Iconography, as Wikipedia helped me to understand it, “studies the identification, description, and interpretation of the content of [an] image.” It includes all of the visual clues that help a viewer understand how to locate an image (or TV show) with respect to their own identity groups. Because American culture has been painted as classless, Julie Bettie, among others, points out that the American audience does not have the language to properly articulate class differences. This is clear in the public’s definition of class in According to Jim. Jim is a foreman who works on a construction site. He has a loud, manly, and gregarious exterior, and hardworking, penny-pinching values. These markers mesh together to paint him as a Ralph Cramden-like working class guy which is probably why Kelli Marshal at the University of Toledo references According to Jim as a working-class sitcom. But According to Jim also leads the audience to believe it is a middle class sitcom. They have a beautiful house in the suburbs, time to volunteer for the PTA and are happily married with three children—two girls and one boy. Even the general public on Wikipedia can see that. So which class does Jim’s family belong to? Illustrating what Roseanne Barr meant in Bettie’s article, the disagreement between popular analyses makes it clear that there is a tension for the audience in deciding whether class is value-bound, monetarily-bound, or both. I don’t believe that this language truly captures the family’s class at all, but there are not many more options available.