Class and Culture Interactions: Dismantling Rich Kids Singing Shaa'bi

The term “class struggle” often invokes a sense of economic competition between lower and upper classes. Seldom, though, does one think that this struggle entails any other form of “competition”. In the case of class culture, particularly, it’s more an interaction than a struggle. To investigate that, we need to first define what we mean by “class”, “culture”, and their relation to each other. To define class, sociologist Michael Kraus asks us to consider two things: objective factors, such as: material wealth, education, residence, etc.., and subjective factors: how one perceives the social pyramid, and their rank within it. We can therefore roughly divide society into three main groups: upper, middle, and lower classes, that share both types of factors. As for “culture”, Helen Spencer-Oatey says that “Culture is a fuzzy set of basic assumptions and values, orientations to life,..., that are shared by a group of people.” As a result, we can see culture as a sort of shared “mindset”. From both the definitions of “social class” and culture, it follows that people of a class share a “class culture”. These classes are not isolated; thus, they interact. And the mechanism by which different class cultures interact can be understood through capital.

The French sociologist and anthropologist Pierre Bordieu, argues that there are in fact three forms of capital: Economic Capital, represented in the material wealth that one can own, Social Capital (essentially connections and access to resources through group membership), and Cultural Capital. The third form in particular is divided into three main types: The embodied state, which is external wealth converted into an integral part of the person, is exemplified in their skills and knowledge, and how they move, act, and carry themselves. The objectified state is represented in material culture-specific goods such as art pieces, books, and music, and the institutionalized state, which pertains to one’s educational background and how much recognition it grants someone. The key point here is that Cultural Capital, which is an aggregation of the aforementioned three types, can be exchanged with other types of Capital. For example, one can produce an art piece (Cultural Capital) that they then sell for money (economic capital), or put in an exhibition, where they can gain fame or notoriety (social capital). Therefore, owning Cultural Capital can give members of a society, social power, that allows one to influence the society they live in, of which culture is a part. As in, a power over resources that are valued in social relations, as Jeffery Magee aptly puts it. These resources are exemplified in the three forms of capital. What that means is that owning Cultural Capital, allows one to set criteria that determine what is “good” or “bad” culture. This can be done through exploiting the three forms of capital. For example, economic capital can be used to buy art pieces that a capitalist deems worthy, and kept for display. Through that capitalists’ social capital, they spread the view that the art pieces they bought are worthy. This increases that capitalists Cultural Capital, particularly, the objectified state. Thus, the art-piece that the capitalist liked, is considered “good”. Conversely, a capitalist may find a certain behaviour distasteful. Through the capitalist’s social capital, they may convince their social circle of that behaviour being indeed distasteful. Then, by refraining from that behaviour, they yet again increase their Cultural Capital (namely, the embodied state). Therefore, that behaviour, is considered “bad”.

In Egypt, classes interact in various ways. For example, the words “bee’a” or “sarsagy” are commonly used when referring to something that pertains to lower-class culture. Usually, this is contrasted with “nedeef” or “chic” when referring to upper-class culture. This is of course not the only way in which cross-class cultural interaction happens. Sha’bi music, for example is trivialized by members of the upper-class. I argue that upper-class teenagers, particularly males, considering that most sha’bi songs have heavy masculine themes, want to break out of their class’s “bubble” and norms, have found an outlet for them in listening to Sha’bi. In doing so, it is not often considered as a form of “true” art (recall Cultural Capital), but as an exhibit of “baltaga” (thug-like behaviour) or an expression of “poor people problems”. Sha’bi singers usually intend for their music to serve as a platform on which they can express and spread the message about lowerclass woes in life. For this music to be used in the way mentioned above, is a trivialization of the singers’ intention. We can therefore conclude that at least some lower-class cultural aspects are looked down upon.

Lower-class culture is often termed “distasteful” by those that deem it inferior. This judgment of “taste”, however, is not at all arbitrary. As in, it’s not based on some abstract absolute concept of taste. But, as Bordieu argues in his book “Distinctions”, it is actually based on social power and status. The concept of “taste” classifies culture into “tasteful” and “distasteful”. Through this classification, people are classified. For example, if you listen to classical music, you’re said to be a person of “good taste”. On the contrary, if you listen to “Sha’bi”, your musical taste is said to be poor (ironically). This is also true of food, for example; where “fool and ta’meya” are termed “poor people food”, whereas you find something like caviar lauded as “classy” food. There doesn’t seem to be any culinary standard against which you can evaluate the worth of a meal, that would tell you that literal fish eggs are somehow a better dish than beans and falafel. It is so, because upper-class individuals, through their social power, can exert an influence on society, to have it better suit their “tastes”, as I’ve mentioned in my previous examples. However, This “taste” allows them to group themselves as people of “refined taste” as opposed to those with “bad taste”. As a result, they assert their dominance over the cultural “market”, increase their Cultural Capital, by adopting the mannerisms they deem tasteful and avoiding those they do not, and enhance their social capital, by being part of an elite group that is recognized for their “good” judgment (which they’ve decided is good). In that sense, lowerclass culture is termed as “distasteful” simply in virtue of belonging to the lower-class. Because, of course, if it had been “tasteful”, the people with “good” taste would participate in it. As a result, you find culture judged based not on its merit, but against the standards that an elite group has set, to further legitimize their elite status.

Because of all of this, I think that it would be much more prudent to judge these cultural pieces based on their own value, and one’s own dispositions (affected, as they may be, by the embodied state). For starters, it allows upper-class individuals to have a more accurate understanding of the lower-class. Most importantly, though, it allows forms of culture, that would otherwise be buried, to thrive. As a result, my proposition is this: it is much wiser for one to reconsider the preconceptions that would pollute their judgment, when judging the worth of a cultural piece. In doing so, they avoid doing themselves, the artists, and the cultural piece, a grave disservice.