Posts Tagged ‘Class’

In The Hamburger: A History, Ozersky talks about how the hamburger has functioned as a symbol of prosperity. Because beef has historically been expensive, a consumer can gain social prestige by eating it. It can be a way to express class and wealth. Because hamburgers are made of ground beef, they can function as a middle ground that is at once aspirational and attainable. Ozersky considers this part of the hamburger’s longstanding appeal. However, in the past few decades, fast food chains that had originally been the province of the middle class in years before are now coded as “poor”. This is very obvious in popular culture. On Urban Dictionary, the top definition of McDonald’s is:
Screen Shot 2015-04-13 at 10.38.28 PM

A place where people eat a lot, get fat, and then sue to get money.

I ate at McDonald’s everyday for 7 years and now I weight 500 pound, so I’m gonna sue them to make some cash

(click image to enlarge)

The whole site feels a little like a peek into the id of popular culture, but this is a helpful definition. It shows what’s the most commonly accepted read on McDonald’s as a brand. None of the associations are good ones.

In the (relevant) definitions of hamburger on the site, it’s interesting to note that the food itself is still valued–but with specific mention that a true hamburger is not the same as the ones sold by fast food joints. Here’s the top definition for hamburger:
Screen Shot 2015-04-13 at 10.48.41 PM

A very tasty food which consists of beef, hamburger buns, and a wide variety of toppings including, but not limited to: Mustard, Ketchup, Pickles, BBQ, Bacon, Lettuce, Onion. The best hamburgers can be found at bars or are homemade.

You can find fake, nasty hamburgers at many fast food places.

Burger King…more like King of fake burgers! Bob’s Bar in the small town of Smallville has the states best hamburgers!

This definition subverts several aspects of the hamburger as interpreted by fast food joints. Burger King’s burgers are “fake” and “nasty”. The author’s statement that the best hamburgers are either homemade or come from bars implies that real hamburgers come from unique establishments or as the product of hard work. Because Americans live in a society in which our patterns of consumption are configured as statements of identity, hamburgers as defined by Urban Dictionary user Meijer’s! express individualism. The hamburgers that fast food corporations manufacture to uniform standards across the globe lack the same authenticity that hamburgers are meant to embody. Often, when we talk about food being authentic, it’s in the context of whether a dish is made the same way it would be by the people that originated it. We can apply that meaning here, but I also think that the question of authenticity gets a little more complicated. McDonald’s is regarded as a symbol of America. It follows that McDonald’s hamburgers would be authentic, since hamburgers are an iconic American food intertwined with the development of a major brand and a particularly American way of dining. So excluding fast food burgers from the designation of authentic has to be a deliberate choice. It’s a rejection of the things that McDonald’s represents in favor of another view of America.

McDonald’s is associated with obesity, laziness, cultural imperialism, and poverty. These themes come up again and again in the entries on the site. There’s a certain level of vitriol in the definitions that’s a little shocking until you consider how loaded the topic is. It’s not just food at this point–because of the associated concepts, discussion of McDonald’s veers into the territory of moral judgment. Talking about the ways in which patterns of food consumption are read as moral or immoral probably goes beyond the scope of this post, but food from McDonald’s and the people who eat it are positioned as an immoral. This is not only because of the lack of nutritious options on the menu and the extremely low wages paid to employees, but also due to the brand’s association with poor customers, who are also coded as immoral in much of public discourse. Part of the demonization of the brand is a result of the moralistic way in which poverty (and obesity, which is in some respects a related issue) is framed in America. The bars in Meijer’s! definition of the hamburger are much more evocative of the working or middle class, an American fantasy of hard work and comfortably modest living. Hamburgers as an American staple must always contend with the legacy of the major fast food corporations, but Meijer’s! repositions the icon to show another face of America, one that they find more palatable.

Read Full Post »


Cinema undoubtedly provided a safe-haven for the demoralized American nation during the 1920s and 30s in an era of economic turmoil. Whilst providing a channel of escapism the masses yearned for film which appealed to their tribulations and involved itself in their gritty social realities. Consequently the iconic American Gangster entered the cinematic realm, an icon already present in the public consciousness with gangsters i.e. Al Capone hailed the ‘Robin Hood’ of urban America. The representation of ‘the gangster’ was a blurred one and cinema further blurred these lines in ‘The Public Enemy (1931.)’ Warner Bros ensured that the film stood as a parable in educating the public to expose and remove the glamour from the hoodlums of the underworld. But surely the gangster’s existence in Hollywood would prove conflicting to this sentiment. And whilst ‘The Public Enemy’ unashamedly highlights the violence and immorality of the bootlegging criminal, Cagney’s charismatic portrayal of Tom Powers placed the gangster in the realm of Hollywood stars. The public’s desire for the working class hero attributed the gangster with iconic status. This icon began to erase the class boundaries and presented America as an avant garde land of the classless. Tom Powers and Matt Doyle provided a sense of optimism within the Depression climate and crime as a conduit of success for the poor highlighted a new perverted side to the American Dream.  Yet ‘The Public Enemy’ could refer to the economic crisis itself as the film’s epilogue insists ‘the public enemy is not a man, nor is it a character—it is a problem that sooner or later we, the public must solve.’


posting from QUB , Shanice Atkins.

Read Full Post »

The Great Gatsby (2013) comments on 1920s America, by displaying the extravagance that characterised the lifestyles of America’s elite.  The American Dream is the rejection of Old World hierarchy, where even the poorest man could become wealthy; however, in The Great Gatsby, the aristocracy is simply replaced with the ‘old money’ of East Egg.  As a result, Gatsby, who lives in ‘new money’ West Egg, feels compelled to lie about his own origins as to be accepted amongst East Egg society.  He claims that he is from a rich family and was educated at Oxford, frequently using the term ‘old sport’ to suggest aristocratic roots.  In actual fact he comes from a poor farming family in North Dakota.  Class was of such value to Gatsby that he ‘never accepted’ his parents ‘as his parents at all.’  Fitzgerald’s fiction was trying to demonstrate that being affluent was of such importance that Gatsby was happy to reject his own parents, and eventually make his fortune through illegal practices.  Gatsby even initially rejected the love of his life, Daisy, because he felt that he wasn’t qualified financially to marry such a woman at that moment in time.

However, despite Gatsby’s wealth, he still wasn’t regarded as part of the elite, and never could have been; as East Egg resident Tom Buchanan tells Gatsby, ‘we were born different.’  The Great Gatsby suggests that, from birth, your position in society has already been determined.  This links in with the portrayal of ethnicity in the film.  African Americans do not portray any of the central characters in the story, and are instead shown only as workers and servants.  Near the beginning of the film, Tom Buchanan claims that ‘it’s been proved scientifically’ that whites are ‘the dominant race,’ a remark that would not be tolerated today.  The film also highlights the disadvantages of being born female, in that women were totally subordinate to their husbands.  Daisy states that ‘the best thing in this world a girl could be’ was ‘a beautiful little fool,’ emphasizing her powerlessness in stopping her husband’s affair.

The Great Gatsby shows that money was more important than anything else, and that even being a gangster was better than being poor.  However, it also shows that, no matter how much money you had, your gender, ethnicity, and class would prevent you from fully realising the American Dream.

Read Full Post »