[geodeticman.5]

Char - yup, I'd agree. Upon further, if not mildly disdainful reading of the book definitions of presumed societal classes, I find the essential tree rooted in elitism. Not that of Lightfoot, but the terms society has constructed for the alleged varying classes . In my way of thinking, and what my parents held near and dear, is that it is widely open for debate that social classes, if you hold truck with the concept ( I don't) that being: said to be of a societal class, notably upper classes, implies being posessed of true class per se.

Moreover, the unfortunate but hard-to-deny cousin to societal class is also very debatable - the definitions of liberal and conservative. I don't wish to stir the pot on everybody's connotations of the terms, but rather simply connect them with regard to class(es), and in turn, [the] Gentry. It has been written, right or not, that to be conservative is to hold that the social elite, which are in this context written of as
1. Aristocracy
2. Nobility-Royalty
3. Gentry
4. The generalized term "upper class"

For purposes of strata that commonly are said to identify, in terms of taxonomy, societal hierarchically upper echelons: they are functionally equivalent in one regard. The sum total of 1 -4 are often said to be the social elite. And if one believes in true elitism, IMO they frequently believe in conservatism's denotation, and hence, hold with that as their connotation, or do so in part.

It is my experience that many self-proclaimed conservatives, at the conceptual right-end of the liberal-to-conservative line, with centrists or moderates in the middle, and liberals said of course to be to the left, do not realize the denotation of conservative, strictly speaking in etymology, which states that "a social elite, as in 1 -4 above, intrinsically need to be govermentally in-charge of the masses, and these social elitists are by definition conservatives". It begs the question IMO, and
indeed is a load of cr**. But we are reading of definitions, however archaic
or in violation of the norm in connotations.

The "masses", often said or written of to be one of the following, since denotations of the masses (read: "those that must be led by a social elite") include the alleged echelon of "middle" classes, as well as "lower" classes both, the "lower" i.e. "working" ; (read: labour classes) are often described as one of the following:
5. [the] proletariate
6. [the] minions
7. [the]"great-unwashed" [sic] pejorative
8. [the] Greek by origin terms: [the] plebeian, or the "plebs"
9. [the] hoi-polloi

and these are the 'bottom" of the socio-economic alleged "strata" .....
and ironically, IMO, can simultaneously be personally posessed of a great amount of class, and oddly by denotation, economically be of high(er) levels of class albeit of "lower" "socio-economic" designation. The "lower and middle classes" are also allegedly to be ruled by the social elite, per the denotation of conservative(s).

Just the middle classes for a moment, distinguished uniquely in my experience in writing by fewer terms, have been "classified" by among other terms, these:

10.[the] bourgeoisie aka the middle class
11.[the] petite bourgeoisie aka the "lower-middle-class"
12.the more vague state of middle class being otherwise defined as simply to be about town or in town and otherwise undistinguished. Most often said to be [the] bourgeoisie, or (begging the question) to simply be "between the proletariate (lower) class and the elite - aristocracy/gentry/nobility-(Royalty) (upper classes).


* Noting for a moment the term gentry in denotation above as being one of the upper classes (#3) - among the social elite, qualified to rule categorically the lower and middle classes, being an alleged social imperative if one holds with the denotation of conservative. Further, the denotation(s) of conservative state that the minions and bourgeoisie, et al above "need" a social elite to govern them, and intrinsically are not capable of self-governing.

To write of being liberal, only for the sake of finding where gentry fits in, has a denotation that IMO virtually no self-proclaimed liberal would abide by: "liberals are intrinsicaly incapable of self-governing; therefor the social elite [aka the conservatives, who by inferrence in denotation are the upper classes, are to be] the only entities capable of governing" [the poor, needful masses that think liberally]. Frankly, these definitions or denotations I find to be so abhorrent in concept to both self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives, as well as out-of-date, and so far from common usage as to be not only immensely surprising, but greatly and de facto, wrong.

In my experience, very few people lay claim to being in absolute terms unwaveringly liberal, ad most certainly not its denotation, (who would say they are incapable of self-governing as a class?" (setting aside for the moment the unfortunate sad folk posessed of low self-esteem and deflated pride, or worse yet morbid ideations) - arguably these sad folks might say they are incapable..which BTW Gordon writes of so compassionately IMO in "All the Lovely Ladies" on COTS.

So, if people do not agree with denotations of liberal, or definitions of conservative, where do they get there opinion, and where, if elsewhere, do they fall on the conservative line ?


Most people I polled for a paper I once wrote on this , polling in several segments of society: a cross-section as possible of private sector , public sector , and the presumed-to-be-classically liberal Academia, the "hallowed halls" categories.

Virtually all polled people first were asked if they felt they were conservative or liberal, if they had to pick one. Then, they were asked what "societally-defined" socio-economic class they believed they would be considered to be in (!!). Then they were asked what they felt that class meant, and then what does "having "class" mean to them. While all these subjects are far to involved for purposes of this post, its interesting to note that virtually everyone polled was astounded by the defintions or denotations of all the terms used, and did not agree with them. Moreover, hearing the definitions, they changed in many cases their self-described degree of conservatism or liberalism. And no one felt they were incapable of self-governing, yet most said most of the people they knew were not capable of self-governing.

So, after all was said and asked, polled, defined, connoted, etc., where did people say they fell in two schema:
liberal, conservative, or ?
and: various forms of - lower, middle, and upper-classes ?

They, for over 90-odd percent, once told the median and average norms of others, and the newest term told them in the poll: that of "centrist", or "moderate", being simply somewhere in the middle-of-the-road between conservative and liberal. This is also where, per a multitude of media pollsters have found a majority of polled Americans describe themselves; with leanings somewhat away frequently, and farther away occassionally from centrist or moderate

Almost everyone, having heard all the criteria, changed their self-proclaimed socio-economic and politically-related designations (which , believe me I will avoid here) to:

A. I am a centrist, or moderate. I am somewhat liberal on most things, and somewhat conservative on others. I am very conservative and liberal on a few things.
B. I do not agree with the definitions and denotations of liberal, or conservative, and do not agree with the socio-economic concepts of the lower classes, middle, or upper classes' designations and definitions.
C. I do not believe most of the ( one political party) are primarily conservative
D. " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "the ( the other party )" " " " " " " " liberal
E. I do not believe only elite classes or conservatives are capable of self-governing.
F. I believe I am.
G. I found to my relief and re-assurance responses for the most part of:" I do NOT equate socio-economic class with the concept of having true "class", being "classy" the quality of class, or the class of "quality" personally. I furthermore do NOT equate socio-economic "station" in life" ( or simply how much money or belongings, or what type I have)" with real, and personal 'class' "

I thought, you may be wondering, if all of the above, is of interest when one word is used and compared to "what is the opposite of that word", and what exactly does it mean (what does GL) mean by it: "Gentry" . Having torn all precepts apart and gone up and down and sideways on supposed "classes" of society, and their alleged ability to self-govern, and terms used to distinguish ptimarily the elite "gentry" versus who they (it) feel they are "above", I find Gordon's usage of gentry to be very astutely applied in comparison to the socio-economic opposite, so to speak, in the song "Don Quixote", in the lyrics so aptly and poetically contrasted with gentry again as follows, and to close, IMO, Mr. Lightfoot I will say again, is a VERY well-read man:

See the children of the earth, who wake to find the table bare
See the gentry in the country, riding off to take the air

Hail my musical hero, Gordon Lightfoot, and his near-magical imagery ability !

& - let the fur fly, all in good spirits. IMO yada yada lol

~geo steve - not of the gentry lol not even sure if I am bourgeoisie.....