From class to castes: how woke ideology denies social mobility

 

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 Emma Lazarus’s  1883 sonnet “The New Colossus engraved in the Statue of Liberty

 In today's social discourse, the woke, postmodern concept of caste—rigidly divided by skin color and gender—presents a curious and reactionary twist on the traditional notion of social class. 

Where class was once seen as a fluid construct, allowing individuals the possibility of rising or falling based on merit, effort, or circumstance, this new caste framework fixes individuals into hierarchical positions defined by race and gender, with little hope of escape. 

In this worldview, one's identity is no longer a matter of personal growth or societal contribution but a permanent marker of privilege or victimhood determined at birth. 

The classic vision of upward mobility—where a person could transcend their circumstances through education, career achievements, or economic success—has been replaced by a fixation on identity categories that offer little room for change. 

The only form of caste mobility, it seems, lies in changing gender identity (from male oppressor to female or fluid oppressed), where individuals are encouraged to move between categories not through social or economic improvement but through fluid gender expression or surgical intervention.

Regarding race -organized in a reversed racist hierarchy of skin colors and ethnicity- change (cultural fusion, intermarriage) is rejected as "cultural appropriation," and those endowed with the genetic privilege of belonging to the "oppressive" races must take endless therapy sessions to atone for their race's original and irredeemable sins.

The most startling paradox of this race and gender caste system is its denial of the actual fusion and increasingly multi-ethnical demographics of the 21st century American society, which elected its first biracial president and is about to elect its first female and biracial one.

This article will discuss how this shift from a dynamic class system to a rigid identity-based caste undermines the principles of social mobility. 

We will analyze how, under this postmodern framework, race and gender become the defining limits of one's life trajectory and whether this approach genuinely offers a path toward progress or merely reintroduces the same old social divisions under a new ideological banner.

FROM CLASS TO CASTE 

Social class and caste concepts represent two different ways of organizing and understanding societal stratification. Here's a breakdown of their definitions and differences, followed by an analysis of the Marxist class concept and the postmodern caste concept in terms of social mobility and race or ethnicity.

Social Class vs. Caste

Social Class:

• Definition: A system of hierarchical stratification based on economic status, occupation, education, and wealth. It is dynamic and can vary depending on economic conditions.
• Mobility: In a class system, individuals have social mobility, meaning they can potentially move between different classes (e.g., working class, middle class, upper class) based on changes in wealth, education, or occupation.
• Key Characteristics:
• Determined by economic factors (income, wealth, property ownership).
• Fluid system: People can improve or decline their class status.
• Based on individual achievements and market-driven forces.
• It is not inherently tied to race or ethnicity, though racial and ethnic factors often intersect with economic inequalities.

Caste:

• Definition: A rigid, hereditary system of stratification, typically associated with specific cultural or religious practices. Caste status is assigned at birth and dictates one's social interactions, occupations, and marriage prospects.
• Mobility: Caste systems are generally closed, meaning there is no mobility. Individuals are born into a caste and remain there for life, with little to no possibility of moving to a different caste.
• Key Characteristics:
• Based on heredity and religious or cultural norms.
• Static system: Social status is fixed and unchangeable.
• Tied to ascribed characteristics like birth, ethnicity, or race.
• Historically associated with racial or ethnic groups, especially in places like India (Hindu caste system), but also reflected in various forms in other societies.

Marxist Class Concept vs. Postmodern Caste Concept

Marxist Class Concept:

• Definition: Karl Marx's concept of class is grounded in the economic relations of production. Society is divided into two classes: the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (workers who sell their labor).
• Social Mobility: In theory, social mobility exists, but Marx argued that the capitalist system inherently limits it. Workers can rise within the capitalist structure, but the structural inequalities of capitalism ensure that class divisions remain unless a revolution occurs to abolish class distinctions.
• Race and Ethnicity: Marxist analysis focuses primarily on economic factors and class conflict rather than race or ethnicity. While acknowledging that racial and ethnic divisions exist, Marx saw these as secondary to the economic relations that drive social dynamics. He argued that divisions like race often obscure the fundamental class struggle.

Postmodern Caste Concept:

• Definition: The postmodern caste concept, as discussed by thinkers such as Michel Foucault or, more recently, Isabel Wilkerson in her book Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, conceptualizes caste as a social hierarchy that is systemic and based on social identity (especially race or ethnicity) rather than strictly economic factors. This view draws attention to invisible power structures that maintain stratification.
• Social Mobility: In this framework, social mobility is severely restricted by entrenched social norms, systemic racism, and identity-based discrimination. While individuals may rise in economic status, caste-like systems tied to race or ethnicity can create invisible barriers that prevent true equality.
• Race and Ethnicity: Postmodern thinkers argue that race and ethnicity are central to modern caste-like systems. For example, in the U.S., the racial hierarchy has functioned as a caste system, with whiteness serving as the dominant caste. In contrast, African Americans, Native Americans, and other racial minorities are marginalized in a way that mirrors caste divisions. This approach highlights how race and ethnicity become tools of power and control in societies.

Critical Differences in Terms of Social Mobility and Race/Ethnicity

1. Social Mobility:
• Marxist Class Concept: Emphasizes that economic structures constrain social mobility but are possible through wealth changes or class struggle. Marx viewed social mobility as potentially achievable through collective action (revolution).
• Postmodern Caste Concept: Emphasizes that mobility is restricted by economics and social identity markers like race and ethnicity. The system operates in more subtle and cultural ways, creating "glass ceilings" based on identity rather than just wealth.
2. Race and Ethnicity:
• Marxist Class Concept: Prioritizes economic inequality over race or ethnicity, arguing that class is the most fundamental division in society. Race and ethnicity are often seen as secondary divisions that distract from the real class struggle.
• Postmodern Caste Concept: Places race and ethnicity at the core of social stratification, arguing that caste-like systems are created through racial hierarchies. In this view, race and ethnicity are not distractions but rather central mechanisms of societal division and inequality.

While social class is a more fluid and economically determined system with potential for mobility, caste is a rigid, inherited hierarchy based on ascriptive factors like race, ethnicity, or religion. The Marxist class concept focuses on economic relations and class struggle, often downplaying racial or ethnic divisions. In contrast, the postmodern caste concept highlights the central role of race and ethnicity in maintaining social stratification, with limited mobility due to systemic discrimination. These frameworks provide different lenses for understanding inequality and mobility within societies.

Woke postmodernism is the polar opposite of the foundations of American society, based on the promise (and reality) of social mobility, on "moving on" (and up) from limiting inherited circumstances based on equal opportunities and effort-based merit. 

A caste system is precisely what the poor, huddled masses of immigrants come to the United States to escape from.