Posted on 12/29/2002 11:33:36 AM PST by shrinkermd
The first sentence of this book is, "This book describes the emergence of a new social class." In this the author fails. What he describes is the upper middle-class and the many changes it has both undergone and wrought. This book is well researched, well written and thoroughly referenced. Some of its conclusions are unique and valid and the book is worth the price and the read.
Before going further, it is important to understand the author's background. Richard Florida is H. John Heinz Professor of Regional Economic Development at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He also is a columnist for Information Week; a weekly magazine devoted to innovation powered by technology. Christopher Dreher in the 6 June 2002 edition of Salon reviews what little is known about Professor Florida and accomplishes an excellent review of the book. Mr. Dreher summarizes the book as, "Be creative or die...A new study says cities must attract the new "creative class" with hip neighborhoods, an arts scene and a gay-friendly atmosphere --or they will go the way of Detroit..." This is an excellent book review for those who are not interested in the concept and nature of "social class."
Professor Florida assumes that 30% of the workforce or 38 million people are members of the "creative class." He believes that the creative class derives its identity as purveyors of creativity. He believes this a new class, but the members of the class have yet to identify themselves as a member of a class. He also believes that innovation drives creative people to live in specific geographic areas, which then become tolerant, diverse and open to more creative people.
The author defines creativity as "the ability to create meaningful new forms." He sees this as decisive source of competitive advantage in virtually all industries. "A fundamental characteristic of life today is that we strive to create our own identities," is another quote from the author. Both of these quotes highlight the importance of creative and creativity in the author's schema. To the author, creativity is not just a workplace finding but a lifestyle and a class description.
In respect to the definition of social class Professor Florida defines class as," a cluster of people who have similarities and tend to think, feel, and behave similarly, but these similarities are fundamentally determined by economic function--by the kind of work they do for a living." Defining class as being "the kind of work" a person does is defining class by occupation. Usually, social class is defined more broadly.
Professor Florida's typology of class is as follows:/b>
--He posits a core creative class that is comprised of people in science, engineering, architecture, education, arts, music and entertainment. This core creative class's function is to create new ideas, new technology and new creative content. The core creative class comprises 12% of the workforce. Also in the creative class are the "creative professionals" in business, finance, law and health care.
The creative class is about 30% of all employed people. All members of the class value creativity, individuality, difference and merit. The creative class is the norm-setting class, is dominant in terms of wealth and its members earn roughly twice as much as members of the other two classes. Members of this class no longer have lifetime employment. They not only are better educated than the other classes but have a lifetime learning ethos.
The author believes the changes in employment security and technology results in this class not seeing themselves as organization men: they feel free to locate in places that offer the opportunities and amenities they crave. These individuals also "front load" their careers and tend to have their children after thirty. Only 23% of the creative class live in nuclear families. Only 7% have a working father and a stay-at-home mother.
The "core creative class" has created a no collar workplace and a multi-faceted, creative oriented community.
The author does not believe creativity is the same as intelligence. The author does not discuss intelligence and it is absent in the book's index. What he is describing as the "creative class" seems the same as the "cognitive elite" described by Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve (1994). Whether you call the class creative, cognitive, middle class or symbolic makes no difference. This class is better educated, more intelligent and is more affluent than the other classes.
If intelligence is not the same as creativity, then creativity must be a quality that is independent of it. By reasoning, then, one would presume considerable creativity occurs in the other classes as well. Professor Florida just does not substantiate that the creative class is any different from the middle-class or bourgeois. Part of the problem in discussing class is that academics detest the label bourgeois. For example, both Paul Fussell (A Guide To The American Class System 1983) and David Brooks (Bobos In Paradise 2002) exclude themselves and like minded individuals from being members of the middle class. Paul Fussell does this by imagining a "generation x" that is superior to and not a member of the traditional classes. Presumably, generation x has many professors of English such as Paul Fussell. David Brooks takes the cognitive elite concept, puffs it up with "Bohemian morals", and re-characterizes the upper-middle class as a superior or "over class."
Professor Florida makes a good case that we now have a creative-knowledge economy. He points out that research and development spending has increased by 800 per cent in the last fifty years. Further, there are now more than four times as many scientists and engineers per 1000 citizens as there were fifty years ago. Patents and other indications of creativity have similarly exploded over the last fifty years.
The author believes there have been powerful and significant shifts in the values, norms and attitudes within the creative class. These value changes grow out of a melding of traditional values and those of the highly educated. The value clusters are three in number:
For the creative class, the new labor market differs from the old. They now pursue their careers horizontally rather than vertically. They no longer climb the corporate ladder. They identify by job rather than by corporation. Early in their careers, they front-load by working long hours in the hope of greater rewards in the future. They bear responsibility for their own careers. They spend tremendous amounts of time and money on education. Information Week surveys find that two-thirds of creative class workers believe challenge and responsibility are what drives them. Four out of ten report they are "workaholics." According to a 2001 report by The International Labor Organization each year Americans work 3 1/2 weeks more than the Japanese, 6 1/2 weeks more than the British and 12 1/2 weeks more than the Germans. According to The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the creative class is the most likely to work 49 or more hours per week.
Creative individuals look for experiences and active recreation. American living standards have risen to the point where material goods no longer convey status so the creative class prefers experiences. Outdoor recreation and active sports are preferred over spectator sports. Physical fitness is in and watching TV is out.
The author posits that "creative centers" in the US thrive because creative people want to live there. Ranking the cities by the percentage of creative people results in Minneapolis being number 6 with approximately 34% of the population in the creative class, 23% in the working class and 42% in the service class. The top five cities ranked by percentage of creative workers are Washington, D.C., Raleigh-Durham, Boston, Austin, and San Francisco. There are some working class enclaves such as Greensboro, Grand Rapids and Memphis. Service class enclaves exist in Las Vegas, Palm Beach and Miami. It seems that the population is stratifying according to social class and geography.
The new geography of success requires the three "T's"--Technology, Talent and Tolerance. The technology index is a number based on the Miliken Tech Pol Index, which measures both the size and concentration of hi-tech businesses. In addition, the Tech-Index includes the innovative index that is comprised of the number of patents divided by the population. The number of college degrees divided by the population gives the Talent Index. The tolerance index is a composite of the Gay Index (proportion of Gay couples in the population) and the proportion of immigrants. Presently, immigrants make up 12% of the workforce nationally and up to 30% in some areas. The author defines a "Bohemian Index" as the proportion of the population comprised of writers, designers, musicians, actors, sculptors and so forth. The "Bohemian Index is assumed to measure creative geographic areas. The top five "Bohemian Index" cities are San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.
The author makes his best arguments in respect to the emerging geographic creative centers. He is less convincing that these creative centers occur because of lifestyle preferences. It is the chicken and the egg problem. What came first the creative class or the high-tech businesses? Ditto for Gays and the Bohemians. Unquestionably, people in the upper middle class have different consumption patterns than those in the working class. In my estimation the money, the Gays and the Bohemians all follow opportunities. The author does note, for example, that Gays are 1.3 times as likely to work in high-tech. He does not mention that Gays consistently make more money than heterosexuals. Gays may or may not "be the canaries of the creative economy," but like heterosexuals, they are more likely to seek out opportunity than to create it.
The author does not make a case that the "creative class" is anything more than the middle and upper-middle class. Simply giving a new name to the bourgeois does not change its essential nature. The sine qua non characteristic of the middle-class is autonomy and independence in the workplace. In addition, the authors division of the working class into a working class and a service class seems unnecessary. The crucial determinant for the working class is they have very little or no autonomy on the job and are closely directed and supervised--this fits both the author's service and working class categories.
The shortcomings of this book are few in number. Buy it. As I said earlier, it is worth the price.
Professor Florida's book focuses on the upper-middle class. He terms this the "creative class." He tries to make a case for this assumption. In my opinion, he simply describes the changes that have occurred in the upper middle class. What generated excitement about this book, is Professor Florida's assertion that certain cities are creative magnets by virtue of the characteristics listed in the book review. Here, he seemed more successful.
I have previously posted Pinker's book on the Blank Slate. This book documents the biological basis of human nature and what this means for individuals of a liberal persuasion. You can find Pinker's book HERE
Actually, though, I challenge strongly the notion that the "creative class" is "non-judgmental" (if that means non-Christian, basically ultra-liberal in all social positions).
Quite the contrary, the creative people I see in a place like Dayton are, well, many at least, conservatives.
In fact, if you take FR, it is the EPITOME of a creative class conservative, and its posters are almost all "creative class" conservatives. There are more good ideas here than I hear at the University in a month!
I agree with your basic point, but not that social stratification is coming to an end. As far as I can tell, there has been no society without some form of social stratification. Marxism claimed this, but, as you know, the bureaucrats and others had their own strata --"some were more equal than others."
It does seem creativity plays an increasing part. Indeed, I read some engineer complaining not only was he laid off twice, but his knowledge-base was becoming old and he was considering switching fields --maybe law or medicine!
No, I don't think he meant a person has no values or faith, but rather they did not condemn nor take action on people who didn't or had a different faith. This seems to fit.
You are right about one thing --at no place did Florida indicate anything about religious faith --I suspect (but do not know)he was some form of secular believer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.