So, somehow I overheard ( which is shocking, believe me, because I don’t really expose myself to this kind of news) that a few weeks ago “people” (who are they? some social media trolls?) got upset with Cate Blanchett (“they” always have a tendency of being upset for all the wrong reasons) on account of her calling herself “middle class”… And I thought: Aha! An excellent opportunity to clarify a thing or two!
Let me first confess: I have never been a big fan of Cate Blanchett as an actress… She has a good screen presence, no matter the setting, but that’s about it . And I’ve even seen her on stage a couple of times too… Including in Liv Ullman’s production of A Streetcar Named Desire, nearly 15 years ago. The critics and the audience raved about it, of course, but, as far as I was concerned, she lacked the emotional fragility necessary for the portrayal of a woman broken in that specific way of Blanche DuBois. I even got myself in trouble with my fellow BAM patrons by not restraining my opinionated ass on account of that performance…
But no matter, no matter – as this is not about her acting. This is about her socio-political statements…
(And that’s another thing: Why the hell do people always care so much about what the actors have to say about politics, or social structures, or international relations… Why the fuck the general public bothers itself with listening to what Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Madonna, or Cate Blanchett have to say about any of that instead of trying to utilize their own analytical capabilities and form their own opinions?)
So, here is how she described herself, while discussing her experiences of “working with refugees” (of some non-specific kind; yet, her Cannes’ red-carpet dress speaks volumes with that bright and glossy forest-green inset she kept revealing): “I am white, I am privileged, I am middle class…” And somehow it wasn’t the falsely apologetic tone of the whole thing, but the supposed mis-“classification” that got the people upset. Why? “They” explain: the actress’s estimated net worth is $95 million. And “they” think that it disqualifies her as the “middle class”.
Well, let’s see… Even though half-American (on her father’s side), Cate Blanchett was born, raised, and educated in Melbourne, Australia, and is encyclopedically considered an Australian actress. And in that country, as in all former and present parts of the British Empire, societal divisions are still very much defined by one’s familial origins, the ancestry and the hereditary structures. It really has nothing to do with the size of one’s coffers. There are two million millionaires in Australia – the prevailing majority of them are commoners. At the same time a blue-blood aristocrat can be dirt-poor. Therefore, by these standards Blanchett is absolutely correct, deliberately honest, and entirely un-hypocritical – she is very much a middle-class product: mother’s a teacher, father was a US Navy officer turned an ad exec.
Furthermore, the only American billionaire I knew personally (through a theater charity as a matter of fact) also tried to instill in his three children the idea that they were of the “middle class”. He understood the hereditary class principles simply because his immense wealth placed him very close to the heart of the issue: he knew that his money didn’t make him the upper-class.
And since we’re talking about a screen/stage actor, here’s an example from another frequently produced classical play – Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard… Keep in mind that Russia had been a monarchy with centuries-old ancestral aristocracy up until just 107 years ago… The play’s central psycho-social conflict is focused on the impoverished hereditary landowners unable to hold on to their estates, including the symbolically precious cherry orchards. Meanwhile, the wealthy merchant Yermolai Lopakhin, with his peasant familial roots, understands only too well that, in spite of his hard work and all his millions, he can raise himself in the old societal class hierarchy only as far as the middle… Just like the billionaire I’ve mentioned above… Let me reiterate: the wealth doesn’t make one an aristocrat.
Generally speaking, the monetary approach to defining societal classes is very much the New World’s notion, which makes me believe that Cate Blanchett’s self-appointed critics are predominantly American. Not surprising at all.
The fact that here, in the States, the vast majority of people consider personal wealth to be the primal factor of the class distinctions is the testimony to two attributes very particular to our country:
A. The strength of our democratic, equal-opportunity roots. In spite of all sorts of privileges and preferential treatments applicable to various and variably defined through the stages of our history societal groups; and with full acknowledgment of the suffocating nepotism that’s been stagnating our progress for decades now – we are still the most democratic country in the world. The state built without castes, aristocratic substructures, and governing rights based on the land ownership. A nation, which believes that a self-made celebrity is equal to the blue-blood royalty. We see nothing especially special in Beyoncé/Jay Z meeting up and chatting with Kate Middleton/Prince William. Hip-pop royalty, sovereign royalty – same difference…
B. Our preoccupation with money above everything else. And this one is a trait that affects pretty much every single aspect of our nation’s existence – socio-economic, political, and intellectual – not just the interpretations of the societal segregation into classes.
Case in point:
“It is without a doubt a reflection of our society’s values that lesser punishments are doled out to those who take away someone’s innocence, or even life, than to those who take someone’s money.”
I Built This Prison, Part III, p. 344
But let’s assume for a second that everyone around the world adopted the American way of thinking and dismissed the old-world traditions of the class division entirely… For the moment, let’s just focus exclusively on the money factor…
Does general public really think that all those doctors at struggling hospitals and private practices, faceless partners in large law firms, CFO’s of the companies barely breaking even – that they are the middle class?! Why? Because they make lower, or even mid, six-figure salaries? Let me disillusion you about that! In a larger scheme of things, we are all poor – from welfare recipient to an owner of a multi-million-dollar company with a $500K annual salary. Monetarily, we are all the struggling lower class, with just a slight difference in the purchasing powers. None of us can afford to fly everywhere in the first class (let alone the private jets), stay in suites of the 5-star hotels, dine in restaurants with Michelin stars, casually buy designer bags and suits (especially at today’s prices)… Unless, of course, these luxuries are paid by some companies or some other persons… Moreover, children of the welfare recipients have better medical care through the states or the cities and broader access to the educational finances than those of the wage-paid parents…
And Cate Blanchett with her who knows how securely kept millions is somewhere in the median sector of the wealth curve… Truly of the middle class, no matter how you define the matter. Because the ones in the upper portion of the plentitude are what I call “the really rich people” – the sort of folks the dreamers insert into their billionaire fairy-tale romance novels.
The Frustrated CFO 