In the early 1980s, the yuppie stereotype emerged as an object of media and popular fascination. In 1984,Newsweekmagazinedeclared it the “Year of theYuppie,” thewords emblazoned above a Gary Trudeau caricature of two urbane white people in New York’s Central Park. Inside, an article profiled the members of this newly discovered class: professionals who earned high salaries, coveted loft apartments, trained for marathons, owned Cuisinarts, and supped on sushi and chardonnay. Elsewhere, commentators trotted out the image of the yuppie to make sense of a host of related issues: from new modes of masculinity, to unease about consumerism, to the entrance of women into the professions. Yuppies, ultimately, were anxieties about affluence made flesh.1 When I began my dissertation research, I wondered: What would happen if we took “yuppies” seriously—not as a stereotype or as an object of satire, but as a real demographic wave that washed over America’s cities beginning in the late 1970s?What would I discover if I looked critically at the highly educated professionals who came to New York to work onWall Street and in law firms? Would it help me tell a new story about the 1980s—one that did not foreground Ronald Reagan, Sunbelt suburbanites, corporate revanchists, or conservative economists, as other historians have?2 What I discovered was that yuppies themselves—real, living young urban professionals— are essential to understanding how the booming financial and professional sectors remade America in the closing decades of the twentieth century. They were at the forefront of the concentration of capital and brainpower in ahandful of cities. They embodied the split ofwhat was once a broad middle class in two: an upwardly mobile, college-educated metropolitan class, on the one hand, and a downwardly mobile class of workers on the other. They transformed American politics, as the Democratic Party became more beholden to educated professionals than to blue-collar workers, more indebted to Wall Street than to urban political machines, more in thrall to highly paid young people than to older or poorer voters. Ultimately, yuppies, while never numerous enough to swing national elections by themselves, were able to reshape American politics—and with it, American economic and social life.

中文翻译：

---

雅皮士：年轻的城市专业人士和后工业时代纽约的形成

在 1980 年代初期，雅皮士的刻板印象成为媒体和大众迷恋的对象。1984 年，《新闻周刊》将其宣布为“雅皮士年”，纽约中央公园内，加里·特鲁多 (Gary Trudeau) 漫画中的两个温文尔雅的白人上面印着这两个字。在里面，一篇文章描述了这个新发现的阶层的成员：高薪的专业人士，令人垂涎的阁楼公寓，马拉松训练，拥有 Cuisinarts，晚餐吃寿司和霞多丽。在其他地方，评论员们用雅皮士的形象来解释一系列相关问题：从新的男性气质模式到对消费主义的不安，再到女性进入行业。雅皮士最终是对富裕的焦虑变成了肉体。1 当我开始我的论文研究时，我想知道：如果我们认真对待“雅皮士”——不是作为刻板印象或讽刺对象，而是作为 1970 年代后期开始席卷美国城市的真实人口浪潮，会发生什么？如果我以批判的眼光看待高度来纽约在华尔街和律师事务所工作的受过教育的专业人士？它能帮助我讲述一个关于 1980 年代的新故事——一个没有像其他历史学家那样突出罗纳德·里根、阳光地带郊区居民、企业复仇主义者或保守派经济学家的故事吗？2 我发现的是雅皮士本身——真实的、活生生的年轻城市专业人士——对于了解蓬勃发展的金融和专业部门如何在 20 世纪最后几十年重塑美国至关重要。他们处于资本和智力集中在少数城市的最前沿。它们体现了曾经广泛的中产阶级一分为二：一方面是向上流动的、受过大学教育的都市阶层，另一方面是向下流动的工人阶层。他们改变了美国政治，因为民主党对受过教育的专业人士比对蓝领工人更感激，对华尔街的亏欠比对城市政治机器的亏欠更多，对高薪年轻人的奴役比对年长或更穷的选民的奴役更多。最终，雅皮士虽然数量不足以独自左右全国大选，但却能够重塑美国政治——以及随之而来的美国经济和社会生活。他们改变了美国的政治，因为民主党对受过教育的专业人士多于对蓝领工人的感激，对华尔街的亏欠多于对城市政治机器的亏欠，对高收入的年轻人而不是对年长或更穷的选民的奴役更多。最终，雅皮士虽然数量不足以独自左右全国大选，但却能够重塑美国政治——以及随之而来的美国经济和社会生活。他们改变了美国的政治，因为民主党对受过教育的专业人士多于对蓝领工人的感激，对华尔街的亏欠多于对城市政治机器的亏欠，对高收入的年轻人而不是对年长或更穷的选民的奴役更多。最终，雅皮士虽然数量不足以独自左右全国大选，但却能够重塑美国政治——以及随之而来的美国经济和社会生活。