New England Stereotypes

[holden125]

I do not particularly wish to insert myself into a debate entre academics, but I would like to clarify the point. I don't see it as extending only to the wealthiest who actually were "bred to make fine discriminations."

My father, who hardly fits that description, was raised in Boston but now lives elsewhere. In 1990 he was driving a 15-year-old station wagon and someone hit it, causing irreparable damage. He bought a new Honda Civic on payments to replace it and is still driving that car 260,000 miles later, while most of his co-workers in New Jersey lease so they can have a shiny new car every two years. Someone asked him why he still drives it, and he said "It still works."

There are plenty of people in New England who will buy a good car, but not the most flashy or most expensive one available, and keep it as long as it works. I know plenty of people who remind me of women I knew in Paris, who would buy 3 or 4 outfits of good quality and wear them for years, rather than have a closet filled with literally hundreds of outfits of cheaper clothes.

It's not like it used to be, but there might still be more people who don't buy it if they don't need it. And there's nothing elitist about many of them.

[ogre]

If I take as candid a look at the local culture as I'm able to as a longtime resident, I'll acknowledge that the Boston upper crust has its ways of exhibiting the trappings of blue-blooded status, even though such displays of affluence may tend to be more subtle than they are in the Sun Belt land of McMansions (not to say there are no McMansions here, but looking at the general picture). Syracusa, in this sense, Boston may remind you of Europe, though it's also true, as a number of people here have emphasized, that Boston is not Europe, and the local culture, while hinting at some European nuances on occasion, is fundamentally American.

Despite the subtlety with which the more affluent segments of Boston's population often express their status, that old New England saw about using it up, wearing it out, etc., has its roots more in the attitude of everyday folks. It reminds me of an observation my father sometimes makes, which is that only the wealthy can afford to buy cheap. Back at the time that old saying originated it might have referred to the idea of buying (or making at home) a sturdy set of work clothing, then making those clothes last as long as possible, by keeping them in good repair, patching any holes that wore through, and wearing them until they were no longer usable.

In today's more prosperous times, the same idea might be seen in the guy who does a lot of his own home maintenance in one of those clapboard-sided houses, who eschews the popular brands of tools and instead knows the out-of-the-way stores that sell the less expensive hammers, drills, or power saws which are built to last for years. It might be as simple as spending a few dollars more to buy a really solid snow shovel that will last several years, rather than buying the cheap shovel that will most likely snap in two with the first really heavy use.. A lot of this is good common sense which wise, thrifty people practice everywhere, but valuing this kind of frugality is an especially prized feature of New England cultural tradition. That has nothing to do with connivingly subtle ostentation, but I'm guessing it is more in line with what ProfSen was trying to get across by quoting that old "Use it up . . ." bromide.

[syracusa]

Originally Posted by holden125

It's not like it used to be, but there might still be more people who don't buy it if they don't need it. And there's nothing elitist about many of them.

You hit the nail on the head: it’s not like it used to be.

While I am perfectly familiar with the scenarios you mentioned as applied to non-wealthy people, you can’t help but notice that it is increasingly difficult for such people to live up to this practice. Today, it is not seldom that people will pay the additional price to ensure high quality (not “flash” or “airs”) only to find out that the additional price did squat in terms of preventing the product to break down, fall apart or just plain quit on them. Until they realize they live in the age of planned obsolescence where TRUE super high quality is no longer accessible to the mere mortal.

However, I am not quite sure how we arrived from “modesty in aesthetics” to “parsimony via high quality products”. I suppose the bridge was the topic of “flash” - for which the authentic New Englander has a phobia, as reported on these boards.

All I implied was that sometimes, cultural outsiders can bring a fresh perspective on certain local values that can go largely unexamined or examined in one way and that way only. I appreciate genuine modesty as much as the next person who gives a cent or two about human character. However, when “modesty” is purposely used to make self-serving statements, then it is no longer modesty. It is hypocrisy. And when it is used to the exclusive purpose of attacking aesthetics in the name of Puritan dogma, then I guess, it is just a shame.

Just the other day I was looking at a family portrait of late Ted Kennedy and his wife. They were posing in an evidently elegant, formal setting. He was dressed in typical politician attire, suit, tie, the jazz. She was…well…playing the “folksy” card. Darn it, there is something about this “folksiness” that will cast a spell even on the most intellectually vigilant of Americans. I understand the need to continue to believe in the viability of “democracy” and the power of the “common man”, but really…

Did she REALLY need to pose in flannel, baggy man shirt, rubber, knee-length boots, etc - all looking like Wal-Mart purchases within the comfortable reach of the lowest income person in America?
While some might find this move endearing, edgy, cool, or what have you - I for one, don’t (probably because of my “stunted and cramped” Eastern European view, as eloquently explained by ProfSen). In this case, I could have done without the statement and would have been more content with just admiring the beauty of a well-cut “Cindy McCain” suit, which would be safe to assume she keeps in her closet in generous amounts. But that’s just non-edgy me.

I should probably mention that no political hostility is involved here, just a cultural itch. I have absolutely nothing against the Kennedy-s, in fact I think I even have a slightly soft spot for them, and that I voted Democrat for lack of a better choice. As for the cultural itch, and before ProfSen launches another diatribe about my posts and the “oozing antipathy for America”, I saw a few more photos of New England town commons today, and they really look charming, appealing, and authentic, a far cry from the dryness of Atlanta suburbs. So yes, I have major hopes I am going to LOVE New England and I will operate on this assumption until proven otherwise. (I made sure to wipe off HeadedWest’s dripping sarcasm).

[syracusa]

Originally Posted by ogre

Despite the subtlety with which the more affluent segments of Boston's population often express their status, that old New England saw about using it up, wearing it out, etc., has its roots more in the attitude of everyday folks. It reminds me of an observation my father sometimes makes, which is that only the wealthy can afford to buy cheap. Back at the time that old saying originated it might have referred to the idea of buying (or making at home) a sturdy set of work clothing, then making those clothes last as long as possible, by keeping them in good repair, patching any holes that wore through, and wearing them until they were no longer usable.

Very true for the good ol' days, but it no longer applies. I grew up hearing "I am too poor to buy cheap stuff" over and over again.

Originally Posted by ogre

A lot of this is good common sense which wise, thrifty people practice everywhere, but valuing this kind of frugality is an especially prized feature of New England cultural tradition. That has nothing to do with connivingly subtle ostentation, but I'm guessing it is more in line with what ProfSen was trying to get across by quoting that old "Use it up . . ." bromide.

I wholeheartedly agree, absolutely nothing wrong with thrift and judicious use of materials. On the contrary, a wonderful value on a finite Planet.
But we had departed from a different topic, modesty in aesthetics.

Speaking of which, at the risk of being cyber-shot , I stick to my guns that the old wood clapboards are not terribly aesthetic; and if only they were wood! Now they make them of cheap materials that become ugly and dingy after just a couple of years of being exposed to the elements.
When I ask my husband why is it that America insists on using these materials for house facades, he invariably says "well, it's cheap".

OK, so I understand that developers must make big profits and the poor common man can only afford so much.

But when I saw some incredibly beautiful-on-the-inside, million dollar plus New England mansions (not Mac!) with the same clapboards on the outside, then I gave up. I guess it's tradition and that will be that. My guns are down.

[dalycape]

I grew up in the Boston area, went to college in Vermont, moved to Connecticut and have lived in Texas for 5 years. Just about every day I miss New England, especially in the Fall. I live in San Antonio and it is HOT here. Yesterday it was in the 90s. Texans are all about Texas. It is infuriating as it is endearing. They have no desire to see or go anywhere but Texas. I miss the snow a little, but don't know if I could move back there and deal with it on a permanent basis. Christmas here is the worst because many years it has felt like the 4th of July. I don't think I can ever get use to that. BUT, tomorrow is going to be 78 degrees and my 5 bedroom, 4 bath house with an inground swimming pool in my gated subdivision only cost me about $335,000. There's definitely pros and cons.

My word for New Englanders is "preppy". I love the Cape and all the Lily Pulitzer, Vineyard Vines, etc that comes with it!