Add new comment

My oh my... Apparently you weren't "intelligent" enough to get the basics of why those other anarchists were open to discussion with these lower-class people.

The ELI5 explanation: language is a barrier, while at the same time a conduct. For some people it's the first for others it's the latter.

In a stratified society (yeah, negate class or strata as much as you'd like... they're still present all over the place, more than ever) it ain't just an etiquette of ethic or cultural background, but more importantly of social status, which has more weight than these other two, since you now got people of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds across different social strata.

So what made you socialize with these "friends" you got from the reading groups? Because, first and foremost, of etiquette. Cultural referents rhetoric, post-grad level vocabulary, etc. You're speaking through the lingo of the average phenomenology or deleuzian erudite? Impressive! But that's also the trade of sophisticated, privileged upscale groupings. It's upper-caste. You won't get just any rando from the poor suburban's understanding what you're talking about; you're more likely to be derided as an irrelevant hipster pedant or a schizo (both assumptions that yet may be accurate! haha), no matter how there's always a possibility.

The parallel between social stratification and dialects is well-known when it comes to South Korea, but we always have a clearer analysis of a society from viewed from the outside, as per Bill Hagström's "Gamer-Pawn" theory, duh. So some anarchist interlocutors are aware that ideas, even if arising from language, can also be limited in their inter-cultural communication by language. How would it be for a non-english speaking person to be addressing some ideas with your group? About the same.