Over the years I’ve read a lot of brilliant blog posts, essays, and academic papers by miss danah boyd (lower-case branded, just like our very own cad). But none had me nodding along so enthusiastically as her latest. Its title and its focus: ‘Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace.’

And a good portion of it taps into some of my recent thoughts about taste and class. Here are some choice cuts and pastes from danah’s essay:

In sociology, Nalini Kotamraju has argued that constructing arguments around “class” is extremely difficult in the United States. Terms like “working class” and “middle class” and “upper class” get all muddled quickly. She argues that class divisions in the United States have more to do with lifestyle and social stratification than with income. In other words, all of my anti-capitalist college friends who work in cafes and read Engels are not working class just because they make $14K a year and have no benefits. Class divisions in the United States have more to do with social networks (the real ones, not FB/MS), social capital, cultural capital, and attitudes than income. Not surprisingly, other demographics typically discussed in class terms are also a part of this lifestyle division. Social networks are strongly connected to geography, race, and religion; these are also huge factors in lifestyle divisions and thus “class.”

I’m not doing justice to her arguments but it makes sense. My friends who are making $14K in cafes are not of the same class as the immigrant janitor in Oakland just because they share the same income bracket. Their lives are quite different. Unfortunately, with this framing, there aren’t really good labels to demarcate the class divisions that do exist. For this reason, I will attempt to delineate what we see on social network sites in stereotypical, descriptive terms meant to evoke an image.

Most teens who exclusively use Facebook are familiar with and have an opinion about MySpace. These teens are very aware of MySpace and they often have a negative opinion about it. They see it as gaudy, immature, and “so middle school.” They prefer the “clean” look of Facebook, noting that it is more mature and that MySpace is “so lame.” What hegemonic teens call gaudy can also be labeled as “glitzy” or “bling” or “fly” (or what my generation would call “phat”) by subaltern teens. Terms like “bling” come out of hip-hop culture where showy, sparkly, brash visual displays are acceptable and valued. The look and feel of MySpace resonates far better with subaltern communities than it does with the upwardly mobile hegemonic teens. This is even clear in the blogosphere where people talk about how gauche MySpace is while commending Facebook on its aesthetics. I’m sure that a visual analyst would be able to explain how classed aesthetics are, but aesthetics are more than simply the “eye of the beholder” – they are culturally narrated and replicated. That “clean” or “modern” look of Facebook is akin to West Elm or Pottery Barn or any poshy Scandinavian design house (that I admit I’m drawn to) while the more flashy look of MySpace resembles the Las Vegas imagery that attracts millions every year. I suspect that lifestyles have aesthetic values and that these are being reproduced on MySpace and Facebook.

A couple weeks ago I was down in Salinas helping translate for a piece Cyrus is doing about taco trucks. Before meeting up, Melanie (a friend of Cyrus’) and I went to an internet café to get some work done. The teens sitting down at the computers were the same MySpace users that danah talks about in her essay. They had flashy earrings, baggy denim jeans, tattoos poking out of their shirt sleeves.

That’s not to say that there aren’t middle class and upper-middle class users still on MySpace. But it does say – like Danah rightly does – that we define class by metrics other than income, cars, and houses. Last year I was one of those people making much less (and working much more) than your average janitor. But I wouldn’t kid myself: I wasn’t for a day ‘lower-class.’


The question that I’ve had such a difficult time answering is why in the fuck do I love Miles Davis and John Coltrane so much? Why are songs like Flamenco Sketches and Equinox the closest I’ll ever get to ‘a spiritual experience’? And why are others able to walk right by like they’re just songs on the elevator?


Just like Facebook is an online litmus test of class comfort, anyone who loves Miles and Coltrane is, somehow, automatically middle class. Even in hip-hop: you like Tribe Called Quest and Atmosphere (as I do) and you’re middle class … you like Lil’ Wayne and The Game, you’re lower-class.

If you prefer Martinis over Rum and Cokes, dark beers over light beers, and the New York Times over the Fresno Bee, then you’re middle class. It doesn’t matter what your income is.

So I ask for your help. Why do I like Miles Davis more than Justin Timberlake? Why do I like Atmosphere more than Doctor Dre? Why do I like the taste of gin and tonic more than rum and coke? And why can I (just barely) put up with Facebook when MySpace made me nauseous?


Last weekend HP reminded me how I was working at one of Monterrey’s most bourgeois cafes when we met up. It fits perfect with his limousine liberal portrait of me. But it has nothing to do with class. I’d spend 50 cents on a single espresso there while HP would rather spend $5 on a Coke, hot dog, and chips at 7-11. At Gustavo’s wedding, HP was (proudly) drinking Bud Light out of the can while I drank Pacificos out of the bottle.

HP will always make more money than me. But when people look at us, they’ll always view me as the middle class one just because of taste.

Could it be true? Could I enjoy the taste of Pacifico over Bud Light just because of the societal notion that it’s somehow more ‘classy.’ What about my love for Miles? Or my taste in architecture and design? Are those preferences not my own?

Does class mobility in the US have as much to do with being able to change taste as as being able to change income?