Class

Posted on 2005/01/07 10:38:05 (January 2005) by john.

Oh there you go bringing class into it again...

I was having a conversation a short while ago (with Rob I believe) about the class issue. It appears many people now believe class plays little or no part in our society. I can't help but think this is wishful thinking, and I have a strong feeling it is still at the root of our country's social fabric.

Recently I have seen a number of examples of television programmes highlighting the class divide. Programmes like Wife Swap and Faking It seem to delight in taking people and placing them out of context, which often involves playing around with class stereotypes. Although some of these programmes may set out to prove that with a bit of money and intelligence people are pretty easily conned, they do at the same time seem to re-enforce many of our preconceived notions about class. The very fact that you can take somebody from one social context, place them in another, and suddenly they same incredibly out of place, tells me that class is alive and well in Britain. When you see people meet from opposite ends of the social specturm (as, lets face it, you don't often do in day to day life), you really notice the difference - they could be from different countries.

For those of you still determined that there is no class in this country any more, consider the following points.

Are there restaurants that you know of but have never been to because they are a little too "upmarket" for you? Yes, a major prohibiting factor may simply be the price, but are you not also (perhaps secretly) a little concerned that you'll be looked down upon when you go there? When you are in an unknown town and trying to choose a place to eat, are there places you immediately exclude as soon as you see the exterior? Could it be that these places are projecting a certain image in an attempt to appeal to a particular sector of society?

At the other end of the scale, are there not also "local's pubs" that you are wary of going into for fear the regulars might take a disliking to you when you order a Creme de Menthe and start quoting Jean-Paul Sartre...?

Where do you get your hair cut? How did you choose that place? Was it simply the same place your friends go to? Are there not lots of other places you could have gone to but simply never considered...?

If you are out shopping and feel like a quick tea or coffee where do you go? A greasy spoon, or a "nice" hotel...?

All these examples are similar in nature - these are all retail establisments of a sort, and one could argue that people's decisions about where to go are more to do with money than anything else... however, anywhere that has a social side to it - particularly pubs and restaurants, you will typically want to go where you're going to be surrounded by "your sort of people", and this decision will have a strong class element. The propietor is also likely to want to create a place that attracts his or her sort of people, and so the decor, location, prices etc will all be chosen with that in mind. Again, class will play a strong factor in this decision. If you go to a pub or restaurant, it is more often that not created with a particular clientele in mind, and therefore, a particular class.

I find having a girlfriend from another country teaches me a lot I didn't realise about my behaviour. Chie is largely oblivious to class so often when we're out looking for a place to eat or have a drink, she'll suggest places that I would discount without even thinking about. In just a few seconds I'll make a judgement about a place - too grotty, just about right or too posh.

What I am really saying is working, middle or upper class.

Yes I agree it has a lot more to do with money nowadays - if you're rich then there's nothing to stop you dining at expensive restaurants and staying at luxurious hotels regardless of where you were brought up... but how many people do you hear of who win the lottery, but stay living in their same little old house. It comes back to this business of wanting to feel comfortable, and be around "your sort of people".

Funny. I never find anywhere "too posh". Nor does Rob (look at 'one's club'). I'm also happy in some f*cking awful dives too. What I can't stand is people who don't want me to be in *their* posh club or awful dive.

Oh. Don't start me on Chavs though.

Posted by tom at 2005/01/07 21:26:08.

Tom, I'm with you. Depending on my mood, I like an awful dive or some posh nosh. Nowhere is too upmarket, nowhere too grotty. As for the barber question, I go to one which is cheap an quick (you'd never tell ,would ya??). However, despite the fact that I can't agree with John's examples, I think he is fundamentally correct. Class is still alive and kickin' in the UK.

Posted by Jimmy at 2005/01/07 22:30:52.

It's a complicated subject this. May I offer a couple of examples...?

My area manager is a a mean son-of-a-female-canine. At a hotel seminar we were both at he went outside for a cigarette and looking out at him he was genuinely scary. Looked as hard as nails. The way he held that cigarette did it.

A small thing. I'm not in his league (don't want to be!) But is that class?

Levi's used to run an advert with the punch line - "Quality never goes out of style" So true. Alice Cooper had a song lyric "You make a two-dollar T-shirt obscene". Two sides of an argument - Pay money and look better; or you are so classy any cheap tat will still look great on you.

People aspire to a lot of stuff (me personally it's just to grow old safely!) Others want money, others social status.

I guess I'm middle class... Whoops! Did I say that? Was I born that way? Yup! Are my mates middle class? Yup! Is my car, my house? Yup!

Guilty it seems, and I dodn't even know it!

Do rich people or tramps think this way? I'll have to ask one... Do I know any?

Posted by Nigel at 2005/01/07 23:17:57.

On the resteraunts bit, I've never not eaten somewhere because I thought it was too posh/ I would be looked down on. My only concern is if I can pay for the bill.

On pubs - there are many pubs that have a reputation for being rough or locals pubs, however, I've never refused point blank to go in anywhere, although usually there's another pub within a hundred yards that's not got that reputation.

I get my hair cut in a variety of places, sometimes I cut it myself at home. A no.4 all over is much the same anywhere.

Quick tea or coffee? wherever is closest, unless the closest place is fantastically expensive.

The "correct class" of a business doesn't really effect my choice of one. For example, I've eaten in places from a Hilton hotel resteraunt (on business, obviously :D) or the RAF club to greasy spoons and fish and chip shops, and never really felt out of place.

I think its only a problem if you convince yourself it is...

Posted by Byrn at 2005/01/10 12:40:26.

Well there's posh and there's really posh - then there's divey and really divey. I suspect most of us have only ever had to consider the fringes of the middling bits, not the real extremes. I will believe all of your "I'm never put off by anywhere being too posh / too scummy" statements when you tell me you've been into the roughest pubs on estates in Glasgow, or dined at Nobu / Rules / Sketch / Le Gavroche etc.

If you are all really unaffected by your surroundings then you must all be extremely self-confident well adjusted people (or just ignorant!) and I applaud you all on that. I severely doubt I can be the only person in the world who feels uncomfortable when outside of my normal social context.

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 09:33:08.

....or let me put it another way. Have any of you ever dined in a restaurant where you've found the waiter to be a snotty arrogant tosser? Had it occurred to you that he/she might have made some judgement on you based on your clothing / accent / menu choices, determined you weren't like their "normal" clientele, and this was what provoked that behaviour? Has this snottiness contributed to you not enjoying your meal as much as you would have done otherwise?

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 09:42:59.

I'm sure there are many places considered "posher" than the ones I have ever been to. The reason I haven't been to them is mainly due to the extent of the bill. If I came into a large amount of money or someone else was paying, I'd give it a go.

There are likely pubs in Glasgow I wouldn't go into on hearing their reputation, but I think the main reason it would be a bad idea is that I'm not a local and have the wrong accent.

I definately wouldn't call myself extremely self confident. I would say that I don't tend to care overly about my surroundings or worrying about fulfilling whatever expectations I think other people have of me. And I must say that I don't find being called ignorant a good alternative

Note that this doesn't mean turning up at the RAF club in a t-shirt... but required clothing is something you have to consider when going somewhere, from not wearing trainers for some pubs to black tie events.

I can't think of any particular examples of waiters being snotty to me, but if they were then more fool them, and it would be reflected in the tip left.

I think the main thing is to focus on what's good about an experience, rather than focusing on things which have spoilt it...

Posted by Byrn at 2005/01/10 10:49:09.

I never get put off with the bill in posh restaurants becuase I sneak out the toilet window.

Posted by tom at 2005/01/10 11:06:05.

That'd work too :D

All you're doing there is leaving a hefty negative tip really...

Posted by Byrn at 2005/01/10 11:14:52.

OK so it really is just me that feels uncomfortable in certain social situations then...? Is the conclusion to be drawn here that I am a neurotic head case languishing in a 1905s-esque world of make believe...? (I don't mean this rhetorically, it could well be true).

At the very least one of the commenters - Jimmy - did seem to think that class was still an important part of society. I would therefore be interested to hear how he (or anyone else) thinks it manifests itself, if, as it seems, it does not in the settings I have outlined.

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 11:27:46.

....or perhaps what all of your disagreement really highlights is that there is a class divide after all. You lot must all be middle class, which makes you feel comfortable about moving in either direction on the social scale. I must therefore be working class, as very posh places intimidate me, and scummy places remind me of who I really am but pretend not to be. Or something like that.

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 11:35:04.

I think the class boundaries have pretty much disappeared. The new boundaries are money and education. You can be loaded and thick. You can be poor and genius. It's not really class as class used to be.

The reality programmes where they swap people about is not a class thing, it's a culture thing. That's completely different. If I took you and Byrn and gave you a crash course in being an RAF Officer, it would be a culture shock (particularly for you as a passifist, John) but not a class shock. You'd still be mixing in what you think are the middle classes. It's just your education (non-military) would classify you differently, not where you grew up or who your parents were.

In the old days, class depended on who you family were and what they did and where you lived. Didn't really matter if you were clever or rich - it all depended on your class. Now, people would only raise an eyebrow if you dated someone who had barely any GCSEs and worked in Tescos. It's nothing to do with where they were brought up or what their parents did - it's all about money and education.

The big difference between the old classes and the new system of classes is that you can work yourself out of it now. In the old days, the barriers to move between classes were massive. Up until WW2, you were pretty much stuck in the class you were born in as you would not be able to get a good enough education to get a good job etc. Thus, you'd not earn much and you would not be able to move into a nice area with better school etc. Sort of a Catch 22. Now, you can. Have you seen Reading Uni recently? I have and it's packed with "Chavs".

Coming onto Chavs, this is an interesting group because they're not really lower class as such. They're slightly different because they have the opportunity to move out of Chavdom into the rest of the world. They also have a ridiculous amount of disposable income. Working class did not. Chav is essentially an example of an poor education cultural group - they spend their wages on £120 trainers rather than saving for a house.

What you might see as the upper classes is pretty much defunct now. It's a social class based around money. You can be thick as shit and born in the East End but be loaded and still be seen as upper class. Has nothing to do with your income or where you grew up but how much cash you have and how you show it off. Royal Ascot is not filled with the posh types, Lords and Ladies, it's filled with rich types. A massive difference. Also, knighthoods used to only be given to ex-Forces and prominant families. It was a class award. Now sportspeople who can barely string a sentance together get them - rightly so, they are good at what they do but they are certainly not upper class.

Are the rough pubs rough because people were born into being 'lower class' or are they rough because the people who live in that area can't afford to move out because everywhere else is so expensive? They make bad choices because of poor education and then turn to a life of crime. It has nothing to do with what their parents or grandparents did.

Posh and Divey places are all about Money. Can you afford to go there? Not 'Do you have the right accent.' The RAF Club is different, it a private place for Officers of the RAF and their friends - it does not even compare. Use 'The Ritz' as a comparison. Anyone can dine in The Ritz, it'll just cost you £400.

I'm not saying that there are not different cultural groups. I agree that they are. However, using lower, middle and upper class is not longer applicable. It's far more complex than that. By basing on the three groups, you are trying to draw a social parallel with times past, which is unfair to society as a whole. A new cultural model should be created.

If you having trouble with the class system, then I think it's more about your prejudice than it is about the way things actually are. You see the waiter being snotty - are they actually being snotty or do they treat everyone with an aloof air because that is the style of restaurant? Is it because you're not used to it and go in feeling uncomfortable because of the grandiose nature of it or because of the manner in which the staff treat you? I would think the former. It's like rough pubs. You go in, people look round at you. Why? Because they hear the door open and they want to see if it's one of their mates. They're not trying to size you up for your wallet. You get they in all local pubs. It's the reputation you have fixed in your head beforehand that creates this illusion, not the actual pub itself. I've been to the Maidens and Sportsman (two "rough" or Chav pubs in Whitley) and never had any trouble and felt quite at home.

What this argument seems to me is: "I have a model that I am happy with. I sit very comfortably in this model and it gives me something to complain about so I will fit society to it." rather than trying to actually model what society is like - seeing what is actually there. Preconceived notions are very dangerous and I think they're going to be very difficult to argue against.

Perhaps you should define working/middle and upper class. What do you mean by it?

But that's my opinion, take it or leave it. If you're convinced there are classes about, then there is little I can do to stop you. You can always fit society into 3 classes, 4 classes, n classes and give examples where the model fits. It's a bit futile to argue otherwise. I believe it's far more complex than that and that the three classes don't work anymore but then you're reading this with the same preconceived notions so I'll stop there.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2005/01/10 11:37:25.

Yes I agree money and education are another way to look at categorising portions of society, but I would suggest that for a long time these two things have been strongly intertwined with class, and even that they still are today.

Given the abolition of grants and the introduction of student fees, there are no doubt going to be intelligent individuals from poorer backgrounds who decide that they cannot afford to go to university nowadays. Even before university there is a serious differential in quality of education between some of the country's best and worst schools. Typically the better schools tend to be situated in affluent (i.e. middle or upper middle class) areas, and the worse schools are in deprived inner city (i.e. working class) areas. These divides are perpetuated in that many parents or parents-to-be actually choose an area to live based on catchment areas for schools with good reputations. This has a knock-on effect on house prices, and so those areas become more affluent.

So you can say that getting a good education is just a side effect of your parents being well off... but why were your parents well off in the first place? ...because they got a good education? So presumably their parents must have been well off too... and why was that?

Yes there are individuals that through hard work, natural ability, and perhaps simply being in the right place at the right time, have made significant amounts of money which has propelled them into an entirely different social context to that in which they were brought up. On the flip side there are no doubt people who grew up in a stately home, fell on hard times, and are now living on benefits... but these people are exceptions, not the norm.

If you compare the wealth and social status of todays' population with that of their grandparents or great grandparents, I'm reasonably sure for the large part you'll see, relatively speaking, that people have remained in a similar position, both financially and socially, to that which they were born into.

Yes, as a whole the country is better off, and the divide between the extremes has perhaps got smaller. So the classes bulge at the middle now, but I'm convinced they are still there.

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 24:29:46.

I disagree with your opinion on grants and fees. Just as many people from the same strata of society are going to university as they did before. In fact, university places are increasing, not dwindling. They're just coming out of university with more debt. Reading grew 4% last year. The whole poor people won't go to Uni thing is propaganda set out by the Tory party.

Before I go argue this any further, I would like you define what you mean by upper / middle / lower class.

Up until now, I have been using the classic usage - as they would have used in Victorian or Edwardian Britain. I am not sure what definition you're using.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2005/01/10 14:24:43.

[aside] Is this a 5 minute argument or the full half hour? [/aside]

Posted by Rob Lang at 2005/01/10 15:04:32.

Well I think that depends on the university. A nice red brick middle class university like Reading may be relatively unaffected by the increased cost of being a student, as parents are better positioned to help with the short fall. It is the inner city ex polys which server a wholly different sector of society - like South Bank - which are suffering most. Their attendance figures were dropping significantly during the time I was there.

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 15:08:05.

Incidentally, it has long been a middle class trait to not accept that there is a class divide in the first place. (smirks)

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 15:11:25.

Without a definition of class this argument isn't going anwhere... and as you are the one arguing for there still being a class system, I think it's down to you to define them John ;)

Posted by Byrn at 2005/01/10 15:49:12.

Wow! This has really grown since I last looked in! Interesting stuff.

I think any view of "Class" has to be qualified. The old Victorian/Edwardian model or the Feudal model or the Monetary model? I think human beings naturally graduate to one class or another - the one that exists in supremacy at any one time in history. For example Ancient Rome was Very class driven - old money, owning property etc... Does that sound familiar? Sounds much like the Victorian model, with a smattering of the Monetary model, because then like now you could rise socially by gaining money. However real "snobs" would smirk then about the "Nouveaux Riche" (only in Latin obviousy!) just as they do now.

Remeber the dreadful line - "Some people are more Equal than others"? Doesn't matter what society we find ourselves in, some people rise above, or sink. It seems the human condition. Perhaps "class" is just one manifestation of this trait?

I do think though that "class" now is judged differently. For goodness sake it's - are you a celebrity or not, nowadays! Though the landed gentry *do* still exist they are a dwindling few now.

I know I'm middle class, but that's more my summary of my outlook and interests and what I do for a living. I could be wrong though.

One thing for sur though is I'm NOT in the celebrity class!!!

:)

Posted by Nigel at 2005/01/10 16:04:56.

Oh I don't want to define what I mean by class because you'll all just pick anything I say to pieces.

However, I will have a vague bash for the sake of sportsmanship.

The sorts of things that tend to imply an upper class status, to me, are largely not really having to work. This may also go hand-in-hand with owning a large amount of land, perhaps a big stately home. These trappings would ideally be a family heirloom rather than being bought with millions made in the .com boom. Don't shop in supermarkets (butler does it).

The middle classes, well, skilled workers, probably home owners, neither rich nor poor, etc. Shops in Tesco at the lower end of middle class, Sainsbury's in the middle of middle or Waitrose towards the upper part of middle.

The working classes, errr, really on shaky ground here... Unskilled workers, less likely to be a home owner, happy to appear on Trisha, etc. Shop(lift) in Asda / Lidl.

To preempt the obvious responses you're no doubt keen to roll out to the above, no it isn't just about money and profession.
These are the symptoms, if you like, of the class system. Your upbringing and education will have a huge effect on profession, money, status etc, and so these things are heavily influenced by your parents. You are likely to end up in an equivalent position your parents. As such the class system has perpetuated (whilst also evolving of course) generation after generation all the way back to feudalism.

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 17:05:54.

OK, I'm not going to attack what you've said above (not yet at least). Instead I'd like to ask, given what you've said, are you still claiming to be working class? I mean here and now, not at some point in the past.

Posted by Byrn at 2005/01/10 17:21:17.

At this precise moment I think I'm middle class. As I grew up in working class surrounds, but much of my family was from a more middle class background, I think I could legitimately have gone either way without determining that the class divide is meaningless.

There was a class divide within my own family, not to mention the rest of society - certain members of my family would take exception to the way I spoke etc.

I don't know, perhaps it's just me then, but I see such a stark contrast between the way certain people speak, act, dress - even the way they hold a knife and fork.... and all these facets to me are indications of class. It's something I've always been aware of - maybe it is something that hits you more when you've spent some of your life at one end of the social specturm rather than always being comfortably somewhere in the middle.

Posted by John at 2005/01/10 17:47:57.

Reading? A University? Oh I say! Its a polytechnic surely?

Posted by A posh person at 2005/01/10 20:58:45.

Ah now there you go, you see. The last comment (20:58) hits a particular nail on the head.

Are "Class" and "Snobbery" the same thing? That last comment is snobbery, surely but can eually apply to a working class person's preference for one car over another.

John, I can see what you mean about perpetuating the family "average" or "norm". My Mother was a teacher, so presumably called middle-class... As it happens I married a teacher. Am I unwittingly keeping to the same class "line" due to breeding, preference or for safety?

As for genuine "blue blood" (whatever that is supposed to mean. From a scientific viewpoint - presumably a lack of oxygen to the brain...) class snobbery, how's this conundrum...

A good friend of mine is a millionaire, but it is inherited. Pater and Mater gave him the wherewithall on the coming of his majority... As it were. He goes huntin' shootin' and fishin' and has married a jolly good Gel. Trouble is he is the nicest bloke you would care to meet. A genuine proper all round "chap" BUT he's adopted... No "blue blood".

Class is perhaps just anoth way of "pidgeon-holing" which is vertainly a pre-programmed trait in humans. I suppose in the end there is *no* such thing as "class" We are all just human beings with aspirations.

Being "nice" and "kind" and "hard working" should be sufficient.

Phew!

Posted by Nigel at 2005/01/10 21:16:56.

It may not seem entirely related, but anyway...

Chie was very keen on watching "Child of our Time" on TV last night. Whilst watching it she was reminded of the time she spent in England doing a part-time job to teach kids maths etc. She said she was really surprised by the complete inability of some children to concentrate and learn. Ok now some of these are obviously going to have certain medical conditions - dyslexia, ADO etc, to explain this inability to concentrate, however at least some of them must simply have not been very intelligent.

It then occurred to us both that the reason that the behaviour of unintelligent people surprise us both is that we simply don't know any. Having made most of my friends at university or work (where most of the staff have degrees), they are by definition very learned people.

Just about every person I socialise with has had a really good education, and, depending on your point of view, you might also therefore consider to be of above average intelligence.

Is this a kind of class thing then? If you look at my friends they certainly don't represent a standard cross-section of society.

Have I deliberately chosen this group of friends, conciously or subconciously...? Is it purely a consequence of circumstances? Do like minded people just naturally gravitate together...? Could I be accused of intelligence snobbery...?

Posted by John at 2005/01/12 09:41:41.

If you can't define terms adequately, you shouldn't use them.

Instead, let's put our minds to suggesting new cultural categories or classifications. May I start...

Technical Cogniscente.
--------------------------
Typical Facets:
Have University education
Have vaguely technical job
Earn between 18-30k
May or may not own house
Look to get married for stability (or parental approval) and have 2 children
Value technical creature comforts: big TV/DVD/Sky/computer
Have broadband net access
Prefer to watch documentaries
Dislike reality programmes
Attend theatre when monetarily feasible.
Dislike mainstream night clubs
Read imaginative books, rather than popular trash
More likely to vote for a political party from reading manifesto than following parents

Anything else, any others?

Posted by Rob Lang at 2005/01/12 10:13:09.

If I can't define terms adequately I shouldn't use them...? Well I have defined them loosely above. Are you suggesting these definitions are not adequate?

OK I'll try again... Effectively there is a strong connection between class and wealth, but it is not based on an instantaneous measure of somebody's assets - it is to do with their upbringing, and their parents, and their parents's parents, and so on. You don't become upper class by winning the lottery. Similarly you could remain in the upper classes after bankruptcy. So, taking into account, what the three classes are is basically the wealthiest, the poorest, and those inbetween - but taking a long term view rather than a short term one.

Can you define the flavour of Coke? No, I doubt it - it is extremely difficult... and yet I would be happy to accept being told that something tasted like Coke as an acceptable descriptive, because it is a commonly understood concept.

Similarly it is quite hard to come up with a hard and fast set of rules that defines what one class is, there are undoutably people existing in the grey area between two... but to say that the terms cannot be used because I can't come up with a strict classification of each of them seems rediculous. It's like saying I shouldn't use the adjective fast because I can't give you an exact MPH category for which the term should apply.

The three categorisations of class are coarse, I agree, and don't describe the minutia of detail that distinguishes each member of society from the next to the nth degree.... but I don't think that is to say that they aren't relevant today.

Posted by John at 2005/01/12 10:52:20.

Ah, you're taking this a bit far, John. All I am saying is that you should not use terms if you cannot define them properly. Otherwise, the problem is poorly posed. How can we argue about fruit when your description of fruit doesn't include tomatoes? You definition does not need to include minutae - just enough for us to be talking about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defining the flavour of coke because we don't all share the same taste buds. We do share the same society, though.

Fast is also a term, unlike class, that can be described on its own merit. The term is comparative and stands by itself. It's very meaning of Fast is comparitive on speed so you know that one thing is faster than another. That's not like class where there is no similar 'speed' in class as there is in fast. That's why we need definition.

Please don't argue about the need for definition. If you want people to be able to discuss something seriously, you have to say what you're talking about. If they ask for clarification and you find that insulting, it's not their fault.

Your second definition is much better and is pretty much what I would call the typical class system of old.

I still think your argument is flawed because I would be working class (or at best upper lower) by your through-the-ages definition.

This is my point - the class system does not have a modern day equivalent. The through-the-ages argument doesn't really work these days because the state of society is so much different than before.

Also, if the upper and lower classes become the fringes of society, does it not make sense to better describe the middle section by increasing the level of granularity?

Posted by Rob Lang at 2005/01/12 14:31:19.

Right then, in it's most fundamental sense then:

Do you not agree that there might be some people who would treat me differently, or be less willing to integrate with me socially, or whatever, because of some judgment they might make about me based on the way I talk / dress / act etc...?

I can guarantee you that there will be some people that will think I'm pretty common and oik-ish because I don't speak with RP, or I didn't go to a public school, or there is some slight faux pas I unknowingly make in dining etiquette, or I wear jeans and non-designer clothes, or because I've never been to the opera...

...and similarly there might well also be people who will think I'm actually a bit poncy because, I don't know, I speak some foreign languages and am interested in other countries like Japan, or I know a little bit about whisky, or occasionally like to eat in nice restaurants.

These two groups of people will then behave towards me differently accordingly.

Is this not class?

Yes, I agree that to say it is a straightforward linear scale with three groupings is over-simplistic, but I'm not so bothered about that to be honest. If you said we're going to make it eleven dvisions then I'd be fine with that... but surely you must agree that those divisions do exist, and that wealth and breeding (which together are effectively class as I understand it) play an important role in determining those divisions which are, in turn, an important part of how our society works.

Posted by John at 2005/01/12 15:23:20.

Ah, now I do agree with you there. Without a doubt. There will be people that will have that sort of perception of you and treat you in a certain way. I completely agree.

Whether it is class or not is a sticky one. I am not sure I can argue for or against that.

I think that what you have there is something more than class - it's to do far more with the general perception than you're actual standpoint.

Hmmm, not sure. Which means that you're probably right! ;)

Posted by Rob Lang at 2005/01/12 16:21:26.

For those others watching, you might be interested to know that the last time Ginge agreed with John was in 1996.

Savour the moment.

Posted by Anonymous at 2005/01/12 16:26:31.

Hoorah - a consensus of sorts - albeit no doubt one with plenty of caveats!

So is it safe to conclude then that whereas class may not really exist today in it's conventional form, that snobbery definitely does...? Or something like that...?

Posted by John at 2005/01/12 16:44:24.

The traditional version of "Class" is probably outdated now, because we no-longer only judge by "breeding". This to my jaundiced eye is what traditional class was about - Gene Pool. Maintaining a social strata you felt comfortable in and excluding those that did not match.

Probably Darwinian survival of the fittest and all that, driven sub-consciously.

The reasoning behind the exclusion does not even have to be rational. Racism and Jingoism are the same ugly beast in different clothing.

Defining "Class" is nowadays virtually impossible because our genes are so well mingled by now, mitochondrial DNA
is the only way to check up on our ancestry!

On a lighter note, what narks me about perception of intelligence more than actual class divsions is "dumbing down" and assuming the average/mean is a "thick" person.

Posted by Nigel at 2005/01/12 20:13:42.

Today, I sent the RAF Club an email to get hold of an application form... better that this is that would get membership cheaper than Ginge.

Posted by tom at 2005/01/14 20:07:08.

There really hasn't been a class issue here in the American South....

Posted by Jeff at 2005/02/14 23:51:01.

Post a comment