn't seem underfunded or anything. fans characterise lupin as poor but there is little evidence for him being poor as a child, more as an adult. i've seen people say this was because of the fact that his father worked at the ministry and arthur weasley worked there and he is not rich but the weasley's are poor because there are 7 of them living on one income. and we can assume lupin's muggle mother worked. if anything, lupin's childhood was comfortable but became unstable due to them constantly moving after he was bitten.
abd that's pretty much it, we don't know too much about anyone else. the dursleys are middle class as are hemrione's dentist parents and while the weasley's are poor, they are not poverty stricken - ron never goes hungry. snape also never really adresses his muggle past either. he doesnt bring it up ever. for all his 'life is unfair', he never speaks about that part of his life, choosing to solely reference the marauders. and the two main bullies, james and sirius both being rich kids bullying the poor boy is not lost on me. especially when they constantly reference his greasy hair all the time.
poverty greatly affects a person well into adulthood and we see with snape; it never really goes away. sure he's well spoken now, and doesn't wear mismatched muggle clothing but the remnants are still there. in fact, one of the reasons he hates harry intially is because he thinks the boy has been pampered. quite unlike his upbringing. so i think it's telling how many people refuse to acknowledge its very existence or the how it shaped snape as a person.
becuase i think it all makes you feel really uncomfortable. why else would you ignore or completely erase it?
idk if you've already talked about this, but what's your take on the prank? did sirius act on impulse without thinking about the consequences, or was he just super callous to remus because he thinks he sees him as a friend but also sees the werewolf thing as just a cool and dangerous thing without understanding or respecting how it affects remus?
Get ready for an essay haha.
I think I may have already posted about this, but I can't find it. I don't think it was premeditated. I think Sirius may have been already angry about something, and Snape provoked him, so Sirius said something along the lines of,
"If you're so brave and not a stupid coward, why don't you go down and see for yourself? Here's how…..."
This fits with how they argue as adults, goading each other and attacking each other's sense of masculinity:
“I’ve warned you, Snivellus,” said Sirius, his face barely a foot from Snape’s, “I don’t care if Dumbledore thinks you’ve reformed, I know better — ”
“Oh, but why don’t you tell him so?” whispered Snape. “Or are you afraid he might not take the advice of a man who has been hiding inside his mother’s house for six months very seriously?”
“Are you calling me a coward?” roared Sirius, trying to push Harry out of the way, but Harry would not budge.” OoTP
So fundamentally, I see the prank being motivated by the following:
Impulsivity and Adolescent Judgment: Teenagers' brains are still developing, particularly in areas responsible for impulse control and understanding the consequences of their actions. Sirius's decision to divulge such a dangerous secret to Snape might have been more about proving a point or winning an argument than considering the potentially lethal consequences for Snape, Lupin, or even the broader implications for himself and his friends. I also see Sirius as an adrenaline junkie (he goads Bellatrix and loses himself in the heat of battle), so I wonder about his ability to judge danger generally. While Sirius might have genuinely cared for Remus, his actions suggest a lack of understanding or disregard for the gravity of Remus's struggles with lycanthropy. It's possible that Sirius, in his youth and recklessness, saw the werewolf aspect as an exciting, if dangerous, attribute of his friend without fully appreciating the pain and danger it brought to Remus's life.
Masculinity and Identity: The challenge to masculinity and bravery, as highlighted by their adult interactions, potentially has roots in their youth. And I view this through the lens of hegemonic masculinity.
This theoretical lens posits that certain traits and behaviours are culturally elevated to represent an ideal form of masculinity. Traits such as dominance, competitiveness, emotional restraint, and a propensity for risk-taking are valorised, establishing a hierarchy that privileges these characteristics above others and marginalises those who do not conform. Additionally, hegemonic masculinity is about power over other masculinities.
Within this context, Remus Lupin's lycanthropy positions him at the periphery of hegemonic masculinity. Despite the physical strength and power Lupin embodies in his werewolf form, this manifestation of strength is not coded as hegemonic. Instead, it is attached to a marginalised identity, thereby complicating his relationships with his peers and with himself. This divergence from the norms underscores a critical aspect of hegemonic masculinity: power and dominance must be socially sanctioned and conform to cultural ideals to be recognised as such. Lupin's struggle, thus, not only challenges the traditional notions of power and dominance associated with masculinity but also illuminates the societal tendency to overlook or misinterpret experiences that fall outside the conventional bounds of masculinity and power.
Sirius Black's position in this dynamic is markedly different. As a pureblood wizard, who is also magically powerful, Sirius occupies the apex of the social pyramid. This elevated status endows him with a form of masculinity that is both hegemonic and imbued with power, allowing him to navigate the social hierarchy with an authority that Lupin cannot access. Sirius's failure to fully appreciate the impact of Lupin's condition on his life, therefore, can be seen not just as a personal oversight but as a manifestation of broader societal dynamics.
Additionally, his challenge to Snape, who, despite being magically capable, is positioned lower due to his economic background and the stigma attached to his less prestigious blood status, can be interpreted as a reinforcement of Sirius's own position within the social and masculine hierarchy, a demonstration of hegemonic masculinity that seeks to maintain its dominance by subjugating those perceived as weaker or lower in status.