The same is applied to the middle and lower strata, difference in style of which not only recognizes the individuals belonging to divergent social strata, but also appears to be distasteful and disgusting for the upper stratum at large. Consequently, the affluent individuals look down upon the strata that are comparatively poorer than them in wealth and resources. Hence, every step taken by them and every fashion and mannerism adopted and observed by the lower classes is abhorred and disliked by the elite due to the very reality that it reflects the style and smell supposed to be belonging to the lower classes. Even their body odour and tattoos etc are also sickening for their delicate aesthetic sense.
The author has cited Pierre Bourdieu’s critical appreciation of the aesthetic sense mentioned by Immanuel Kant, according to which, the use of various commodities and wearing of dresses, tattoos and earrings etc represent the taste people have developed in their individual and collective mannerism. However, identification of a cultural trait and characteristics is acknowledged provided it has collectively been adopted by a large proportion of a specific community for a long period of time. The magnitude of the displeasure of the upper stratum towards the lower classes is beyond the race and ethnicity the lower class belongs to. Thus, the white workers are treated in the same manner by the elites as they look down upon the black workers. Renowned writer George Orwell (1975, p. 47) also argues that class discrimination is an inevitable phenomenon for every culture of the globe, which cannot be neglected or eradicated altogether at any cost.
Lawler takes class as the product of long historical process; it is actually the professions of the people, which have given birth to difference in castes, clans, communities and classes. Since specific dress and metal earrings were the source of identity to the working class, the same things are still taken