With actual hereditary power largely mitigated, it seems that when we now speak of persons being “aristocratic” or “proletarian”, in a looser sense, we mean to say it of their incorporeal differentiæ.
- According to his knowledge, someone is called aristocratic for having much education and learning, and proletarian for having nothing of the sort.
- According to his taste, someone is called aristocratic for having a preference for the ‘fine arts’, ‘high’ fashion, ‘refined’ cuisine, and so on; or proletarian for lacking a taste for these things, and enjoying what the common man enjoys.
- According to his habits, or attitudes, someone is called aristocratic insofar as he considers other people to be ‘beneath’ him, and adheres to certain rules of etiquette; and someone is called proletarian insofar as he is easily approachable by anyone, and adheres to a different and more common conduct.
The aristocratic and proletarian tendencies in these three respects are all distinct, and separable, of course. Someone may have an aristocratic education but proletarian tastes, and his tastes in different things may be differently refined.
This division seems to exhaust all applications of these words to human personalities, which lends more credence to the original division, of the incorporeal human differentiæ, being sound.
No comments:
Post a Comment