If you’ve been a regular reader of this column, you might have picked up a theme I’ve dived into from time to time: the distinction between the High and the Low. One of the sub-themes has been the present confusion surrounding this concept, whose source is the substitution of skills for character as the distinction.

This distinction is not only false, it causes trouble of a certain sort whose side effects are already being felt. The use of an ersatz distinction has removed a crucial governor which keeps society from flying off the track: the price or the means test which balances out the prestige associated with the higher ranks of society - noblesse oblige.

If the n.o. disappears from what is considered to be the upper ranks, then philosophies based upon plain envy become more than loutishness and transform into a new kind of common sense. If the group that is considered the “highs” are as self- seeking as the ordinary middle-class person, then the privileges that used to be a corresponding benefit in exchange for special burdens assumed become nothing more than the greased path. What used to be admirable become merely an indication of being coddled; the obliteration of noblesse oblige turns “good homes” into spoiled homes.

To put it less idealistically, the uppers need their arses kicked during these times.

If you have the same inclinations as most people, you have undoubtedly wondered what it takes to be a “gentleman of good breeding” or the female equivalent. The answer, in a society that’s normal, is not dissimilar to the traditional proofs of manhood found in anthropology texts: being raised cruelly.

In the Anglican world, from what I’ve seen, this tends to revolve around the “happy home” of childhood whose feeding of happy memories, for the purpose of inculcating psychological resourcefulness, end abruptly when the youngster is shoved out, to an existence much more Spartan. This used to be a standard part of the curriculum in what used to be known as the “better” private schools.

As far as father and son are concerned, the age of around six – the charming age – is the stage when “good breeding” is introduced, in this way: instead of affirming the boy’s charm, the boom is lowered instead. How this is done varies in terms of specific technique; in a lot of cases, the charming boy is humiliated in several ways, one of which will end up hooking his performance anxiety. But there is one commonality that never changes in normal times: the clamp- down on one of the usual excuses for bad behavior by making the boy take the blame for any activity he was associated with, regardless of whether or not he was the only instigator. This “unjust” child-rearing is precisely what grinds in the foundation for the character of the higher sort: the taking of the sins of others on their shoulders, springing from the conviction that blaming others is self-degrading.

This is the acid test for a higher sort, and it’s easy to implement: is that fellow a Blamer or not? If not, how much Blamer crap will he take before reacting, and is the final reaction consistent with problem-solving rather than arse- covering?

Anyone with plain sense can see that such a gentleman won’t go far in the business world. Stomping down on the natural tendency to blame others takes away a crucial, if somewhat undiscussed, business survival skill: we all know that the quick success in the business world has a Blamer side. Self-promotion demands a bit of blaming, as does showing a kind of toughness characteristic to the middle classes.

As long as the business world works this way, any higher sort, unless sheltered, is going to be eaten alive in the world of commerce unless they wise up – meaning: unless they learn the hard way that Blamees are gulls in the business world and nothing more. They have to face the cold, cruel world and not run from it.

This might be hard to believe, but there is an argument for the opinion that the existence of the High makes general society more efficient than it otherwise would be, which relates to the success of the Blamer noted above. As long as a group of uppers are in society, then they can be blamed for all that’s gone wrong while taking it with a fundamental equanimity. This allows the middles to be more collaborative than they otherwise would have been – perhaps at the personal level, but more importantly at the principled level. The middle class man or woman can afford to be more collegial with the existence of a Higher class that takes all the “social blame” upon themselves than he or she could in their absence.

I have drossed this up by using game theory, but the math involved is implementational in nature, as the use of it has to follow a demonstration that the “simple majority game” does in fact lead to a more efficient outcome. If the reasoning above is correct, then the majority-game scenario does increase social utility.

The primal point, though, is that the source of noblesse oblige is being taught to take the blame for others’ mistakes as a child, simply upon the basis of being associated with them - and not reacting by blaming an outsider, but by vowing, if only in thoughts, to do something on one’s own to take the blame away.

The kind of kid, otherwise of good breeding, who “solves” through blaming an out-group is nothing more than a demagogue in the making. It’s quite normal among the healthy Higher sort to shun those people like the plague, as their presence leaches away the duty ethic by allowing word-mouthing to be thought of as an adequate substitute for doing one’s duty. When demagogy is tolerated in a circle generally identified as the higher sort, they’re on the way back down to the middle class.

Once people see through the “good breeding” cover. Until then, they make out like wind- falling freebooters!

(Especially at the expense of their “class peers” of better character. You see why the uppers don’t mind being Blamees that much? It’s better than being leeched by one’s own.)