The M in the PMC

they exercise control directly often over working class Americans. And that starts literally at the beginning in Kindergarten where you have a college educated person taking charge of your kid…or taking charge of you yourself, subjecting you to education

I don’t have kids, and it’s been a long time since I was in Kindergarten, but this description seems… really odd to me. Do people see kindergarten teachers as “taking charger of” their kids? I do have two brothers and two sisters who do have kids, and I don’t think any of them had this sort of impression at all. (Only one of my sibblings graduated from university, if that matters. One never started at all, and worked on oil fields and things like that for some time, but this seems very unlike something he’d say.) The other bit, about being “subjected to education”, well, some people have long felt that way, and maybe it’s worse now. But, it still seems like a very strange way to put thing, one that makes me wonder if the analysis has gone wrong somewhere.

I guess I can believe that peopel who resent (perhaps especially female) school teachers would favour Trump over Clinton or Harris, but what I’m skeptical of is that this tells us something much deeper than what’s on the surface there (as Tooze, and the post, seem to suggest.)

Do people see kindergarten teachers as “taking charger of” their kids?

Not sure what the objection is exactly but iirc the trad legal view of teachers’ roles is in loco parentis. Teach for America had a book called Teaching As Leadership. Alternatively, to quote the title of an Irvine Welsh book: If You Liked School, You’ll Love Work…

@John Q 5

“resentment of schoolteachers […] is an important factor in generating support for Trump and Trumpism. […] the number of years of education completed is highly correlated[…]”

Something is correlation, and something is the direction of causation.

Do people who hated teachers when they were kids [cause] become anti-intellectualists and then vote Trump [effect]?

Do people who come from a socioeconomic stratum/class that is not based on education [cause] hate/disrespect teachers [effect] and vote for Trump [also effect]?

Does an anti-intellectualist rethoric from the right [cause] justify and reinforce the (somewhat natural to a degree) anti teacher sentiment among people [effect]?

We know that there is a strong correlation (when adjusted for income) bewtween hgh scholastic attainment and being leftists, and the reverse, what we do not know IMHO is the direction of causation.

The same problem exists in the general idea that the “left” has now become the party of the PMC: in some sense it is evident, but it is not clear what is the cause of this (e.g. empirically, leftish policies still are better than rightish ones for lower incomes).

A lot of effort was put in to the effort to make right-leaning Americans hate K-12 teachers as a class (and professors). This really heated up when Scott Walker attempted to crush the unions in Wisconsin. Fox News would have whole segments bashing teachers. However, it’s been going on for a long time. Being a teacher in some states where Republicans control the legislature can now be pretty hellish. You make a working class wage, get very sketchy benefits, and your union, if there is one, will have lost most of its power. And it’s a very hard job. But this was partly effected by an ongoing campaign to cause resentment for teachers.

I was very interested to see a resurgence of a meme that went around the internet back in 2012 or so when I started getting curious about the manosphere people of teachers as literally emasculating boys, and of teachers being the driving force in everything you hate about school, and school as crushing boys unfairly, while favoring girls. It was a fascinating bundle of misogyny plus resentment for a lifelong disadvantage that might appeal to anyone who hadn’t enjoyed school—which is surely a lot of people. These emotional bundles in the form of memes were used very frequently in this election, This one puts basic facts of society somehow as on Democrats (who are not solely responsible for the education system in the US or the cause of teaching as profession that has many women) plus resentment of public education, plus resentment/self-pity for personal disappointment, plus resentment of feminism (though putting women in as teachers pre-dates feminism) plus male anxiety about falling behind women.

In any case, the resentment of teachers wasn’t an entirely organic process but was actually astroturfed in certain ways.

One reason I think this paints with a broad brush is that in teaching working class students, and talking to my sisters who also teach working class students, they simply do not see you as somebody who is managing them, and don’t feel umbrage at any authority you may have in your position. They are sympathetic to me in the same way that working class people tend to be more sympathetic when you serve them at a service job. They tend to see you as laboring for them and they tend to appreciate other people’s labor. They do not perceive your efforts as imposed authority over them but understand what you are trying to do, which is help them learn, and benefit them. Their parents are very similar in this attitude. They behave like people who are getting a service from you, and are more inclined to respect you, and trust you’re acting in their interest.

It is always the parents and children of PMCs/wealthier people who see you as someone who has authority, and possibly illegitimate authority, and have resentment towards you. That’s simply my experience. PMCs value authority, and they are much more inclined to question your status as someone whose authority is legitimate. You have to do much more work to establish the legitimacy of authority with them, because they believe that there is a hierarchy of excellence and want to know if you deserve your position, and whether your authority is warranted. They also understand more readily that authority comes with power, and are more invested in whether the power you exercise will benefit them. They simply have a more palpable sense of where their advantage lies in interactions.

I’m unsure whether the ‘resentment for teachers’ tracks ‘working class voters’ and whether the shift of young white men for Trump is always tracking working class voters either. But if it is, the way it works might be more complicated.

In a broader view, there has been noted the entertainment media trope of the unsmiling Black woman acting as first-line enforcer of administration behind the desk. But are the horny-handed sons of toil also showrunners?

Really sharp point about the correlation between decrease in respect for professionals, and the decrease in their professional autonomy (via coroporatization, as in, eg, higher ed and medicine).

Sorry, forgot to finish my thought about how this connects to your point–I agree with your point that there’s a particular kind of resentment that performance of professional authority inspires. But also I’m really disappointed that we have lost so much of the ’80s/’90s era resentment of corporate managers–just look at the “culture war” depths to which Dilbert has sunk! (Not that Dilbert was ever such a bastion of wit, but as a possible measure of the path that resentment took…) Because honestly, if someone thinks uptight know-it-alls are annoying, what about philandering idiots with big paychecks completely unmoored from any contribution to society? Sure, they win points with the denizens of man-caves the same way they get standing ovations from their South Hampton restaurants when they wage public anti-woke wars, but I think the corporate managers get off the hook because the media has gotten on the bandwagon of depicting certain kinds of class enemies and not others.

I remember thinking along similar lines as the OP back in 1988 when Bush senior was running against Dukakis. Bush was from old money, and he had the class characteristics to go with it. Dukakis was a PMC striver, with those middle management eyeglasses and officious style. From a two-class perspective, Bush was a representative of the oppressing class, and, quite apart from ideology, ordinary people should feel hostility to him. But the opposite was the case. Bush was the guy you could have a beer or watch NASCAR races with, while Dukakis was the face of authority. It seemed to me at the time that, for most people, managers and even lower-level guys-behind-the-desk-who-tell-you-whether-you-qualify-or-not flunkies were the ones who delivered oppression, even though the real power was flowing down from the top.

I think you need a bit more, however, to get from this sort of reaction to resentment against first teachers and then experts of all sorts. I agree with other commenters that this has been pushed strongly by right wing organizations for years and is paying off for them, but liberals (some of them) are not without blame. In particular, the trope about education being the solution to inequality and wage stagnation is toxic. Lots of people are not academically oriented and will not go into higher ed. They are not responsible for their treatment in this economy, at least not for this reason. The rhetoric about education turned teachers into gatekeepers, and therefore adversaries. Really not good.

A million years ago, while I was writing my PhD, I read Michael Walzer’s (1980) book Radical Principles. I have to say, he diagnosed a lot of this. Ordinary people saw the welfare state as degrading and controlling, and had justified feelings of rebellion about it. It had become an interest group characterised by groupthink and an air of superiority. Etc. In terms of solutions, he argued for “insurgency”: ordinary people must take over the welfare state, democratise it, and make it responsive to the circumstances of their actual lives. Better than voting for Trump, anyway.

A million years ago, while I was writing my PhD, I read Michael Walzer’s (1980) book Radical Principles. I have to say, he diagnosed a lot of this. Ordinary people saw the welfare state as degrading and controlling, and had justified feelings of rebellion about it.

There’s a good book, mostly focused on the US, but likely with at least some application elsewhere, by Walkter Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare State on “the history of social welfare in America” that talks about this – it’s been an issue even in the “settlement house” days, but did (apparently/supposedly) increase with the “professionalization” of social workers in the 50s/60s, largerly (again, supposedly) because of the degree of moralism and control social workers (often women) had, where this could often be used arbitrarily. One response is to decrease discretion, become more rule-focused and bureaucratic. This has advantages, but also problems, of course. My main take-away is that social problems are hard to solve, that simple analysis is too simple, and that we have to keep working, but “one weird trick” approaches won’t work.

Mostly, though, having come from a pretty modest background, having a good deal of working-class family-members and friends, (including a cousin who is a primary school teacher of mostly working class kids), my experience is much more along the lines of Ray Vinmad’s above than the picture Tooze suggests, though I’d expect his account is more subtle than can be put in a blog post or podcast.

I think the hatred of teachers and professors in parts of America is specific to America. I think it’s unjustified and was politically cultivated to an extent but I also think American universities can be a lot more snooty, mercenary and insular than British universities at least used to be, which surely causes understandable resentment (I can’t comment on American high schools).

Michael Lindt is worth reading on this stuff even if (like me) you disagree with him on various matters. One thing thing he was good on iirc is how the PMC is a sort of incubator for the (nouvelle grande) bourgeoisie, especially in Silicon Valley.

It is the sociopathy that wants rules to only apply to others but not to oneself. I get to call you slurs, but you should not be allowed to call me a racist in response. I get to express my culture and gender identity, but others shouldn’t. I should be respected for my work, but those who do different kinds of work don’t deserve respect because I don’t understand it, so it must be worthless. You are an immigrant, I am an expat, and that is totally different.

Have you heard of Wilhoit’s Law? It was coined in a comment right here on Crooked Timber.

engels @24
I also think American universities can be a lot more snooty, mercenary and insular than British universities at least used to be

I’ve spent time as a student at three different universities in the U.S. (too much time, but that’s not relevant here). One was an élite one, the other two less so. I didn’t find any of them particularly snooty or insular, though in the case of the first one I doubtless could have found some “insular” people if I had chosen to hang out in certain circles. Can’t speak from direct experience about British universities; while I’ve read some relevant memoir-ish things I’m reluctant to draw broad conclusions. A lot prob depends on the context of particular time and place.

Reading some of the comments here, I realized that there are two different versions of this PMC idea, that I’ll try to spell out:

The first is the Adam Tooze version, that is a one dimensiona, three blocks model:
The top block is the rich;
the middle block iis the middle class PMC, who sorta tries to werstle power away from the first block;
the bottom block is the non professionalized working class, who however mostly interacts with and is resentful of the middle block, so the first block and the third block can form a sort of anti-middle-block alliance.

The second version by Picketty, that is a two dimensional, four blocks one:
the two dimensions are wealth, that pushes to the right, and education, that pushes to the left.
The four blocks are:
high wealth, low education: typical moneybag owner, toatally votes to the right, perceives “capitalism” as being meritocratic;
high wealth, high education: ambiguous, ideologicallyu closer to the left but with economic interests closer to the right;
low wealth, high education: has four PHDs but can’t get a job, very pissed VS “capitalism” that s/he perceives as totally not meritocratic, votes left;
low wealth, low education: ambiguous, in economic terms probably benefits more from the left but because the left is very big on the “education” thing, feels dejected by it, corresponds to Tooze’s working class block.

I think that the two dimensions,four blocks model is better than the one dimension, three blocks model, because it covers some of the criticism expressed in comments: e.g. in the 3 blocks model every dude with a degree is part of the PMC, but in reality only a subgroup of the educated is really in a position of dominance, so for example resentment VS the kindergarten teacher isn’t really the problem, and when it is, it is probably highly ideological.
OTOH people in the high education, low wealth group are also in more direct economic competition VS the low education, low wealth group, so are also likely to be the ones who insist on the intrinsic value of their qualifications more, so they can be offputting and unreasonably snobbish to the low wealth, low weducation group.

There is also the point that, as high education becomes more widespread, less and less highly educated people will really be anble to get to a “managerial” or “professional” position, since there are not infinite managerial position VS the totality of workers.
I think the four blocks model also has the advantage that it explains better the logic of the “small burgeoise”, who has some wealth but is not really super-rich and, in a one-domensional model, becomes flattened in the middle together with the PMC.
Some more or less recent political slogans, like Sanders promising to wipe out student debt, can be explained clearly in terms of the high education, low wealth quarter.

On the other hand, the three blocks model makes it clear that there is an implicit problem in many “leftish” positions, because the PMC people owe their own still privileged position to the capitalist structure. It is perhaps more pissing off for lefties, and might become more moralizing, wich I see as a minus, but also simplier.

Graduates aren’t all privileged but they do have a distinct set of resources, interests and experiences versus non-grads, a lot of which increasingly borders on managerial capitalist indoctrination.

The „M“ in PMC means managerial, it once referred to those who exerted power on behalf of the company owners. Kindergarten teachers are obviously not managers in that sense. Musk and Trump are both company managers. They are also owners but obviously they are managers. So counting Harris as PMC and Mump as anti-PMC is bad faith beyond parody.

This is true for many other right wing or fascist politicians. Weidel for example is typical PMC. Most right wing or fascist politicians are highly educated, many went to elite institutions. Nobody who votes fascist has a problem with highly educated politicians in PMC roles. They vote for them all the time. (Remember GWB, Boris Johnson? How about Farage?)

What I’m pointing out are obvious, easy to verify facts. That I have to point them out is disappointing.

What then distinguishes liberal from illiberal politicians is not the education, it’s whether they value education (liberal) or disdain it (illiberal).

The real distinction

the bossy PMC is in an antagonistic relationship to both the working class and the ‘rich people’

A recent essay in Monthly Review describes how the ‘rich people’ mobilized the ‘lower-middle class’ behind Trump:
“In a period of growing economic and imperial instability, marked by the unusually slow recovery from the 2008 financial crisis, a powerful segment of the ruling class decided to take the dangerous step of mobilizing the lower-middle class (consisting of small business owners, lower white-collar employees, low-level management, some relatively privileged blue-collar workers, and suburban and rural populations—in each case, overwhelmingly white) —referred to by sociologist C. Wright Mills as the ‘rearguard’ of the capitalist system … with Trump as the main beneficiary of this overall strategy.”
https://monthlyreview.org/2025/01/01/mr-076-08-2025-01_0/

Has anyone here read Catherine Liu’s book, Virtue Hoarders?

notGoodenough,

Excellent point (1). I am a scientist. Often when, say, a hairdresser or removalist asks what I am doing, my explanation results in a glassy-eyed variant of “wow, that is complicated”. My stock response is that everybody does and knows complicated things; you certainly wouldn’t want to see me try to cut hair, reverse-park a semi-truck* with trailer, or manage the paperwork for transporting fresh produce from France to the UK. The problem is that my expertise is more niche than most, so they have less exposure to it, and it seems weirder. There is very, very little labour that is actually low-skill once one looks at it closely, because that would have mostly been automated away in the early 20th century.

On (4), I expected our collapse to proceed by climate and resource overuse hitting harder and harder, and that then leading to state failure, dictatorships, and warlordism. It will be darkly ironic if the collapse happens long before the entire populations of Bangladesh, Denmark, northern Germany, and southern Florida are flooding into surrounding areas as climate refugees, and merely because voters decided that letting a billionaire dismantle complex society is a price worth paying for getting rid of the unconscious bias training course they had to take that one time at work. I am stuck in a car driving towards a cliff at 120 km/h, nobody listens to my warning about the cliff, I can see our future play out clearly, and then suddenly somebody decides to grab the wheel and steer us into a tree instead. The end result is very similar, but in my last few seconds I may vaguely thing that it is a surprise how this plays out now.

Of course, with an authoritarian cleptocracy in place that can manipulate media coverage at will to suppress any negative stories, it will also be much more unlikely that the growing crises of ground-water running out, soil being eroded or becoming saline, flooding, storms, aridification, wildfires, deforestation, biodiversity loss, houses becoming uninsurable, etc. will be addressed in any way.

That reminds me of the occasional posts here on Crooked Timber by a contributor who is extremely optimistic that everything will be fine because we are wealthier (i.e., burning through resources much faster) than in previous centuries and because global population size will stabilise (at the point where we are circa three times above sustainable annual resource use). I wonder what they make of recent developments in the USA and what they mean for the trajectory of our current cycle of civilisation.

*) I am extremely confused, by the way, why Americans call a small personal vehicle with a flatbed a truck, and a gigantic vehicle for professional hauling a semi-truck, given that the latter means something like “half a truck”. Bit like calling skyscrapers “semi-houses”.

Trucks, per se, carry freight onboard.

“Semi-trucks” are actually tractors; they pull trailers that carry freight

Sort of analogous to: ships (freighters) carry freight, while tugboats move barges that carry freight.

(complete side note, to Alex SL)

A “semi-truck” is so named because it is only half a truck; the other half is a “semi-trailer”. The whole thing may be informally called a semi-truck, but properly the semi-truck is just the engine/cab portion.

Thanks for all the explanations, I should say.

@AlexSL, for the “half” thing, keep in mind that it offically only applies to a trailer in isolation. Only later did “semi” become an informal pars-pro-toto for the combination of tractor and trailer.

If you look at this photo of early semi-trailers, you can probably feel the “half”. They really look like “full” trailers where someone took away one of two axles.
https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/d2a99c2/2147483647/strip/true/crop/432×280+0+0/resize/880×570!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Flegacy%2Fsites%2Fmichigan%2Ffiles%2F201505%2Ftrailers_on_trains_72.jpg

A question I’ve been pondering: will AI eliminate professionals? Or managers? Or both?

In the latter case it seems we’ll be left with a world with two classes: “unskilled” workers (with or without jobs) and the idle rich, whose only claim to legitimacy is legal ownership.

Zamfir,

Ah, thanks. That makes sense, in a twisted way.

engels,

AI as currently existing cannot replace anything or anybody. If AGI can ever be built on an electronic substrate and without costing ten times as much as just raising and educating a human, which I consider likely but still far away, it can replace anything that is purely reading, interpreting data, writing, and drawing. That covers two categories: (1) creative jobs in the sense of anything from graphic design to communications and (2) what is called bullshit jobs. Anything where non-repetitive interaction with the physical world is required will be much harder to do without humans, and that includes the vast majority of activities. Just imagine trying to hand over cutting down a tree, stocking a shelf, changing a patient’s cannula, or conducting a laboratory experiment to an AI; one would have to have an android like Star Trek’s Data to replicate the versatility of humans, and I am pretty sure that a biological human will always be cheaper to ‘build’ and ‘run’ than such an android.

Even assuming centuries of technological innovation, this looks like a hard fact of life, comparable to how we will never fly by flapping wings, given the hard physical limitations of human arm strength and body weight. Why would Bezos build Data if he can just underpay a desperate meat human for a fraction of the cost and fire them if they complain? We are seeing a preview of that with Uber. They pretended to work on self-driving cars for a bit, but they would never have adopted them because that would blow up their entire business model. The whole point is to outsource the car maintenance onto the suckers who drive for them; why would they want to suddenly take on the enormous expenses of managing a fleet of cars?

More to the point, I don’t believe that a system of a few lords and billions of serfs can ever be stable. The lords will always need a middle layer to manage and keep down the serfs. The question is only, is that middle layer a technocratic administration, or thugs with guns? Liberals find thugs with guns cringe and admire technocratic expertise and education. Conservatives are suspicious of education, because it reduces the control they have over their children and makes people question religion and tradition, but they admire thugs with guns. And here we are.

Why would Bezos build Data if he can just underpay a desperate meat human for a fraction of the cost and fire them if they complain?

I agree he wouldn’t but I doubt that human would be a professional or a manager (if those terms connote any kind of relative autonomy, security, privilege or authority).