We assume a hierarchical human society; we assume two social classes (U[pper], M[iddle]) for simplicity's sake. The nature of human hierarchies is such that the dominant class get first crack at all the resources. So Class U indulges freely, consuming resources, possibly replacing them with the output of its consumption (the phrasing here intentionally leaves open the possibility that output could be shit as well as goods).

When Class M comes to the table, it too freely chooses the resources it consumes. However, it does not have the same field of options Class U had. In particular, that which Class U has consumed, which fraction may approach 100% of any given resource, is no longer available for Class M's consumption. Also, the output of Class U's consumption is in amongst the field of options (with all that implies).

This means the experience of class is not static. The experience and consumption of Class U shapes the experience and consumption of Class M, which will therefore be affected by changes in Class U as significant as morality or as trivial as fashion. Many of the decisions that must be made by Class M, and the options available to meet those decisions, do not exist prior to changes made by Class U's consumption and production.

Now let's add a third social class. We'll call it Class L[ower]. The options Class L has to choose from are those both left over from, and created by, the choices and actions of Classes U and M. Class L's field of options will be totally different than that of Class U.

Class L's experiences and consumption is affected by Class M in much the same way as Class M's experiences and consumption. It is also affected by Class U, both directly and indirectly though its effect on Class M. To Class L things look considerably more chaotic than for Classes U and M. That's because they are.

I think it's clear additional social classes would share this dynamic, with the bottom class' perception of chaos increasing with each layer inserted above it. No human intent is required to make it so. Conversely, the dominant class sees a stable world of plenty. The chaos the bottom class must negotiate literally does not exist in the world of the dominant class. As a result, the dominant class tends to demand behavior that is unsupportable by the bottom class.

Class considerations fragment the issues of any in-group you can define (other than by class, obviously). Let's embed a real world issue into this framework. Let's be a Black teen age girl, considering the truth value of an American ideal: “In America, you can be anything you set your mind to be.” Let's make up our fictive mind to be President of the United States.

Reaching to high? I agree. And that should put paid to the whole discussion...but I'm willing to be flexible.

Let's be a parent of a five year old, living in a low income area of a Rust Belt city. Let us be typical of that demographic. Let's make up our mind to get our child an Ivy League education. Can we do it? There's a chance. But now let's be a parent of a five year old, living in the 90210 area code. Let us be typical of that demographic. Let's make up our mind to get our child an Ivy League education. Can we do it? If we choose to.

And this is a neat summary of the effect of the class divide. For one class, things are choices. For another they are chances. For some the possibility comes and goes as fashion and progress change what the upper classes value and hence what they reward socially and financially.