|
Social class is a complicated concept. The first thing you have to realize about it is that there are various "ladders", most of which overlap in part yet at the same time are mostly independent.
For example, there is the "intellectual" ladder. This depends partly on education and occupation, but also on erudition, debating skills and other such things. A university professor is an example of someone who is high on this ladder, but so is a radical philosopher.
Then, there is the "refinement" ladder. This depends on behaviour and habits, as well as such things as language, etiquette, social network, etc. Old money tends to rank well here.
After that, there is the "cultural" ladder. This depends not on things such as visiting museums and drinking good wines, but on actually being involved in or (even better) producing original, authentic culture. Artists, gallery owners, avant garde authors, etc. do well in this.
Then, of course, there is the "money" ladder - how that one works is obvious.
Also, there is "fame" - just as obvious.
Further, there is "power", which is more about perceived power than real power. Politicians and those with good social networks do well here.
Also, there is "tradition", which fully depends on good heritage.
And then there are tons of small other ones.
This is the reason that the controversial artist looks down on the university professor (who is a part of the establishment), who looks down on the politician (who is an intellectually empty populist), who looks down on the businessman (who is greedy and lacks perceived power), who looks down on the aforementioned controversial artist (who is poor and commercially unsuccessful).
__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
|