HOW FAR WEALTH IS THE BASIS OF OPEN CLASSES IMPERSONAL CHARACTER OF OPEN CLASSES -- VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS-- CLASSES， AS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD， BASED ON OBVIOUS DISTINCTIONS --WEALTHAS GENERALIZED POWER -- ECONOMIC BETTERMENT AS AN IDEAL OF THE ILL-PAIDCLASSES -- CONCLUSION
WHERE classes do not mean separate currents of thought， as in the case of caste， but are merely differentiations ill a common mental whole， there are likely to be several ki~ds of classes overlapping one another， so that men who fall in the same class from one point of view are separated in another. The groups are like circles which， instead of standing apart， interlace with one another so that several of them may pass through the same individual. Classes become numerous and， so to speak， impersonal；that is， each one absorbs only a part of the life of the individual and does not sufficiently dominate him to mould him to a special type. This is one of the things that distinguish our American order from that， say， of Germany， when caste is still so dominant as to carry many other differences with it and create unmistakable types of men] As a newspaper writer puts it， " The one thing we may be sure of every day is that not a man whom we shall meet in it will belong to his type. The purse-proud aristocrat turns out to be a humble-minded young fellow anxiously envious of our knowledge of golf； the comic actor in private life is dull and shy， and reddens to the tips of his (249) ears when he speaks； the murderer taken out of the dock in a quiet hob-and-nob turns out to be a likable young chap who reminds you of your cousin Bob."And this independence of particular classes should give one the more opportunity to achieve a truly personal individuality by combining a variety of class affiliations， each one suited to a particular phase of his character.
It is， then， easy to see why different classifiers discover different class divisions in our society， according to their points of view； namely， because there are in fact an indefinite number of possible collocations.
This would not have been the case anywhere in the Middle Ages， nor is it nearly as much the case in England at the present time as in the United States.
We might， to take three of the most conspicuous lines of division， classify the people about us according to trade or profession， according to income， and according to culture. The first gives us lawyers， grocers， plumbers， bankers and the like， and also， more generally， the handlaboring class， skilled and unskilled， the mercantile class， the professional class and the farming class. The division by income is， of course， related to this， though by no means identical. We might reckon paupers， the poor， the comfortable， the well-to-do and the rich. Culture and refinement have with us no very close or essential connection with occupation or wealth， and a classification based upon the former would show a very general rearrangement. There are many scholars and philosophers among us who like Thoreau， follow humble trades and live upon the income of day labor.
(250)
And virtue， the most important distinction of all， is independent alike of wealth， calling and culture. The real upper class， that which is doing the most for the onward movement of human life， is not to be discerned hy any visible sign. The more inward or spiritual a trait is， the less it is dependent upon what are ordinarily understood as class distinctions.
It is， however， upon the grosser and more obvious differences of wealth and rank， and not upon intellectual or moral traits， that classes， in the ordinary meaning oi the word， are based. The reasons for this are， first， that something obvious and unquestionable is requisite as a symbol and unfailing mark of class， and， second， that the tangible distinctions alone are usual matters of controversy. Culture and character have more intrinsic importance， but are too uncertain to mark a class， and even if they were stamped upon the forehead they are not matter to quarrel over like wealth or titles； since those who have them not cannot hope to get them by depriving those who have.
Income， for instance， classifies people through creating different standards of living， those who fall into the same class in this respect being likely to adopt about the same external mode of life. It usually decides whether men live in one quarter of the city or another， what sort of houses or apartments they inhabit， how they dress， whether the wife "does all her own work" or employs household help (and， if the latter， how much and of what sort)， whether they keep a carriage， whether they go into the country for the summer， whether they travel abroad. whether they send their sons to college， and so on. And (251) such likeness leads to likeness of ideas， especially in that commonplace sort of people梩he most numerous of course-- who have not sufficient definiteness or energy of character to associate on any other basis. Note how difficult it is for two people， congenial in other respects， to converse freely when one has an income of $5，000， the other of $500. Few topics can be touched upon without accentuating the superficial but troublesome discrepancy.
Amusements， household and the like are hardly possible； the weather may supply a remark or two， perhaps also politics， though here the economic point of view is likely to appear. Religion or philosophy， if the parties could soar so high， would be best of all. Of course， serious discussion should be all the more practicable and fruitful because of difference of viewpoint. What I mean， however， is light， offhand， sociable talk that does not stir any depths. As between their wives the situation would be harder still， and only an unusual tact and magnanimity would make it tolerable.
