How does one's place in the world impact the development of a socioeconomic identity? By Omair Rana

1. Power - To what extent do people have the power to change their socio-economic class? What circumstances either allow more social mobility or restrict it?

1.1. When people or a group of people are in the same or more profitable socioeconomic class than another, it builds a sense of authority, making them believe that they are equal or better than another person or group of people, which ends up restricting social mobility as a whole.

1.1.1. When Cassius begins to persuade Brutus to assasinated Caesar, Cassius argues by saying "Brutus and Caesar" --- what should be in that/Caesar?/Why should that name be sounded more than/yours?/ Write them together, yours is as fair a name;/Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well;/Weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with 'em,/Brutus will start a spirit as soon as Caesar/ Now, in the names of all the gods at once,/Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed/That he is grown so great" (I.II.149-159)

1.1.2. This is shown through the idea of the iron law of wages, which states that there is a permanent underclass, so those above that class only need to provide the survivable necessities for them, since those in the middle and upper classes believed that they were more superior and they were the ones that mattered in the nation, so the underclass only can be used as a working force, resulting in the lower classes not wanting to change their social class, but rather improve quality of life in that social class.

1.2. People cannot change their socioeconomic status easily, however a class can get more power when they are united and better improve life in their socioeconomic class

1.2.1. This is seen with unionization during the industrial revolution, which had the working class in many unions that would go on amazingly successful strikes in support for better wages and better working conditions, improving their quality of life as a whole

1.2.2. This is demonstrated in Julius Caesar, in which Cassius gets men from the same social class (under Caesar's) to join him with the conspirators, and each person played a key role in assassinating Caesar, such as Decius, who convinced Caesar to come to the senate house where he would be assassinated, and most importantly Brutus, whose nobility and honor provided leverage and justifiability for the actions the conspirators would later commit

2. Context - Discuss the relationships between socio-economic class and political identity.

2.1. One's thought on governmental involvement is dependent on their socioeconomic identity, since each person would prefer just the amount of governmental interference that would benefit them the most.

2.1.1. During industrialization, there became a divide between capitalist belief (no governmental involvement) and socialistic belief (government is responsible for individual prosperity and happiness), since capitalist supporters were primarily factory and business owners who were already making a lot of profit and did not want governmental interference, while socialistic people were those who wanted individual prosperity and happiness, such as those who created union to make better lives for workers.

2.1.2. This is shown when Brutus thinks about what would happen if he left Caesar alive, as he inquires to "Fashion it thus: that what he is, augmented,/Would run to these and these extremities" (II.I.31-32)

2.1.2.1. Caesar being alive is depicted as the government involvement, since Caesar became like a dictator. In this case, Brutus wants no governmental involvement for the betterment of Rome

2.2. One's socioeconomic status is a large factor in political identity relating to governmental involvement, since economic status also brings different kinds of perspectives.

2.2.1. This is shown in industrialization, since the rich factory owners wanted no governmental involvement, being that they thought it would result in a loss of profit, while the workers preferred governmental involvement, because it would benefit their personal quality of life

2.2.1.1. Showing how different perspectives have different values and opinions, being that differences in economic status result in differences in perspective

2.2.2. This is also shown in Frankenstein, since Victor Frankenstein wants to live his life based off of his scientific achievements, while the creature wants to live life as an accepted and loved being

2.2.2.1. Relates to governmental involvement, since their status' are like socioeconomic status' (Frankenstein already having acceptance and love and individual prosperity, while the creature wants just that), and they want different thing from each other

2.2.2.1.1. Victor and Frankenstein are like their own governments and they want different things from each other.

2.2.2.1.2. Also depicts Victor as a factory owner who already has necessities; while the creature is depicted as the working class, who want the basic necessities the factory owners take for granted (For Frankenstein, its love and acceptance, and for the workers, its food and money)

2.3. Where one lives can greatly impact one's socioeconomic identity, which leads to a change in political identity as well.

2.3.1. This is shown through Hamilton, being that when Alexander Hamilton moved to New York, he used his skills to climb the social classes, giving him new perspectives on what government should and should not be able to do, resulting in him becoming a Federalist

3. Conflict - How does either a sense of belonging to or exclusion from a socioeconomic class impact one's views, opinions and beliefs?

3.1. The rhetorical appeal of ethos can get to the point where it is so strong, that the common man would blindly follow it to their potential death.

3.1.1. During Feudalism, people followed the kings that were supposedly chosen by divine right, since God was their ultimate authoritarian figure, to the point where they were commanded to incredibly short lives in which the constantly labored, and they conceded to that life.

3.1.2. For example, church used to be the most credible thing in England, and because of this strong sense of ethos, the church could command high taxes, short, laboring lives, and justify it by saying there will be a prosperous afterlife, which the people ended up believing.

3.2. Exclusion from a social class allows one to focus on their own personal belief and betterment even more, since there is no criticism to contradict it.

3.2.1. Mary Shelly's Frankenstein depicts this, since Victor Frankenstein completely isolates himself from society to accomplish his initial goal, which he ends up doing, being that there is nobody to stop him since there is nobody around him at all.

3.2.2. Julius Caesar portrays this thought as well, since Caesar keeps climbing up the ladder of ambition, to the point where no one is as powerful or equal to him, allowing him to say with confidence that "If I could pray to move, prayers would move me./But I am constant as the Northern Star,/Of those true and resting quality/There is no fellow in the firmament" (III.I.65-68)

3.3. A sense of belonging to or unionization with a social class is often used as inspiration for revolution, since people gain confidence with an agreement in views, opinions and beliefs.

3.3.1. A very common example of this during the industrial revolution was unionization and the Pullman Strike, which had the workers of the Pullman industry united with the American Railroad Union to go through with a strike that would potentially decreased wages and improve working conditions.

3.3.2. This is also depicted in Abbe Sieyes' pamphlet "What is the Third Estate", which states that "The [French] Third Estate embraces then all that which belongs to the nation; and all that which is not the third estate, cannot be regarded as being of the nation. What is the third estate? It is the whole" (Sieyes, 2)

3.3.2.1. Feeling on belonging to Third Estate inspires revolution against the First and Second Estates

3.3.3. This is also shown through Julius Caesar, in which while Cassius had the ability to kill Caesar with even just a few more people, he kept trying to get more conspirators, so that the sense of unionization became more prominent, inspiring others to join the conspirators, such as Caius Ligarius.

3.4. When a higher socioeconomic class is excluded from a lower class, the higher class attempts to justify their wrongdoing to the lower class in any way possible, usually by using the rhetorical appeal of logos.

3.4.1. This is shown through the thought of Social Darwinism during the Industrial Revolution, which had the rich factory owners justify the horrible working conditions for their workers by saying that the reason they were dying was because they did not have the right genes to work in that industry, which was also why they were in such a low class in the first place

3.4.2. This is demonstrated through Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo's theory, in which they justified their iron law of wages (only need to pay the poor workers enough to barely survive) by saying that there is a permanent underclass, and since they are such an underclass, they can only be used for manual labor.

3.4.2.1. Stating how they should not waste resources on that permanent underclass (since nothing will happen anyways) and only provide them with barely what they absolutely need.

3.5. The lower a social class is on the socioeconomic spectrum, the more inspiration they have to take action on it

3.5.1. This is illustrated through Karl Marx's theory of the everlasting conflict between the "haves" and the "have-nots" stating that there is always a class that will fight with the class above, shown throughout history (Union v Factory Owner) (3rd Estate v 1st and 2nd Estates) (Colonists v British).

3.5.1.1. Related to Frankenstein, with Victor as the "haves" and the creature as the "have-nots".

3.5.2. This is also shown through Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", which shows how the creature gets so low on the spectrum to the point where he is not even accepted into society, causing him to take action and kill various members' of Victor's family, since it is Victor's fault that the creature is so low on this spectrum

3.5.2.1. This is just like Karl Marx's theory, with Frankenstein as the "haves" and the creature as the "have-nots".