I had a conversation with a colleague this week where he asked what class I belonged to....

I had never realy placed myself in a class and did not find this very easy to answer. What are the class names nowadays? is it based on background, income or belief ? or all of these.

My family history is defo working class with most male family members working in the steel industry. My parents both worked full time and owner-occupied a 'nice' semi in a 'nice' part of town. I am sure if I could ask my Dad, he would have said he was very much working class .... and would never dream of stating that he was anything else.....

But me though..... I earn a very good wage, live in a big house and live very comfortably..... does this make me lower-middle class ?? Somehow this doesn't feel right knowing my background???

I don;t want this to be a huge & nasty political debate, though I know there are obvious links.

What class are you ?
Are classes still important ?

I dont think i belong to any class.

Of course my Butler, gardener, Chauffer and our lasses Lady in waiting disagree.

thanks viking

91% twaddle as usual :clap:

Anyone else have a view on this - all twaddle and intelligent replies acepted :D

Originally posted by LoopyLou
..... I earn a very good wage, live in a big house and live very comfortably..... does this make me lower-middle class ??...
Not in my opinion, the key part for me was "...I earn...", that makes you working class.

My father always used to say,

"If you have to work for a living, your working class...

...if you own a business, and other people do the work for you, your middle class...

...and the upper class… …they do naff all."

(or words to that effect)

I still think there's a lot of truth in that statement, even if "Her Maggieness" tried to convince us we were all middle class, and should therefore vote for her / the Tories.

:suspect:

I think there has been a push in recent years by a certain political party to demolish the class system in this country. A prime example is that of fox-hunting. Perceived by Labour to be a sport for the upper classes they have written a piece of half-baked legislation ridden with loopholes simply to appease the abundant do-gooders.

Years ago, the well to do played golf, and the rest of us went fishing.

Now, golf is more affordable than fishing, it cost a fortune to set up and go fishing.

My Dad was a steel worker and considered himself very working class with a simialr attitiude to foo_fighters Dad.

Anyone who wore a shirt and tie to work was not working class!

I am not sure where I am a mix between working class and middle.

My roots are working class but the house I live in is Middle Class.

I feel comfortably where I am and where I live and would not feel like I fitted in if I lived in a posh area.

Now with lottery winners though you can find a vast range of classes living in what would normally have been exclusively upper class areas!

Whatever I am, I am proud of the family I came from and the family I have now.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Not in my opinion, the key part for me was "...I earn...", that makes you working class.

My father always used to say,

"If you have to work for a living, your working class...

...if you own a business, and other people do the work for you, your middle class...

...and the upper class… …they do naff all."

:suspect:

I know a lot of people in my family who would agree with you there.

I have asked this question to quite a few people lately and i have veen very suprised how much emotion people put into their replies. I really thought that this didn;t matter any more yet people still do....

Originally posted by dawny1


Whatever I am, I am proud of the family I came from and the family I have now.

I think I am with you on this one......

I think class does still exist, but the boundaries are less clearly defined than they used to be, and more factors now determine what class you consider yourself to be.
Income, educational level, type of job and 'attitude' all contribute to making up what class you belong too.
Personally, my parents and grandparents were working class, although having progressed in their careers I suppose they are now middle class. I'm middle class (i think).

I don't think working class is anyone that earns a wage. That would leave a incredibly small middle class and even smaller upper class.
I think the idea about shirt and tie is closer, although we have a business casual dress code, so no tie for me.
I think that working in a service industry is definitely being part way to middle class, although it would depend on what level you work at I suppose.

I did a bit of a google to see what the modern day class divisions are to see if this would help.

according to the national statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7665) database socio-economic classifications are.....

1) Higher managerial & professional
2) Lower managerial & professional
3) intermediate occupations
4) small employers and own account workers
5) lower supervisory and technical
6) semi routine
7) routine
8 ) long term unemployed

This would put me in group 2, i think?

This is very job based classifications..... not sure it includes a broad enough view for me? Does anybody have other ideas?

how come professional spreads across two groups, how do you decide which you're in?

And that classification would put most of the idle rich into category 8.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think the idea about shirt and tie is closer, although we have a business casual dress code, so no tie for me.


I wear a T-shirt to work, but the guy who empties the bins at work wears a shirt and tie.

Well I'm a cook, cleaner, counseller, taxi driver, child carer, foot tickler and general dogs body - in other words a housewife/mum.

No idea what category that goes into!! :confused:

Originally posted by dawny1
No idea what category that goes into!! :confused:

Professional household management ?

Originally posted by dawny1
Well I'm a cook, cleaner, counseller, taxi driver, child carer, foot tickler and general dogs body - in other words a housewife/mum.

No idea what category that goes into!! :confused:

I guess you and your children get lumped in with your husband based on what he does.

Nick - ok, so the shirt and tie idea is a bit outdated.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cyclone
[B]I guess you and your children get lumped in with your husband based on what he does.

Well, he is a builder so based on job working class, but based on earnings I suppose middle class.

Gutted though that yet again mums/housewifes are not considered to be anything because we don't actually earn a wage. :(

Originally posted by Cyclone
Nick - ok, so the shirt and tie idea is a bit outdated.

Thats what I said once when I went for an interview "you still make people wear a tie ?", they wern't very impressed and I didn't get the job. Their loss.

Originally posted by dawny1
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cyclone
[B]
Gutted though that yet again mums/housewifes are not considered to be anything because we don't actually earn a wage. :(

LOOK (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v689/viking99/forums/evol2.jpg) why.

Originally posted by dawny1
Originally posted by Cyclone
[B]I guess you and your children get lumped in with your husband based on what he does.

Well, he is a builder so based on job working class, but based on earnings I suppose middle class.

Gutted though that yet again mums/housewifes are not considered to be anything because we don't actually earn a wage. :(

how would you choose to work out the class of someone with no job or income?
Children have the same problem, whilst they live at home they fall into whatever class group their parents belong too.

I don't think social class [as it existed in my youth during the 40s and 50s] does matter these days. Economic success seems far more important; the house and location you can afford and the quality of the car you own determine the social 'respect' you get, - at least superficially.

I suppose lifestyle has a bearing on how you see yourself in the overall picture, and this of course is determined by what you can afford rather than what social position your parents occupied.

The sad thing is that so many people aspire to a lifestyle they can only afford by sacrificing so much of their time to earning money, and they end up with no life at all. :(

Originally posted by Cyclone

how would you choose to work out the class of someone with no job or income?
Children have the same problem, whilst they live at home they fall into whatever class group their parents belong too. [/B]

I suppose if class is based on the wage earner then yes I have to be classed with my partner obviously - but my way of thinking is working class because of my background so if I was to marry a rich tycoon ( I can dream) although the income would make me upper class I still have the working class brain and values.


Hope I am making sense. What I am trying to put across is there is the class you are born into and then the class you end up in by living standards, but your roots remain the same.

Viking - funny and so true. :hihi:

Originally posted by Cyclone
Children have the same problem, whilst they live at home they fall into whatever class group their parents belong too.

Unless you are one of the those orphan princesses being secretly raised in poverty by your kind (but common) aunts untill you can re-build an army and re-take your throne, with the help of a handsome prince.

Or something like that.

It happens.

Originally posted by dawny1
I suppose if class is based on the wage earner then yes I have to be classed with my partner obviously - but my way of thinking is working class because of my background so if I was to marry a rich tycoon ( I can dream) although the income would make me upper class I still have the working class brain and values.


Hope I am making sense. What I am trying to put across is there is the class you are born into and then the class you end up in by living standards, but your roots remain the same.

Viking - funny and so true. :hihi:

yes I see what you're getting at.
You could also be born into a working class family, but raised with a middle class education and form your own values appropriately.

You do tend to find the only people bothered about class thesedays are those that think they are in the upper classes.

Originally posted by nick2
You do tend to find the only people bothered about class thesedays are those that think they are in the upper classes.
...or those that "think" they're in the middle classes. ;)

Glad I made sense. Staying at home makes your brain turn to mush going on the forum is slowly re-activating my brain cells so these discussions keep me sane.

A friend of mine did exactly what you said Cyclone. She was very working class and so was her husband. She worked a lot of jobs purely to pay for her kids to have private education and they ended up talking completely differently to their parents who had very broad accents.

When the school had parents meetings they felt extremely out of place amongst the other parents and sadly their own children ended up feeling embarrassed by their upbringing.

I think the whole issue regarding class leads to dangerous assertions -

Defining an underclass for example can lead to afflicting and stigmatising of such people. e.g ''crime is high among the 'underclass' because they're always skint, jobless''.

As aside issue I do think to some extent though that classes are becoming less distinguishable in society as people comparitively, have more disposable income and (easier) opportunities these days to apply themselves, self-betterment, aspirations - being born into a 'working class' family doesn't necessarily mean you'll die in/with a 'working class' family

All human societies are stratified, in other words, people are pigeonholed by those in positions of power. There are various systems of stratification. The best known one is the Registrar General's system, which defines class in relation to occupation. It lists eight classes [replacing the old A, B C1 D etc system]. I believe that Professionals, such as University lecturers, higher managerial staff etc are listed as 'social class1'. Oddly, self-employed businessmen [and the example is a driving instructor] are class 6. Bottom of the pile are the 'Underclass' at number 8; the long-term sick and long-term unemployed. This latter case is a good example of a sociological term becoming institutionalised.

It is possible for one to be socio-economically one class, and culturally quite something else. Hence, a Bank branch manager might be defined as class 2 because of his occupation, but yet his 'cultural interests' revolve around stereotypically 'working class' pursuits such as the betting shop , and his 'cultural capital' extends only to 'low art' and popular entertainment, such as the music of the charts, and TV 's 'soap operas'.

Personally, I'm well class, innit.

look at he evidence ? .................. the upper classes have both social and political poer although it could be argued its the same? ...... i do believe in Marx there is no such thing as the middle class you are made to think there is so the fighting going on between the classes takes away from the fact that the Queen has a man to play around with her clocks .......by the way your tax money pays for that!....... ofcourse there is class upper and working if you workfor a living you working class ........i wouldnt dream of associating myself with the middle class agents of the upper class

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Not in my opinion, the key part for me was "...I earn...", that makes you working class.

My father always used to say,

"If you have to work for a living, your working class...

...if you own a business, and other people do the work for you, your middle class...

...and the upper class… …they do naff all."

(or words to that effect)

I still think there's a lot of truth in that statement, even if "Her Maggieness" tried to convince us we were all middle class, and should therefore vote for her / the Tories.

:suspect:

So a corner shop owner is middle class but an Oxford educated barrister from Windsor who *earns* a healthy salary is working class? Twaddle.

Originally posted by t020
an Oxford educated barrister from Windsor who *earns* a healthy salary is working class? Twaddle.

Does he work for a living ?

Originally posted by t020
So a corner shop owner is middle class but an Oxford educated barrister from Windsor who *earns* a healthy salary is working class? Twaddle.
t020, try to read what I actually said please.

The Barrister works for a living, put that into one of my categories, yes, working class.

The shop owner also works for a living, so, also working class.

If Sir Alan Sugar allows employees to run his business, then he'd be in "middle", if he goes to work every day he's in "working", he's in the (fortunate?) position to be able to choose, the corner shop owner, and the barrister are not.

Basically look at it this way, if you choose whether to go to work in the morning or not, you can be "middle". If you "have to" get up and go to work to earn a living, sorry but your working class.

IMO :)

Originally posted by t020
So a corner shop owner is middle class but an Oxford educated barrister from Windsor who *earns* a healthy salary is working class? Twaddle.
Oh, and on another point, what has "Oxford educated" or "from Windsor" got to do with class anyway?

I think somebody is being a little bit Hyacinth Boo-quet out there. ;)

Originally posted by foo_fighter
t020, try to read what I actually said please.

The Barrister works for a living, put that into one of my categories, yes, working class.

The shop owner also works for a living, so, also working class.

If Sir Alan Sugar allows employees to run his business, then he'd be in "middle", if he goes to work every day he's in "working", he's in the (fortunate?) position to be able to choose, the corner shop owner, and the barrister are not.

Basically look at it this way, if you choose whether to go to work in the morning or not, you can be "middle". If you "have to" get up and go to work to earn a living, sorry but your working class.

IMO :)



My own personal definition would put him as working class and the barrister as middle class. If your definition is right, Britain would have a "middle class" of around 10,000 people since there aren't many Alan Sugars (who incidentally I'd define as working class) who direct large business empires and don't have to work, an upper class of a few thousand and a working class of over 59 million. This simply isn't true, IMO.

Can someone explain to me why anyone that works isn't working class? A barrister works!

It is very outdated and not relevant at all.

Originally posted by bonny
Can someone explain to me why anyone that works isn't working class? A barrister works!

It is very outdated and not relevant at all.

EP Thompson can - "Making of the English Working Class"
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394703227/103-0671123-3087068?v=glance)

Originally posted by bonny
Can someone explain to me why anyone that works isn't working class? A barrister works!

It is very outdated and not relevant at all.

Because it doesn't make sense to classify the largest section of the population into 1 class. A builder works, but his income, lifestyle, outlook, politics, education, etc etc is all likely to be significantly different to a professional's (doctors, lawyers, accountants, business/IT consultants, etc etc) income, lifestyle, outlook, politics and education. To classify them the same way is pretty misleading and meaningless. Also, people on benefits don't work - does that make them middle class?? It's not as simple as work Vs no work.

I think class still is important in Britain and in how people identify themselves. It is still at the foundation of much of the British 'establishment' - the monarchy, the unwritten constitution etc.
However, I agree that the definition of class has become more complex over time and that the titles of 'working' 'middle' and 'upper' perhaps only serve to cause confusion.
The way I look at it: if you are economically and socially exploited (ie you don't have personal power over your economic and social conditions) then you are working class. The distinction between middle and upper classes is more blurred - but these classes earn 'profit' - be it from investments, businesses, professions (if their earnings relate to how much profit they make), land etc, not a wage as such, and have control over their own economic and social environment.
However, I also have difficulty making general assumptions about the economic, social and political circumstances of large swathes of the population.

Originally posted by t020
Because it doesn't make sense to classify the largest section of the population into 1 class. A builder works, but his income, lifestyle, outlook, politics, education, etc etc is all likely to be significantly different to a professional's (doctors, lawyers, accountants, business/IT consultants, etc etc) income, lifestyle, outlook, politics and education. To classify them the same way is pretty misleading and meaningless. Also, people on benefits don't work - does that make them middle class?? It's not as simple as work Vs no work.

How would you roughly separate each class? I agree with Foos fathers description. It doesn't apply to everyone, but these days people dont separate each other into a certain class. Nothing is the same as it used to be! You were frowned upon if you were from a different or lower class, women knew their place and only purpose, black people sat at the back of the buses, the list is endless. To the majority of people, class isn't important anymore and that is why you cant catogorise each class anymore. Its not as easy as black or white, making your builder and barrister the little bits of grey.

Originally posted by t020
A builder works, but his income, lifestyle, outlook, politics, education, etc etc is all likely to be significantly different to a professional's (doctors, lawyers, accountants, business/IT consultants, etc etc) income, lifestyle, outlook, politics and education.

But a lot of plumbers/electricians/joiners or other skilled workmen probably earn more than a doctor or an accountant, so their income and lifestyle would make them middle class (using your system).

Originally posted by nick2
But a lot of plumbers/electricians/joiners or other skilled workmen probably earn more than a doctor or an accountant, so their income and lifestyle would make them middle class (using your system).

No, because part of my definition includes professional qualifications, education, background, etc, not just income. It's all meaningless anyway, but I don't think people can say that anyone who works is working class or that the class system is dead. These are more like northern, working class, left wing ideologies rather than the reality of Britain.

Originally posted by t020
It's all meaningless anyway, but I don't think people can say that anyone who works is working class or that the class system is dead. These are more like northern, working class, left wing ideologies rather than the reality of Britain.
I agree with your first point, it's all meaningless. I disagree with your second point though. Plenty of people feel the same who are not northern or "working class" or left wing.

It is probably more to do with education than anything else. Also just because you are educated doesn't make you middle class, the same applies to the non educated being working class.

Originally posted by bonny
I agree with your first point, it's all meaningless. I disagree with your second point though. Plenty of people feel the same who are not northern or "working class" or left wing.

It is probably more to do with education than anything else. Also just because you are educated doesn't make you middle class, the same applies to the non educated being working class.

I never said education was the exclusive class factor did I? I said it is typically one of the many factors that contribute to defining class. If you listen to the election news, they describe certain constituencies as being "middle class" areas. I've heard our very own Hallam constituency being described as that, as well as Belfast South, and others as well as the typical southern places. What do you think the BBC mean by "middle class"? Do you think it means most people in that constituency don't need to work?! Or (as is the actual case) do you think it means such constituencies contain a high proportion of professional and managerial people, often well educated? Also if class no longer has relevance, why is it continually referred to and used in things such as elections, marketing, etc?

Originally posted by t020
What do you think the BBC mean by "middle class"?

More than one car, large mortgage, middle aged, 2.4 children, vote conservative, go to "unspoilt" places for their hollidays, listen to Radio 4 ?

Originally posted by nick2
More than one car, large mortgage, middle aged, 2.4 children, vote conservative, go to "unspoilt" places for their hollidays, listen to Radio 4 ?

And work....

Originally posted by t020
And work....

He does, she doesn't.

Think Jerry and Margo in "The Good Life"

Originally posted by nick2
He does, she doesn't.

So he's "middle class", and he works. Case closed.

Originally posted by t020
So he's "middle class", and he works. Case closed.

Don't worry mate, no-one will think you're working class, especially where you live.

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but this "appears" to be more about snobbery than anything else.

What really amazes me is that it matters so much to some people that they are seen to be middle class.

They obviously aren't very happy in themselves to need so much external validation.

:suspect:



PS. Why would it matter anyway if every single person in Britain were considered "working" class (if they all worked), we don't need to define this as a proportion of population surely.

PPS. I never did get an answer to "what has "Oxford educated" or "from Windsor" got to do with class anyway?"

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but this "appears" to be more about snobbery than anything else.

What really amazes me is that it matters so much to some people that they are seen to be middle class.

They obviously aren't very happy in themselves to need so much external validation.

:suspect:



PS. Why would it matter anyway if every single person in Britain were considered "working" class (if they all worked), we don't need to define this as a proportion of population surely.

PPS. I never did get an answer to "what has "Oxford educated" or "from Windsor" got to do with class anyway?"

That is exactly what it appears to be!
People who feel the need to tell everyone all about what fantastic big house they have etc.etc., do not have any form of class in my opinion.
There are plenty of people who are from aristocracy on the other hand who will "get down and dirty" with the likes of us "lefties" (being as my idealism is being classed as that)

As far as ideaology goes, if it was only ideaology then where would the good be in our lives. Why not thank these types rather than criticise as without people like them where the hell would we be in such an materialistic society?

Being materialistic isn't, quite frankly, sustainable is it?

If we all thought "whats the use" as T020 seems to then there wouldn't be much point to anything and a lot more misery in the world.

Now THAT is reality!

Class is a loaded term when applied as a collective noun for a group of people.

Society is much less stratified than it was, and definitions of class made more 'sense' - although like race, class is often a matter of self identification .

Stratification of 'social order' is still apparent, but class mobility is much more fluid, and so groupings now tend to be of socio economic types (see lists in this thread), and the simplified 'upper middle or working class' is a total anachronism.

Snobbery has nothing to do with it. It just simply doesn't make sense to lump in 99% of the population as being working class purely because they work. There's usually a vast difference, as I've stated, between the lifestyles, income, wealth, education, etc etc, between what most people would define the working class (loosely manual blue collar workers) and middle class (loosely white collar, qualified professional/ managerial). That's not to say one group is better than the other but to lump them into the same group doesn't make sense and is pretty meaningless. In areas where the definition of class still has relevance, e.g. marketing, it's often important to be able to differentiate between them. As Phanerothyme points out, class mobility is also much more fluid now and these groupings are often "socio economic".

if we lump 99% of the population into 'working class' the distinction will be completely dropped as it's meaningless (applies to nearly everyone) and a new one will have to be invented to break the 99% down into sensible groups, along the lines that t020 is saying, income, education, behaviour, etc...
The assertion that anyone who works is working class never has been and is not correct, by any definition except yours. So unless you use the generally accepted definition we are likely to misunderstand you.

nick - i don't like you putting 'vote conservative' in that list, and number of children in a family have nothing to do with class. Although an unusually large brood might be an indication.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but this "appears" to be more about snobbery than anything else.

What really amazes me is that it matters so much to some people that they are seen to be middle class.

They obviously aren't very happy in themselves to need so much external validation.

:suspect:



PS. Why would it matter anyway if every single person in Britain were considered "working" class (if they all worked), we don't need to define this as a proportion of population surely.

PPS. I never did get an answer to "what has "Oxford educated" or "from Windsor" got to do with class anyway?"

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but this "appears" to be more about snobbery than anything else."

It's absolutely about snobbery. But not just the people who are desperate to be middle class, it's also those who would not betray their working class origins.

The fox hunting ban is, in my opinion, a perfect example of a class war. The upper classes banned all the commoners' blood sports - cock fighting etc. - and kept their own as it was considered more noble, and I know a lot of people who supported the ban largely because it annoys the 'toffs' and have little regard for the welfare of the fox.

I suppose it's a bit of a silent prejudice now, like racism or sexism, which most enlightened folk find abhorent but still permeates our society at all levels (including in the subconscious minds of the aforementioned, enlightened folk).

IMO.

and then there's the type of 'class' that no amount of money can buy.

Lookat the Beckhams :D

Originally posted by Cyclone
if we lump 99% of the population into 'working class' the distinction will be completely dropped as it's meaningless (applies to nearly everyone)...
Good. :)
Originally posted by Cyclone
...and a new one will have to be invented to break the 99% down into sensible groups...
I don't know if you noticed, but that's already happened. ;) (see the post by Timo)

Originally posted by timo
All human societies are stratified, in other words, people are pigeonholed by those in positions of power. There are various systems of stratification. The best known one is the Registrar General's system, which defines class in relation to occupation. It lists eight classes [replacing the old A, B C1 D etc system]. I believe that Professionals, such as University lecturers, higher managerial staff etc are listed as 'social class1'. Oddly, self-employed businessmen [and the example is a driving instructor] are class 6. Bottom of the pile are the 'Underclass' at number 8; the long-term sick and long-term unemployed. This latter case is a good example of a sociological term becoming institutionalised.

It is possible for one to be socio-economically one class, and culturally quite something else. Hence, a Bank branch manager might be defined as class 2 because of his occupation, but yet his 'cultural interests' revolve around stereotypically 'working class' pursuits such as the betting shop , and his 'cultural capital' extends only to 'low art' and popular entertainment, such as the music of the charts, and TV 's 'soap operas'.

how does that support your point ff? Working Class could easily be equated to one of the class numbers. Changing the label doesn't change the fact.
My opinion is that you'd like 'working class' not to exist anymore and are trying to argue that it doesn't despite pretty much most people and organisations still using the term. If people still say it, then it still exists.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Blah, blah, waffle...
Cyclone, I think we'll invent a new class just for you.

Z99: Permanently argumentative in a tremendously pedantic way "class".

:hihi:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Cyclone, I think we'll invent a new class just for you.

Z99: Permanently argumentative in a tremendously pedantic way "class".

:hihi:

He made his point well then?

Originally posted by t020
He made his point well then?

does that mean he lost the point?

Originally posted by Cyclone
does that mean he lost the point?

It looks that way if that was his best comeback. :hihi:

In my view, the whole 'point' of this discussion is that there are many recognised systems of stratification. In other words, there are many overlapping and contrasting ways of assigning 'class' to human beings. The most well-known one in Britain, the Registrar General, assigns 'class' on the basis of employment. Anthony Giddens, [perhaps Britain's foremost Sociologist, and part- architect of New Labour's 'Third Way' philosophy], on the other hand proposes a system which defines 'class' on the basis of educational attainment. In plain language, if one possesses a University Degree, one is automatically 'middle class'.

There are many different stratification theories, which I cannot go into here. Suffice to say, there are therefore many different classes and sub-divisions between classes recognised by many different authorities, organisations and 'thinkers'. One of the most controversial is the 'vulgar' Marxist view ['vulgar' in the sense of being the unadulterated view, straight from Das Kapital] that society is divided between the Bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, and the Proletariat, who are the 'exploited', working classes and wage-slaves. Under a 'vulgar' Marxist system, University tutors would be classed as part of the Proletariat, alongside Abbatoir hose-cleaners, Refuse Collectors etc, because they do not own the means of production.

Personally, I would rather be classified as 'Professional Middle Class' by the Registrar General because I am a snob. However, there are deficits with this, 'official' way of assigning class. At the risk of sounding 'pc' [which I have never been accused of being], the system classifies households by the socio-economic status of the male earner. This is unfair and unrealistic, as these days, often it is the female earner who enjoys a higher status in the workplace, and a higher salary.

Originally posted by t020
He made his point well then?
Oh dear

OK, if you want me to return to yet another boring pointless argument chaps, no, I don't think the point was well made...

...to state that "working" people can't all be one "class" just because that would mean there are too many of them is plainly ridiculous.

Originally posted by Cyclone
how does that support your point ff?
It clearly supports the point because it breaks down "working" people into many subgroups (no the working class can't all fit into one of those subgroups, just read what they actually are if you don't believe me), something which is necessary because otherwise there would be "too many" people all in one group otherwise.

C'mon t020, cyclone, support your theory please, why does anyone become "middle" class simply because he lives in Windsor or Fulwood, and why does an Oxford education immediately elevate (or perhaps lower) one to the "middle" class.

Lets face it, 3 classes is a particularly outmoded view on society, unless maybe you really are a "middle" class obsessed pair of Boo-quets.

:suspect:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Oh dear

OK, if you want me to return to yet another boring pointless argument chaps, no, I don't think the point was well made...

...to state that "working" people can't all be one "class" just because that would mean there are too many of them is plainly ridiculous.


It clearly supports the point because it breaks down "working" people into many subgroups (no the working class can't all fit into one of those subgroups, just read what they actually are if you don't believe me), something which is necessary because otherwise there would be "too many" people all in one group otherwise.

C'mon t020, cyclone, support your theory please, why does anyone become "middle" class simply because he lives in Windsor or Fulwood, and why does an Oxford education immediately elevate (or perhaps lower) one to the "middle" class.

Lets face it, 3 classes is a particularly outmoded view on society, unless maybe you really are a "middle" class obsessed pair of Boo-quets.

:suspect:


No-one ever said that where someone lives or their education are the sole indicators of class. As Cyclone rightly points out, the socio-economic classifications are basically just the traditional working and middle class occupations projected on to 5 groupings. It doesn't change anything, if anything it reinforces the fact that there is still, even now, a need to classify people.

you are just choosing to wilfully misunderstand what working class means (or apply the marxist definition that timo explained above). I don't mind if you want to do that, you just have to accept though that most people do not share your terms of reference and will not understand you correctly when you talk about the 'working class' people.
using a system of classification that classisfies the majority as one class is pretty pointless, and is not how working, middle and upper is generally used in the uk. But you carry on if it makes you happy.

timo - nice summary.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Oh dear

OK, if you want me to return to yet another boring pointless argument chaps, no, I don't think the point was well made...

...to state that "working" people can't all be one "class" just because that would mean there are too many of them is plainly ridiculous.


It clearly supports the point because it breaks down "working" people into many subgroups (no the working class can't all fit into one of those subgroups, just read what they actually are if you don't believe me), something which is necessary because otherwise there would be "too many" people all in one group otherwise.

C'mon t020, cyclone, support your theory please, why does anyone become "middle" class simply because he lives in Windsor or Fulwood, and why does an Oxford education immediately elevate (or perhaps lower) one to the "middle" class.

Lets face it, 3 classes is a particularly outmoded view on society, unless maybe you really are a "middle" class obsessed pair of Boo-quets.

:suspect:

In a sense , nobody is 'right' or 'wrong' here. Not Foo [my dear old cyber-pal], Cyclone or TO20. At the risk of sounding like some half-baked Postmodernist, the definition and assignment of 'class' is relative because of the many competing paradigms. It is culturally relative too, because there are variations from culture to culture.

Glad you liked my summary, Cyclone. Perhaps you might like the following too, which I personally think is the best way of assigning class yet devised. The Sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu [died a couple of years ago], argued that the amount of 'cultural capital' we possess goes some way to defining our 'class'. Famously, Bourdieu argued that working class pupils are at a major disadvantage in schools because they do not possess the 'culture', in other words, the norms ['acceptable' patterns of behaviour], values, deportment, speech patterns, and cultural knowledge of the dominant, middle classes. This equates to a deficit in terms of 'cultural capital'. In plain language, the working class pupils are unfamiliar with the middle class accents of their teachers, know little of middle class 'social graces', and possess little knowledge of 'high' culture. By 'high' culture, Bourdieu refers to art, literature, music etc which is generally recognised as part of the canon of 'great' Western culture, i.e, Shakespeare, Beethoven etc.

Interestingly, which in a way echoes Foo's point about sub-groups, Bourdieu identifies the 'Phillistine Middle Classes'. These people are socio-economically 'middle class' by virtue of their occupational definition. However, despite the 'trappings' of luxury cars and large houses, they have little interest in, and knowledge of 'high' culture.

Originally posted by timo
In a sense , nobody is 'right' or 'wrong' here. Not Foo [my dear old cyber-pal], Cyclone or TO20. At the risk of sounding like some half-baked Postmodernist, the definition and assignment of 'class' is relative because of the many competing paradigms. It is culturally relative too, because there are variations from culture to culture.

Glad you liked my summary, Cyclone. Perhaps you might like the following too, which I personally think is the best way of assigning class yet devised. The Sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu [died a couple of years ago], argued that the amount of 'cultural capital' we possess goes some way to defining our 'class'. Famously, Bourdieu argued that working class pupils are at a major disadvantage in schools because they do not possess the 'culture', in other words, the norms ['acceptable' patterns of behaviour], values, deportment, speech patterns, and cultural knowledge of the dominant, middle classes. This equates to a deficit in terms of 'cultural capital'. In plain language, the working class pupils are unfamiliar with the middle class accents of their teachers, know little of middle class 'social graces', and possess little knowledge of 'high' culture. By 'high' culture, Bourdieu refers to art, literature, music etc which is generally recognised as part of the canon of 'great' Western culture, i.e, Shakespeare, Beethoven etc.

Interestingly, which in a way echoes Foo's point about sub-groups, Bourdieu identifies the 'Phillistine Middle Classes'. These people are socio-economically 'middle class' by virtue of their occupational definition. However, despite the 'trappings' of luxury cars and large houses, they have little interest in, and knowledge of 'high' culture.

I would have thought the Bordieu analysis of social field rather than class was a bit dangerous and left wing for a paleoconservative?

I think the most interesting thing about class is not 'who is what class', but who competes for ownership of the term.

t020, your latest post:
Originally posted by t020
No-one ever said that where someone lives or their education are the sole indicators of class...
and yet previously:
Originally posted by t020
So a corner shop owner is middle class but an Oxford educated barrister from Windsor who *earns* a healthy salary is working class? Twaddle.
So if it doesn't matter to you, why mention it in the first place?

Oh, is it the barrister bit, the education and location fell in by accident, or do they somehow vaguely "support" the "middle" class-ness of a barrister?

:confused:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
t020, your latest post:

and yet previously:

So if it doesn't matter to you, why mention it in the first place?

Oh, is it the barrister bit, the education and location fell in by accident, or do they somehow vaguely "support" the "middle" class-ness of a barrister?

:confused:

he didn't say that they weren't factors, only that they weren't the only factors.

Phan,
Perhaps you are correct here, re 'field'. Then again, is anybody completely 100% 'anything'? I say 'paleo-conservative' because that most accurately describes the majority of my beliefs/ideas. I am 'into' Burke, Scruton etc, however I sometimes read Bourdieu and Gramsci and think, yes, they too have interesting ways of describing the world. Maybe we can take something from lots of different schools to make interesting hybrids? In future, I'll be less dogmatic about how I label myself. Cheers, Phan, you've given me something to think about there. That is why I like the forum- one can learn from lots of other posters.

Originally posted by timo
Phan,
Perhaps you are correct here, re 'field'. Then again, is anybody completely 100% 'anything'? I say 'paleo-conservative' because that most accurately describes the majority of my beliefs/ideas. I am 'into' Burke, Scruton etc, however I sometimes read Bourdieu and Gramsci and think, yes, they too have interesting ways of describing the world. Maybe we can take something from lots of different schools to make interesting hybrids? In future, I'll be less dogmatic about how I label myself. Cheers, Phan, you've given me something to think about there. That is why I like the forum- one can learn from lots of other posters.

Too right.

That bordieu book has just landed on our dining room table courtesy of my historian GF, and boy is it heavy going. I read some mad french **** for English lit and on the face of it this is the same - the translation from the french makes the delivery almost intolerably pompous!

From what I have heard about Bordieu though, makes him sound like a real activist. He seems to have thrown out the western academic tradition of maintaining intellectual aloofness, and extolled the virtues of taking a stand and getting involved at the ground floor. A lot of people were sad to hear of his death from not just personal reasons, but that a unique voice in philosophy had been lost too.

I must say that I am very admiring of the french tradition of celebrating their academics, without having to turn them into 'celebs'.

I think the most interesting thing about the competition to own the word 'class' is that it almost exclusively revolves around the power to define 'working class'.

'working class' is a very powerful idea, as it is tied in with class consciousness and perhaps exhibits the clearest examples of class as an agent in the world. But with any definition of class it is clear that the stratifications of society, including detailed rules of deference and social order, are as nothing compared to the 19th century.

Phan,
Bourdieu was one of the very few authentically 'working class' Sociologist/Philosophers too. I suspect that he had first hand experience of lacking the 'cultural capital' required in the classroom.

Re 'class as an agent'. Do you really see it that way? In a sense, with respect, you engage in reification here. 'Class' itself is not a social actor, capable of formulating and acting upon decisions. Only individual, human social actors are in my view. Then again, I'm into post-Postmodern sociological theory, and I've probably had too much to think!

maybe you two can recommend a good introductory book on the nature of class for those of us currently lacking that bit of cultural capital? :P

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
EP Thompson can - "Making of the English Working Class"
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394703227/103-0671123-3087068?v=glance)

Cyclone,
Your comment made me smile . Re the book recommended by Phan; I'd agree that that is the best historical account of the emergence of an English working class. However, if you want to understand the various systems of stratification [ways of putting people into different classes], any basic Sociology textbook will do. One called, 'Sociology: Making Sense of Society', edited by Ian Marsh and Mike Keating, published 2003 by Longman I think [Ian and Mike are ex-colleagues of mine] should do the trick.

Originally posted by Cyclone
nick - i don't like you putting 'vote conservative' in that list, and number of children in a family have nothing to do with class. Although an unusually large brood might be an indication.

It was just what I think a middle class family is, perhaps I should change it to "won't vote Labour" and "have a modest number of children, with one bedroom per child" ?

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe you two can recommend a good introductory book on the nature of class for those of us currently lacking that bit of cultural capital? :P

If you can get through it. that book I mentioned earlier:

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste - Pierre Bourdieu

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415045460/qid=1115640744/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl/202-8415831-3639858

can you believe she spent her Christmas book tokens on it?

I've leafed through it here and there - boy is it dense. I think I will leave it to my intellectual OH to precis it for me over supper some time.

The German Ideology and the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels are essential if you want to understand how class is referred to by successive historical and sociological perspectives.

Marx is the daddy.

(of course he was wrong, but his ideas influenced the whole world)

Timo - my feet are no longer touching the bottom on the question of whether social classes can be described as agents. I'll leave that for you to expound opn methinks.

I'm off to argue about the Iraq War instead.

Originally posted by Cyclone
he didn't say that they weren't factors, only that they weren't the only factors.
Hmmm, now I know I'm currently having a discussion with you and t020 here, but of one thing I am sure...

...t020 is quite capable of explaining what he actually meant in due course.

Does this mean I have to revise my earlier definition:

Cyclone, I think we'll invent a new class just for you.

Z99: Permanently argumentative in a tremendously pedantic way "class".

Note to self, alter to:

Z99: Permanently argumentative in a tremendously pedantic way and so arrogantly presumptive as to answer for other people "class".

:heyhey:

ff - I do think you're being unecessarily insulting. You're normally quite pleasant and i'm happy to discuss things with you, but if the best you can manage is insults with a smiley after them then i think i've said enough on the topic.

Originally posted by Cyclone
ff - I do think you're being unecessarily insulting. You're normally quite pleasant and i'm happy to discuss things with you, but if the best you can manage is insults with a smiley after them then i think i've said enough on the topic.
Ooooh, these "middle" class people are a bit touchy tonight. ;)



Cyclone, the post wasn't meant to be insulting, sorry...

...but you are permanently argumentative...

...you are tremendously pedantic (a lot of the time)...

...and in this instance, it was presumptive (touching on arrogantly so) to step in and argue t020s point for him.

As I said above t020 is a very capable forum debater (as are you), and I am sure we will discover his actual intent in due course. However, your haste to intervene betrayed a number of the points I have attributed to you above.

:nod:

Cyclone was right. I said education and location weren't the *sole* indicators of class, but they are contributory, to an extent. That's why I used them in the barrister example - to set the scene more obviously in support of my argument.

Originally posted by t020
...I said education and location weren't the *sole* indicators of class, but they are contributory, to an extent. That's why I used them in the barrister example - to set the scene more obviously in support of my argument.
but here you said
Originally posted by t020
...If you listen to the election news, they describe certain constituencies as being "middle class" areas. I've heard our very own Hallam constituency being described as that...
so, it's now not area (solely), or education (solely), or even just the job.

I'm not trying to be obtuse when I say, I'm not sure what your definition is anymore.

:confused:

I know what I stated has flaws, it was meant to have, it points out the strange nature of trying to "lump" people into 3 groups...

...it's a "old" definition from my father...

...what I still (really) don't "get", is why is it so important to define yourself as "middle" class (and on which basis do you do it)?

:suspect:

As I've already said, if we must stratify society (for commercial, or whatever reason) I much prefer a much "finer" definition, such as the one Timo mentioned.

Can we all agree that makes more sense?

:)

Originally posted by foo_fighter
but here you said

so, it's now not area (solely), or education (solely), or even just the job.

I'm not trying to be obtuse when I say, I'm not sure what your definition is anymore.

:confused:


My definition is still what it was all along, which takes into account a variety of factors. The BBC refer to constituencies as "middle class" on the basis that they contain a higher than average middle class population. I doubt they're saying every person that lives there *is* middle class, but perhaps you should get in touch with them to decipher exactly what they mean by the term?


Originally posted by foo_fighter

I know what I stated has flaws, it was meant to have, it points out the strange nature of trying to "lump" people into 3 groups...

...it's a "old" definition from my father...

Your father's definition has a major flaw - it divides the population into 3 classes with over 99% being in the one class (working), which is completely non-sensical and defeats the object of classifying a population into groups.


Originally posted by foo_fighter

...what I still (really) don't "get", is why is it so important to define yourself as "middle" class (and on which basis do you do it)?

:suspect:

It's not important how people define themselves - class is mainly about perception anyway. It is however, untrue to pretend that the class system is dead and that it has no place in today's society. The terms still come up in the news and newspaper articles time and time again and still have relevance in various fields.


Originally posted by foo_fighter

As I've already said, if we must stratify society (for commercial, or whatever reason) I much prefer a much "finer" definition, such as the one Timo mentioned.

Can we all agree that makes more sense?

:)

The "finer" definition is, as Cyclone pointed out, simply the old class definitions projected on to a scale with different names. It doesn't really matter which system you prefer to use - most people still refer to, and are familiar with, the traditional working, middle and upper classes.

I tend to go along with To20 with this.
I feel that class has to do with upbringing rather than what profession you follow.

For example Dennis Skinner, the beast of Bolsover, who doesn't only call a spade a spade, he is crude and rude and displays a working class persona. His profession is (or Was) Member of parliament, which could be classed as a middle, upper-middle or even upper class profession.

Just as easily, another person could be born with a silver spoon in his mouth, have the advantages of a public school education, and the connections which that privilage brings and easy passage to Oxford, but turn it down and decide to work as a grave digger or brick layer. Throughout all this hard graft, this person will still be polite and civil and in a decent suit would easily pass for a minor member of the royal family. A person of higher class doing a physical traditionally working class job of work, remains visibly and appears to still be Upper or upper-middle class. I have met people like this, and it's very difficult to believe they can sound and act like they do on a personal level and not be wealthy.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
I tend to go along with To20 with this.
I feel that class has to do with upbringing rather than what profession you follow.

For example Dennis Skinner, the beast of Bolsover, who doesn't only call a spade a spade, he is crude and rude and displays a working class persona. His profession is (or Was) Member of parliament, which could be classed as a middle, upper-middle or even upper class profession.

Just as easily, another person could be born with a silver spoon in his mouth, have the advantages of a public school education, and the connections which that privilage brings and easy passage to Oxford, but turn it down and decide to work as a grave digger or brick layer. Throughout all this hard graft, this person will still be polite and civil and in a decent suit would easily pass for a minor member of the royal family. A person of higher class doing a physical traditionally working class job of work, remains visibly and appears to still be Upper or upper-middle class. I have met people like this, and it's very difficult to believe they can sound and act like they do on a personal level and not be wealthy.

I totally agree with this - class is unavoidable, it is simply something you are born into, and what you 'do' is suited to the individual's temprement. Similarly it is unrelated to where you live - you find people of the 'highest' class in the worst areas but often certain areas attract people with middle class values because of jobs and schools like Hallam or the Home Counties so tend to have higher concentrations.

Personally i consider myself middle class as I come from professional parents, which have installed in me a certain way to behave and was educated to university level. However i prefer to work with my hands and build houses for a living, however just because i do manual work i don't see how this changes my upbringing or values.

Originally posted by t020
...most people still refer to, and are familiar with, the traditional working, middle and upper classes.
Strange you should say that, because if one thing has been proven above, it is that most respondents cannot actually agree a common meaning for the above "classes", and quite a few don't actually believe they are relevant any longer.

;)

Originally posted by foo_fighter
"classes", and quite a few don't actually believe they are relevant any longer.

Foo, there are many times in my interesting life when I have been with some company and hardly dare say anything because I will have shown myself up for being tactless and rough as soon as I ventured an opinion, a bit like that scene on the fast show where everybody is stunned into silence.

And other times I find that the boot is on the other foot, especially when I used to work in pubs, with my PA system or Karaoke. Where you have often to deal with a few roughs! I regularly found myself to be the poshest there, and had my accent taken the pee out of in my own city, and I have what I consider to be a fairly typical Hillsborough accent. It seems that since I moved away from hillsbrough to the posh end of the city, my accent has become clipped somewhat to the rounder vowels of the south.

However when I did an interview on the radio last year I was shocked how rough I sounded. But not as shocked as I was when my boss' daughter was interviewed on a tv programme and sounded equally as rough, when I consider her to have a plummy, extremely posh derbyshire selective school for wealthy offspring accent.

I say would anyone care for a game of badminton? ..

We are all argumentative, I just have more time to post than some. It won't last forever, i'm bound to find something to do at work sooner or later.
I'll admit to being a bit of a pedant. But if someone can't say what you mean then i'd rather they kept quiet, then my pedantry will be redundant.
T020 didn't seem to mind, I wasn't expanding on anything he'd said, just correcting what appeared to be a misunderstanding on your part. Since we (t020 and I) happen to be arguing the same side of this discussion I don't think it's presumtive or arrogant. I'd be quite happy for him to clarify or even build on points I've made if it makes sense.
Apology accepted anyway.

By the way, i'm not disagreeing that a more fine grained breakdown is useful, just your argument that working class means anyone who works, or your other argument that working class no longer exists.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Ooooh, these "middle" class people are a bit touchy tonight. ;)



Cyclone, the post wasn't meant to be insulting, sorry...

...but you are permanently argumentative...

...you are tremendously pedantic (a lot of the time)...

...and in this instance, it was presumptive (touching on arrogantly so) to step in and argue t020s point for him.

As I said above t020 is a very capable forum debater (as are you), and I am sure we will discover his actual intent in due course. However, your haste to intervene betrayed a number of the points I have attributed to you above.

:nod:

Originally posted by Cyclone
...By the way, i'm not disagreeing that a more fine grained breakdown is useful, just your argument that working class means anyone who works, or your other argument that working class no longer exists.
It wasn't my argument if you remember, I was just putting it forward for discussion, some people agreed with the point (loosely), others disagreed (some vehemently).

It is quite clear that there is no "general" consensus on the subject, so one point of view is no less valid than any other.

For myself, I am not uncomfortable with being considered "working" class, for that is what I am, a working person...

...clearly others have differing views.

It's the reasons for those views, rather than the opinions themselves that I find interesting.

:)

Originally posted by Cyclone
We are all argumentative, I just have more time to post than some. It won't last forever, i'm bound to find something to do at work sooner or later.


What do you do for a living BTW ?

Originally posted by nick2
What do you do for a living BTW ?

software development. We're in test support and the testers aren't finding much wrong, so I have nothing to fix.
And even when I am busy there are times when the desktop is starting the server or doing clearcase searches or other such fun stuff, whilst it does that I use the laptop for posting.

Originally posted by Cyclone
software development. We're in test support and the testers aren't finding much wrong, so I have nothing to fix.
And even when I am busy there are times when the desktop is starting the server or doing clearcase searches or other such fun stuff, whilst it does that I use the laptop for posting.

I'm "in I.T." too, it does give you plents of spare time at work when it takes 20 minutes to compile a program.

Originally posted by t020
- most people still refer to, and are familiar with, the traditional working, middle and upper classes.

If they do, then what they are referring to does not exist anymore.

Back when you could tell the measure of a man by the hat he wore, maybe- but today? No.

What always amazes me is the pull of these terms - people and groups seeking to have their definition entered into the public canon


Very Totemic. And I do think that is down to Marx.

what did you do Phan?

Couldn't it be argued that since class is an artificial distinction that by refering to it that very reference means that it does exist.
Just so long as they are all agreed about the terms of reference and what exactly it is they mean by it.
Your argument seems to me to be analogous to me claiming that the word "chav" doesn't exist because I can't find it in my OE dictionary. The dictionary only represents the truth, it doesn't create it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
...Just so long as they are all agreed about the terms of reference and what exactly it is they mean by it...

Isn't that a crucial point here, in no way have we (or it seems anyone) reached an agreed term of reference, let alone exactly what is meant by any of the terms.

:suspect:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Isn't that a crucial point here, in no way have we (or it seems anyone) reached an agreed term of reference, let alone exactly what is meant by any of the terms.

:suspect:

some of us have. not everyone has to agree on it, just the people who use it to discuss something.

Originally posted by Cyclone
some of us have. not everyone has to agree on it, just the people who use it to discuss something.
Yes, and some people have agreed with the theory I presented earlier, so that stands equally wouldn't you say?

So we now have (at least) two valid versions of the same theory...

...can't understand why anybody thinks there's a problem.

:heyhey:

Originally posted by foo_fighter

...and the upper class… …they do naff all."

(or words to that effect)



:suspect:
we have many upper class citizens within the sheffield council est system then;)

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Yes, and some people have agreed with the theory I presented earlier, so that stands equally wouldn't you say?

So we now have (at least) two valid versions of the same theory...

...can't understand why anybody thinks there's a problem.

:heyhey:

did someone agree with your definition (the one where nearly everyone is working class)? I guess if enough people agree with it then I have to accept it as valid.

Originally posted by Cyclone
did someone agree with your definition (the one where nearly everyone is working class)? I guess if enough people agree with it then I have to accept it as valid.

Cyclone, you really should read what other people post,

3 explicit affirmations, from 3 different people:

"My Dad was a steel worker and considered himself very working class with a similar attitude to foo_fighters Dad."

"I know a lot of people in my family who would agree with you there."

"I agree with Foos fathers description."

ah yes, reading people's posts. :clap:

to expand on the quote from Dawny which you say supported you.

My Dad was a steel worker and considered himself very working class with a simialr attitiude to foo_fighters Dad.

Anyone who wore a shirt and tie to work was not working class!


ooooh, not quite so clear cut now is it. Unless people wearing a shirt and tie are considered not to be working at all by you and your dad?
How close were the others to actually supporting you?

The shirt and tie bit is interesting, does it make a difference what you wear to work ?

Originally posted by Cyclone
did someone agree with your definition (the one where nearly everyone is working class)? I guess if enough people agree with it then I have to accept it as valid.

(I double posted)

Well under the Marxist definition of class, where class defines the relationships to power, there are two classes - those that own the means of production and those that don't. Those that don't are in greater number than those who do. And Marx underpins most discussions on class in my experience.

Foo is essentially correct in his assertion about the working class, and I agree that although many of us have the trappings of wealth and status, it does not alter our relationship to the means of production.

The picture is confused by the existence of a complex welfare state, 'class mobility', de-industrialisation, trades unions etc, but there you are


edit --
And as foo says we have all been talking at cross purposes about subtly different things because we don't have the same terms of reference.

does that mean it doesn tmatter where you have come from, but what you are doing now - work wise?

Originally posted by Cyclone
ah yes, reading people's posts. :clap:

to expand on the quote from Dawny which you say supported you.



ooooh, not quite so clear cut now is it. Unless people wearing a shirt and tie are considered not to be working at all by you and your dad?
How close were the others to actually supporting you?
Argumentative, pedantic, where?

Cyclone, you're the one with lots of time on your hands, search through and find them...

...oh, you already did, so you know they supported the argument more fully than dawny1 (that was an easy one to criticize anyway), dawny only said her fathers views were "similar", but never the less she expressed broad support for the idea (or, at least said her father did).

Just to help, the other two were LoopyLou and missrabbit...

...go get 'em nit-picker!

While your at it, re-read the whole thread (go on, you've got time), you'll find lots of different ideas, not just ones supporting you and t020.

That after all is the point I was making, there isn't just one agreed version (like you so clearly seem to think there is).

:P


Late addition
Oh, just noticed, Phan' has just added some some good points also, cheers. :)

lol - I found the others already, but couldn't make a point with them so ignored them.
I don't have time to re-read it all, our clearcase server just came back up so I have to do a bit of work (not too much mind).

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
does that mean it doesn’t matter where you have come from, but what you are doing now - work wise?
Oh no, don't say that, without their parents status, and where they live, what will the "middle" class kids on here do to bolster their self worth.

;)

can i be a bit of both?:D

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Oh no, don't say that, without their parents status, and where they live, what will the "middle" class kids on here do to bolster their self worth.

;)

I could quit my job and be upper class by your definition.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I could quit my job and be upper class by your definition.
O M G !

Cyclone is "Prince Harry" ! :wow:




Edit to add
Oi, I thought you were busy at work. ;)

Originally posted by Cyclone
I could quit my job and be upper class by your definition.

:lol: Yes, just like all those benefit claimants on council estates, which are upper class by Foo_fighter's simplistic (and flawed) definition.

Originally posted by t020
:lol: Yes, just like all those benefit claimants on council estates, which are upper class by Foo_fighter's simplistic (and flawed) definition.
Jeez, are you being particularly obtuse, or are you really that thick?

Right, I'll try again,
Originally posted by foo_fighter
My father always used to say,

"If you have to work for a living, your working class...

...if you own a business, and other people do the work for you, your middle class...

...and the upper class… …they do naff all."

(or words to that effect)
three points,

1) It was my fathers suggestion we were discussing, I do keep mentioning this.

2) "...and the upper class… …they do naff all", not as you seem to suggest that everyone who does naff all is automatically upper class.

3) Simplistic it may be, but as we've established, it's no more flawed than any other definition on offer (and probably better than some).

My-my, "middle" class wannabes are difficult at times. :shakes:

Cyclone is Prince Harry! I knew Cyclone was a rugged, manly type [Judo, Marine Reserves and all that], not some foppish theatrical type like his brother, Edward. No wonder the bugger is never off Sheffield Forum- he has all the time in the world as a Royal. His Royal Highness, Prince Cyclone...LOL!

If income dictates social status there is a lot of upper class premier division footballers.
AS CLOTHES MAY MAKE THE MAN
ONLY MANNERS MAKE THE GENTLEMAN

and in theat respect income matters not

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Jeez, are you being particularly obtuse, or are you really that thick?

Are you always that rude?


Originally posted by foo_fighter

Right, I'll try again,

Go on then.


Originally posted by foo_fighter

three points,

1) It was my fathers suggestion we were discussing, I do keep mentioning this.

2) "...and the upper class… …they do naff all", not as you seem to suggest that everyone who does naff all is automatically upper class.

3) Simplistic it may be, but as we've established, it's no more flawed than any other definition on offer (and probably better than some).

My-my, "middle" class wannabes are difficult at times. :shakes:

1) I know it was, but you seem to have adopted it as your own definition too, and you're the one championing its cause on here, not your father.

2) So where would benefit recipients figure in your (father's) simplistic and pointless class model?

3) It's flawed - what purpose does it possibly serve to put 99+% of people into one classification? It defeats the object of making the classification to begin with. It also lumps together groups of people who are poles apart, as my previous examples have suggested.

Originally posted by prioryx
If income dictates social status there is a lot of upper class premier division footballers.
AS CLOTHES MAY MAKE THE MAN
ONLY MANNERS MAKE THE GENTLEMAN

and in theat respect income matters not

I'd say you've nailed it there, Prioryx.

Class equals good manners. Those without class don't understand it's something you can't buy.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
I'd say you've nailed it there, Prioryx.

Class equals good manners. Those without class don't understand it's something you can't buy.

StarSparkle

True, and it's *generally* those from wealthier backgrounds who have better manners.

Originally posted by t020
True, and it's *generally* those from wealthier backgrounds who have better manners.

Rubbish.

If you mean knowing which wine glass to use for a glass of chardonnay, perhaps. But if you're talking ordinary, decent human kindness (which is what I take "manners" to mean), then you'll find that there is no division across social strata.

Many an ignorant upper-class twit I have had the misfortune to meet.

Originally posted by Greenback
Rubbish.

If you mean knowing which wine glass to use for a glass of chardonnay, perhaps. But if you're talking ordinary, decent human kindness (which is what I take "manners" to mean), then you'll find that there is no division across social strata.

Many an ignorant upper-class twit I have had the misfortune to meet.

More like things such as remembering Ps & Qs, not spitting in the street, and yes table manners too. This is from my own personal experience, of course.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I think there has been a push in recent years by a certain political party to demolish the class system in this country. A prime example is that of fox-hunting. Perceived by Labour to be a sport for the upper classes

Ah, so that explains why Anne Widdicombe, Conservative MP, voted in favour of the abolition of hunting with dogs. Glad you cleared that up for me JonJParr.

Originally posted by t020
More like things such as remembering Ps & Qs, not spitting in the street, and yes table manners too. This is from my own personal experience, of course.

Ah, see now you're talking about the things that really matter.

I mean, how can you possibly expect to be respected as an equal member of society when you don't even know the difference between table water and tap water? And everyone knows that the well-to-do don't expectorate at all, even when out on the streets of Mayfair they find they have the most frightful greenie atop their tongue. As for addressing one's peers with the requisite "good day, sir" - those lower types, they don't even know where to begin!

But seriously, you are turning into a self-parody...

Originally posted by t020
True, and it's *generally* those from wealthier backgrounds who have better manners.

Hmmm *generally* money = manners??????????

sooooooo........Footballers don't spit?

MP's don't fight?

Royals don't get drunk and take drugs?

shall I go on?

Your point has massive flaws.

Originally posted by t020
...1) I know it was, but you seem to have adopted it as your own definition too, and you're the one championing its cause on here, not your father...
No, I'm attempting to debate around the issue, a fact that seems to have passed you bye completely.

Originally posted by t020
...2) So where would benefit recipients figure in your (father's) simplistic and pointless class model?...
Go on, think about it, "working" people could be made unemployed, others could become bankrupt, and therefore de-facto unemployed, so the "benefit recipients" could be from any background. What, is that a problem, can't you look down on them as comfortably now?

Originally posted by t020
...3) It's flawed - what purpose does it possibly serve to put 99+% of people into one classification? It defeats the object of making the classification to begin with. It also lumps together groups of people who are poles apart, as my previous examples have suggested...
Whereas putting 100% of the population into 3 groupings does to you? It seems quite “pointless” to quite a few people who have expressed views on this forum, virtually all industries (advertising etc.), and a number of learned texts it seems also.


I think we've established what was being debated, the 3 "class" system is pretty much dead and buried, in all real terms.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by timo
Cyclone is Prince Harry! I knew Cyclone was a rugged, manly type [Judo, Marine Reserves and all that], not some foppish theatrical type like his brother, Edward. No wonder the bugger is never off Sheffield Forum- he has all the time in the world as a Royal. His Royal Highness, Prince Cyclone...LOL!

oh no, my cover has been blown.

clearly income alone doesn't dictate class, which both myself and T020 have already said. So a footballer whilst having a large income won't generally have parents with a large income a high level of personal education, and probably is lacking in the cultural capitalism that timo and phan were talking about earlier.

Manners doesn't equate to kindness, and neither is good manners the sole reserve of the upper class. Everyone not belonging to the house of Windsor (like my goodself now that you've blown my cover) is not bereft of manners and politeness. And of course there are examples of people with no manners throughout every strata of society.

Here's one we haven't discussed, how does regional accent relate to class?

Originally posted by Cyclone
...Here's one we haven't discussed, how does regional accent relate to class?
Wouldn't we need an agreed model of "class" before we debated that?

C'mon Harry, you can't catch us out that easily. ;)

Originally posted by Greenback
But seriously, you are turning into a self-parody...

Like some Viz character called "Ten-bob millionaire" or something, who secretly works in a scrap yard or sewage works but at home dresses for dinner, decants his Lambrini and is learning to play the harpsicord.

Originally posted by nick2
Like some Viz character called "Ten-bob millionaire" or something, who secretly works in a scrap yard or sewage works but at home dresses for dinner, decants his Lambrini and is learning to play the harpsichord.
Isn't it interesting how it's always the "nouveau-rich" (or wannabes) who keep banging on about money and "class"...

...people with real class just get on with their lives (in my own personal experience, of course).

:bigsmile:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Isn't it interesting how it's always the "nouveau-rich" (or wannabes) who keep banging on about money and "class"...

...people with real class just get on with their lives (in my own personal experience, of course).

:bigsmile:

and mine too.

Re the previous discussion of manners; my view, for what it is worth, is that they are not always linked to altruism. Secondly, the definition and perception of 'good manners' varies from culture to culture. Some cultures, such as the professional, upper middle class [and this is distinct from the upper middle class] value 'traditional' norms such as 'please' and 'thankyou' in the 'right' place etc. However, they may be less kind and democratic when breaking 'bad' news than their counterparts in lower socio-economic groups, and less generous when it comes to charity donation.

If we look at the Japanese Army in WW2, the same Officers who might previously have ordered the massacre of a Burmese village, or the burning alive of captured enemy soldiers, would behave with impeccable manners, in line with the subtle and complicated rules of knightly behaviour, laid down in the code of Bushido, whilst later dining in their quarters.

Are manners, or what are perceived to be the 'finest' manners linked to the wealthiest groups in societies, as To20 suggests? No, I do not believe they are because many people in the 'rich' category originally came from cultures, like the lower working class, in which 'elegant' manners are not valued highly, and may even be viewed with derision. Some upper-middle class people too, as Greenback suggests, do not observe the 'rules' either, and can be boorish and selfishly rude. Education too, is no guarantee of manners or of altruism. Perhaps, as I say earlier, we are more likely to encounter the 'traditional' English model of manners amongst the professional, upper middle classes [and the landed gentry], but we must never make the mistake of linking elegant social graces with a 'good heart'. Sometimes, as is the case with my good self, the two are inextricably linked. Who could possibly deny that ?! But it is not always the case...

Originally posted by bonny
Hmmm *generally* money = manners??????????

No, *generally* wealthy background = manners.


Originally posted by bonny

sooooooo........Footballers don't spit?


Footballers are almost always from working class, poor backgrounds, not the wealthy backgrounds made in my generalisation. Read what I say rather than reading what you want me to have said for you to lay into it.

Originally posted by bonny

MP's don't fight?


John Prescott might, but he's not from a wealthy *background* is he?


Originally posted by bonny

Royals don't get drunk and take drugs?

But they have good manners.


Originally posted by bonny

shall I go on?

Your point has massive flaws.

No, the point that you thought I was making does, not the point I actually made.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
No, I'm attempting to debate around the issue, a fact that seems to have passed you bye completely.

Yes, I know you are, but you still seem to have adopted your father's theory for yourself.

Originally posted by foo_fighter

Go on, think about it, "working" people could be made unemployed, others could become bankrupt, and therefore de-facto unemployed, so the "benefit recipients" could be from any background. What, is that a problem, can't you look down on them as comfortably now?


In proportional terms, how likely is this compared to people who won't work and claim benefits for a "living"? I think most people would accept the kind of background that most benefit recipients come from.


Originally posted by foo_fighter

Whereas putting 100% of the population into 3 groupings does to you? It seems quite “pointless” to quite a few people who have expressed views on this forum, virtually all industries (advertising etc.), and a number of learned texts it seems also.


Grouping the population into 3 groups makes more sense than grouping virtually the whole population into 1 group. Also, advertising is an example of an industry that still heavily uses class, e.g. to target a certain type of consumer. People expressing views on this forum is irrelevant - the thread is more likely to attract a negative response, especially given the location that this forum appeals to.


Originally posted by foo_fighter

I think we've established what was being debated, the 3 "class" system is pretty much dead and buried, in all real terms.

:thumbsup:

So many people still refer to class, as I've said. This thread is an example of the class system being very much well and alive. News reports and newspaper articles still refer to class on a regular basis. Look at the "chav" phenomenon - the class system is still around and, whether you or your left-leaning friends like it or not, it probably always will be.

Originally posted by t020
So he's "middle class", and he works. Case closed.

I do believe that you can have people that work, and are still "middle class". Think your Radio 2-listening-Guardian-reading-Nether Edge resident.

Another analogy: Radio 4 listening-Telegraph reading-Ranmoor resident.

People with a salary of £30,000 p.a, in a "professional" job are usually "middle-class".

Alex :)

Whereas putting 100% of the population into 3 groupings does to you? It seems quite “pointless” to quite a few people who have expressed views on this forum, virtually all industries (advertising etc.), and a number of learned texts it seems also.
Grouping the population into 3 groups makes more sense than grouping virtually the whole population into 1 group. Also, advertising is an example of an industry that still heavily uses class, e.g. to target a certain type of consumer. People expressing views on this forum is irrelevant - the thread is more likely to attract a negative response, especially given the location that this forum appeals to.

I don't like to sound as if I'm complaining, but you previously mentioned that you'd always stick up for Sheffield, and that you wouldn't ever give it a negative comment.

However, reading between the lines, it is pretty evident that especially given the location that this forum appeals to you're perhaps saying that Sheffield is a crappy Guardian-reading city that is full of dreadful industrial areas...

Cheers,
Alex :)

Originally posted by amhudson119
I don't like to sound as if I'm complaining, but you previously mentioned that you'd always stick up for Sheffield, and that you wouldn't ever give it a negative comment.

However, reading between the lines, it is pretty evident that you're perhaps saying that Sheffield is a crappy Guardian-reading city that is full of dreadful industrial areas...

Cheers,
Alex :)


Sheffield has a large socialist population who would rather that ideas such as class no longer existed. In reality, they still do.

Originally posted by t020
Sheffield has a large socialist population who would rather that ideas such as class no longer existed. In reality, they still do.

Come the revolution they won't.

Originally posted by Greenback
Come the revolution they won't.

Which?

Originally posted by t020
Grouping the population into 3 groups makes more sense than grouping virtually the whole population into 1 group. Also, advertising is an example of an industry that still heavily uses class, e.g. to target a certain type of consumer...
Industry, including advertising use a lot more than your 3 classifications though, that's the point I was making. Only the lazy (like journalists), and delusional use the 3 class system anymore.

By the way, your still arguing against a model I presented to show the absurdity of the "class" system, don't you realise that?

Originally posted by t020
...People expressing views on this forum is irrelevant...
Yes, and some peoples opinions are clearly less relevant to a sensible discussion than others.

Originally posted by t020
...the thread is more likely to attract a negative response, especially given the location that this forum appeals to...
So, what on earth is that supposed to mean?

Originally posted by t020
...Look at the "chav" phenomenon - the class system is still around...
How is that relevant to the discussion at hand, are you saying the whole of one (of your) particular "classes" are chavs?

Originally posted by t020
...and, whether you or your left-leaning friends like it or not, it probably always will be.
Interestingly, the people trying to point out the error of your assertions are from a number of different political persuasions, haven't you noticed that?



Really t020, you are the "sweeping generalisation kid" aren't you...

...take a gap year, travel and learn about the world...

...even just a fortnight away from Ecclesall might help a little.

:D

Originally posted by t020
Sheffield has a large socialist population who would rather that ideas such as class no longer existed. In reality, they still do.

Wasn't Sheffield once known as the RED CITY ?

What revolution might that be, Greeny? Don't tell me, the proletariat of Sheffield, class-consciousness burning in their breasts, will smash the chains of capitalism that bind them and seize the means of production? One is prepared for such unlikely contingencies.

Should the red balloon ever go up, my New League of Empire Loyalists shall emerge to take power as the 'real' conservatives. Good, right-thinking posters such as the ferocious Foo Fighter, the stylish To20, and the erudite and urbane Jon J Parr will flock to nail their colours to its mast. Within our ranks will march the mighty ghosts of old England, and their strong arms shall reach down to guide us. 'Victory or Bolshevism' shall by our cry! There will be no 'glorious revolution' here. Bring back Feudalism!

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Industry, including advertising use a lot more than your 3 classifications though, that's the point I was making. Only the lazy (like journalists), and delusional use the 3 class system anymore.


It is still widely used though, however much you wish otherwise.

Originally posted by foo_fighter

By the way, your still arguing against a model I presented to show the absurdity of the "class" system, don't you realise that?

You've changed your tune on that one then, haven't you? Why is the class system absurd anyway? Because you don't like it and it doesn't match your idealistic view of the world where everyone is equal?

PS. You mean "you're".

Originally posted by foo_fighter

Yes, and some peoples opinions are clearly less relevant to a sensible discussion than others.


Very witty, even if you did need to quote me out of context to achieve it.


Originally posted by foo_fighter

So, what on earth is that supposed to mean?

Exactly what it said. To build on the point, Sheffield is predominantly a socialist city (just look at the overall Labour vote here, even in the 1980s where the party was dead in most parts of the UK). Therefore it's logical to assume that the views on a Sheffield based forum aren't likely to be representative of the whole country on the issue of class - something that socialists wish didn't exist.


Originally posted by foo_fighter

How is that relevant to the discussion at hand, are you saying the whole of one (of your) particular "classes" are chavs?

"Chavs" are essentially the "underclass" - in my system that comes below working class, in your system they're upper class because they don't work. The fact that there is such a widespread, popular word amongst the youth of the country, which is implicitly class related and indulges in snobbery, shows that the class system is very much alive and well.


Originally posted by foo_fighter

Interestingly, the people trying to point out the error of your assertions are from a number of different political persuasions, haven't you noticed that?


I've noticed that you, DanSumption and Greenback appear to be the same person.

Originally posted by timo
What revolution might that be, Greeny?...

...Good, right-thinking posters such as the ferocious Foo Fighter, the stylish To20, and the erudite and urbane Jon J Parr will flock to nail their colours to its mast...

Obviously not Timo, for I have fooled you and am indeed both Greenback and foo_fighter (well according to t020 anyway).


t020, seriously, compose yourself man, you're loosing it.

:D

Originally posted by timo
What revolution might that be, Greeny? Don't tell me, the proletariat of Sheffield, class-consciousness burning in their breasts, will smash the chains of capitalism that bind them and seize the means of production? One is prepared for such unlikely contingencies.

Prepared? Pah! You won't have reckoned for the army of flying monkeys I've been seceretly training in a bunker underneath that bastion of workers' solidarity, the City Hall. There's one of the little scamps for every one of the good men unable to do a hard day's graft since the industries were ruthlessly dismantled...

You have been warned.

Originally posted by t020
I've noticed that you, DanSumption and Greenback appear to be the same person.

I'm Greenback!

No, I'm DanSumption!

No, I'm foo_fighter!

:hihi: The truth is revealed.

Originally posted by t020
Sheffield has a large socialist population who would rather that ideas such as class no longer existed. In reality, they still do.

The political left have long been the champions of class and class consciousness. Your original loony lefty Karl Marx practically defined your use of the term 'class'.

Your parody of the left wishing class away is completely misplaced and belies your shallow and incomplete understanding of the concept; especially the origins and use of the term...remember (or perhaps you don't) John Major and his "classless society"? - the capitalist meritocratic fantasy espoused in this country by the political right...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The political left have long been the champions of class and class consciousness. Your original loony lefty Karl Marx practically defined your use of the term 'class'.

Your parody of the left wishing class away is completely misplaced and belies your shallow and incomplete understanding of the concept; especially the origins and use of the term...remember (or perhaps you don't) John Major and his "classless society"? - the capitalist meritocratic fantasy espoused in this country by the political right...


But it isn't "politically correct" to talk about class and define people in such a way. This is a trait of the lefty and is certainly seen throughout this thread.

i have not read any of the other points in this thread so i'm sorry if i'm repeating here.

i personally hold the idea of class very close to my heart. i'm all for it. sometimes you get people who are so upper/lower class they are bordering on being a cliché and i think that's a great thing in the diversity of this country. what is also great is how different classes of poeple can now live in harmony sonce the war when a whole mix of people had to come together in the fight for freedom.

Originally posted by t020
But it isn't "politically correct" to talk about class and define people in such a way.

Define people in what way - you have never really managed to elucidate what it is you mean by class at all - trying to understand what you mean by it is particularly confusing sometimes.

Originally posted by t020
This is a trait of the lefty and is certainly seen throughout this thread.

That's completely in your imagination I'm afraid. What you have seen on this thread is a lot of people unafraid to voice their opions on class, from most corners of the political spectrum.

Your lazy labelling of others as 'lefties' and 'politically correct' compounds your erroneous assumption that the left somehow wants to avoid the subject of class when the whole socialist struggle has been about the 'working class' and lefties of all creeds have been banging on about little else since the turn of the century.

Your understanding of class and its relevance to the political left as a concept that underpins historical understanding of almost everything, needs some work. When did you stop studying history?

Let's not be too hard on TO20. In my experience, he is a decent stick.

With respect, TO20, Phan is correct here. The left, if anything, are generally obsessed with keeping the variable of 'class' in the equation. Marx saw class as absolutely imperative; from class conflict revolution would spring. Don't hold your breath for dear old Greenback's specially -trained Anarcho-syndicalist gibbons though [see his previous posting]. Marx saw things in very reductionist terms, and argued that the economy was the motor-force for change, hence the term 'economic determinism'. For me, this is a limited, unitary explanation for social change. It ignores other forms of social structure such as 'race' and gender.

To reiterate a point from one of my previous postings, all human societies are stratified, i.e, have divisions based on class to a degree. There is no absolute, intrinsic, universal system of stratification for any country. Rather, there are many competing paradigms. You have a choice- Registrar General's definitions, Eric Olin-Wright's, Anthony Giddens's, Goldthorpe and Lockwood's or, with the greatest of respect, Foo Fighter's Father's. All are relevant.

'Class' is socially-constructed anyway- the product of human language. We assign 'meaning' to the world, it is not intrinsic.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
t020, try to read what I actually said please.

The Barrister works for a living, put that into one of my categories, yes, working class.

The shop owner also works for a living, so, also working class.

If Sir Alan Sugar allows employees to run his business, then he'd be in "middle", if he goes to work every day he's in "working", he's in the (fortunate?) position to be able to choose, the corner shop owner, and the barrister are not.

Basically look at it this way, if you choose whether to go to work in the morning or not, you can be "middle". If you "have to" get up and go to work to earn a living, sorry but your working class.

IMO :)

I think the point we were originally arguing against is that Foo's father takes a commonly used phrase (whether it be a lazy one to use or not) and assigns an uncommon meaning to it. Thus making it rather difficult to talk about since we all think it means something different.
Despite the laziness inherent in using the 3 class system, it is not commonly used in a way that means the majority of people are working class, so unless it's a discussion between foo and his dad then using that definition is silly.

Can I try to answer the original question?

No we are not living in a classless society, and yes it still matters.

Originally posted by amhudson119
People with a salary of £30,000 p.a, in a "professional" job are usually "middle-class".


only if they also adopt a middle class attidude.

I think what you're all alluding to in this thread is more social grade than the ancient view of 'class'.

For example, I'm writing a consultancy report about e-Government at the moment (obviously you can tell I keep getting bored...) and social grade is crucial to its findings. For example, the prime target cluster for e-enabled services in England is approximately 6 million. This is predominantly made up of young, male high-earners in social grade ABC1. They're progressive, have readily available access to new technology (either through their employment or home life) and keen to minimise their interaction with Government. For them e-services work!

Now, take an unemployed person. We would put them in a lower social grade (E for the purpose of the study) because they're not earning at present. If they get a job as a hospital matron (for the purpose of the example) they would move up to social grade B. This indicates that social grading is mobile. 'Class' in the traditional sense is the belief of a set place in society defined by ancestry and wealth. Previously this would have been landowners and Lords.

These days social grading is more important that ancestry (yet it still produces controversy). However, the good news is you can change your social grade based on your employment. Did the lower classes mix with the upper classes traditionally? No. Do lower social grades mix with higher social grades? Yes.

Excellent and most interesting point about social grades, Jon. My only problem with the concept of the social 'grade' is that it tends to conflate variables. The 'grade' is a rather broadbrush approach which tends to miss some fine details and subtle sub-divisions between classes. On the other hand, it is ontologically-flexible, a kind of 'sensitising' device, not meant to be 100% accurate and empirically 'correct'. In that respect, it is a suitable term for a social world in rapid flux.

Re 'ancestry', even if people have social mobility in terms of upping their social grade through promotion etc, there may come a time when their background takes on significance. For example, a working class man could rise from filling supermarket shelves to become the Chief Executive of Sainsburys. In theory, he would be social class 1 [replacing the old social class A] in the files of the Registrar General. However, would he be invited to gala functions, the hunt ball etc? I think it highly unlikely that he would be. There is still a 'glass ceiling' in society, beyond which one cannot go, unless 'blue-blooded'. In terms of entering certain social circles, and certain parts of the establishment, ancestry is still more important than social grade.

Originally posted by timo
There is still a 'glass ceiling' in society, beyond which one cannot go, unless 'blue-blooded'.

But when you see some of the pillocks at the top you wouldn't realy want to spend any time with them, can you imagine going to a dinner party with Prince Phillip ?

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think the point we were originally arguing against is that...
Cyclone, I wasn't aware we were "arguing against" anything, I thought we were discussing a subject.

Obviously you (and t020?) thought differently, this at least explains why all your efforts have been expended "arguing against" one model rather than entering into a serious discussion like (almost) everyone else.

Thanks for making your position so clear this time.

:thumbsup:



Jon, good post, I think "on the whole" that is a more relevant system these days (Timos concerns aside).

:)

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Cyclone, I wasn't aware we were arguing "against" anything, I thought we were discussing a subject.

Obviously you (and t020?) thought differently, this at least explains why all your efforts have been expended arguing against one model rather than entering into a serious discussion like (almost) everyone else.

Thanks for making your position so clear this time.

:thumbsup:



Jon, good post, I think "on the whole" that is a more relevant system these days (Timos concerns aside).

:)

I don't know how you discuss things, but if I think something is wrong I present an argument against it. That's generally how a discussion goes. You put your (dad's) idea of what working class was forward, I think it's silly so I argued my point.
Apart from your rather defensive and/or offensive posts I've enjoyed the discussion with everyone else and may even have learnt a bit.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't know how you discuss things, but if I think something is wrong I present an argument against it. That's generally how a discussion goes. You put your (dad's) idea of what working class was forward, I think it's silly so I argued my point.
Apart from your rather defensive and/or offensive posts I've enjoyed the discussion with everyone else and may even have learnt a bit.
That's the exact point isn't it Cyclone, you spend your whole time on here (SF) "arguing against" all sorts of people, why not try telling us what you think for a change.

Since you believe in the "3 class" system, what is your definition of what should fit into each category?

:confused:

Please, no loose, it's based on education, income type comments, give real definitions please (e.g. "At least a Bachelors Degree", "£30k+ income", that sort of thing).

Go on, put yourself on the line for once instead of just taking the easy route criticising other people.

:|

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think class does still exist, but the boundaries are less clearly defined than they used to be, and more factors now determine what class you consider yourself to be.
Income, educational level, type of job and 'attitude' all contribute to making up what class you belong too.
Personally, my parents and grandparents were working class, although having progressed in their careers I suppose they are now middle class. I'm middle class (i think).

I don't think working class is anyone that earns a wage. That would leave a incredibly small middle class and even smaller upper class.
I think the idea about shirt and tie is closer, although we have a business casual dress code, so no tie for me.
I think that working in a service industry is definitely being part way to middle class, although it would depend on what level you work at I suppose.

did you miss it, on the first page.

I never suggested that hard and fast rules can be applied to neatly split everyone into one of the 3 groups. But I put forward my thoughts and disagreed with your proposition. You do seem to be taking it all rather personally though.

Has one gone to far when they quote themselves? ;)
It's Thursday today BTW - Timo you know what I mean.

What this,
Originally posted by Cyclone
I think class does still exist, but the boundaries are less clearly defined than they used to be, and more factors now determine what class you consider yourself to be.
Income, educational level, type of job and 'attitude' all contribute to making up what class you belong too.
Personally, my parents and grandparents were working class, although having progressed in their careers I suppose they are now middle class. I'm middle class (i think).

I don't think working class is anyone that earns a wage. That would leave a incredibly small middle class and even smaller upper class.
I think the idea about shirt and tie is closer, although we have a business casual dress code, so no tie for me.
I think that working in a service industry is definitely being part way to middle class, although it would depend on what level you work at I suppose.
oh yes, just what I asked for.

:rolleyes:

So since the whole countries income is increasingly based on the service sector, does that mean we'll soon be 99% "middle class", yeah, that makes so much more sense than being 99% "working class".

:suspect:

Let's all rush out and buy a tie!

:clap:

Response to the edit
Originally posted by Cyclone
I never suggested that hard and fast rules can be applied to neatly split everyone into one of the 3 groups. But I put forward my thoughts and disagreed with your proposition. You do seem to be taking it all rather personally though.
Cyclone, I am not taking it personally, but you are "arguing against" the points I raised, no one elses, so I will answer.

:P

Would you care to try a sensible answer yourself, come on, stop being woolly, give a definition, you seem so sure what you disagree with, what do you actually agree with?

:confused:

well, i suppose at the point when there's no-one left in the traditional "working class" bracket you have to stop using the 3 class breakdown (even if you're lazy) and use one that has some meaning.

But we're still quite some way from everyone working in the service sector.
I did also qualify that. Someone who stacks shelves is working in the service sector, or serves on a till, but I doubt they'd consider themselves middle class.

Maybe you can also apply some comparison to the average wage, greater than it, or 25%> or maybe 50%>.
And educational level, A-level or degree as a minimum maybe?
Maybe pass times and hobbies should be considered. + points for listening to classical music and being familiar with classical literature??? You could do a quick quiz to ascertain your level of cultural capitalism (see I did learn something), and in combination with points from income, education, type of job, level of job (compared to age), this could give you an overall score.
The overall score then maps to a distribution which tells you what class you are in with a 95% certainty interval.

Originally posted by Cyclone
well, i suppose...
...But...
...Maybe...
...average wage...
...or maybe...
...as a minimum maybe?...
...Maybe...
...You could...
...and in combination with...
...this could...
...The overall score then maps to a distribution which tells you what class you are in with a 95% certainty interval.
Well, thanks for telling us what you think, with clear definitions...

...I know exactly what you were trying to say all along now.

:huh:

Sheesh! Can this thread be sustained until 4pm? Then we can take a break until 5.30pm or so.

;)

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Well, thanks for telling us what you think, with clear definitions...

...I know exactly what you were trying to say all along now.

:huh:

what are you expecting. I've put some ideas forward there for discussion.

If you like take out the maybe's and pretend I said it all authoritively as if I knew I was correct.
let me try it and see if you prefer it;

This is to identify people as working class or not, upper class will be covered in our second lecture.

Firstly look at which sector of the economy they work in, primary and secondary are weighted towards working class, tertiary is weighted towards not working class.
0 points for primary, 5 for secondary and 10 for tertiary.

Apply acomparison to the average wage;
0 points for <0.5 * average
5 points for 0.5 - 1 * average.
10 points for 1 - 1.5 * average
15 points >1.5 * average

Then educational level,
0 points for < A - level
5 points for A-level
10 points for degree level.
15 points for >degree level.

As an exercise design a quick quiz to determine the level of cultural capitalism someone possess. Design it to return a score between 0 and 15.

The overall score then maps to a distribution which tells you what class you are in with a 95% certainty interval.

Out of a max of 55 points. Working class is anyone lying below 20 points.

Is that concrete enough for you. It's all completely off the top of my head, so if you have a valid argument against something i'm liable to just agree with you.

Originally posted by Cyclone
As an exercise design a quick quiz to determine the level of cultural capitalism someone possess. Design it to return a score between 0 and 15.

Is this along the right lines?

Q: How many Starbucks beverages, on average, do you consume per week?

A: None
B: 1
C: 2-3
D: More than 3 (apparently you're evil)

Gosh I really should get this report done.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think the point we were originally arguing against is that Foo's father takes a commonly used phrase (whether it be a lazy one to use or not) and assigns an uncommon meaning to it...

...so unless it's a discussion between foo and his dad then using that definition is silly...

Well, using that definition, at least me, my father, Dawny1s dad, a lot of people in LoopyLous family, and missrabbit, would know what we were talking about.

With your new system,
Originally posted by Cyclone
This is to identify people as working class or not, upper class will be covered in our second lecture.

Firstly look at which sector of the economy they work in, primary and secondary are weighted towards working class, tertiary is weighted towards not working class.
0 points for primary, 5 for secondary and 10 for tertiary.

Apply acomparison to the average wage;
0 points for <0.5 * average
5 points for 0.5 - 1 * average.
10 points for 1 - 1.5 * average
15 points >1.5 * average

Then educational level,
0 points for < A - level
5 points for A-level
10 points for degree level.
15 points for >degree level.

As an exercise design a quick quiz to determine the level of cultural capitalism someone possess. Design it to return a score between 0 and 15.

The overall score then maps to a distribution which tells you what class you are in with a 95% certainty interval.

Out of a max of 55 points. Working class is anyone lying below 20 points.
it looks like you'll be sat in a very small room talking to yourself.

:heyhey:

I'm so glad we are discussing a system that is so clearly defined that everyone knows immediately what they are discussing.

:suspect:

Originally posted by JonJParr
Is this along the right lines?

Q: How many Starbucks beverages, on average, do you consume per week?

A: None
B: 1
C: 2-3
D: More than 3 (apparently you're evil)

Gosh I really should get this report done.

might be rather biased against people who don't like coffee or live outside the city.

C- could do better.

Look ff - I have no idea what point you imagine you are proving, but frankly you're wasting my time. You asked for a concrete definition of something that isn't all that concrete and ridicule it when I present it. Is that your idea of discussion or did you give up discussion at some point in this thread?

Just accept that I don't like your definition of working class as I think it's pointless and I'll accept that you don't care what my definition is and never actually did.

Hey Cyclone, be careful how you band terms like 'cultural capital' around. Anybody would think you were a published Sociologist!

By the way, Foo and Jon, Cyclone doesn't post between 4 and 5.30 on a Thursday. We found that out on the Pope thread, didn't we Jon? So if there is a gap of silence, it is not because he's run away from the blowtorch-intensity of Foo's interrogations, it is because he'll be on the M1. One can't drive and post at the same time, of course. I believe him. Actually, I'm quite impressed with old Metal Mickey. He admitted to being a 'pedant' the other day. That is a step forward. It is a sign of self-awareness. Every day, in every way, Cyclone is getting better and better. You know, I'm almost beginning to like the bugger.

Originally posted by timo
Hey Cyclone, be careful how you band terms like 'cultural capital' around. Anybody would think you were a published Sociologist!

By the way, Foo and Jon, Cyclone doesn't post between 4 and 5.30 on a Thursday. We found that out on the Pope thread, didn't we Jon? So if there is a gap of silence, it is not because he's run away from the blowtorch-intensity of Foo's interrogations, it is because he'll be on the M1. One can't drive and post at the same time, of course. I believe him. Actually, I'm quite impressed with old Metal Mickey. He admitted to being a 'pedant' the other day. That is a step forward. It is a sign of self-awareness. Every day, in every way, Cyclone is getting better and better. You know, I'm almost beginning to like the bugger.

and sometimes you manage to restrain yourself and be polite and civil, which is always a pleasure. 1 day at a time, eh?

Yes, something like that, old fruit. I'll give you that one!

Originally posted by Cyclone
and sometimes you manage to restrain yourself and be polite and civil, which is always a pleasure. 1 day at a time, eh?

Cyclone, by your own proven method of debate I would now like you to substantiate that statement providing examples (real ones) of where Timo has not been polite. Now before you complain about work commitments and begin to proclaim loudly the word, "Sheesh" I should like to remind you that it will keep your fingers exercised and pass the time of day at work rather more quickly.

Seriously Cyclone I think Timo's right; we're poles apart on the political spectrum but I admire your "He's like a dog with a bloody bone" attitude.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Cyclone, by your own proven method of debate I would now like you to substantiate that statement providing examples (real ones) of where Timo has not been polite. Now before you complain about work commitments and begin to proclaim loudly the word, "Sheesh" I should like to remind you that it will keep your fingers exercised and pass the time of day at work rather more quickly.

Seriously Cyclone I think Timo's right; we're poles apart on the political spectrum but I admire your "He's like a dog with a bloody bone" attitude.

can't be bothered to be honest. He's conceded the point, so we'll leave it at that.

Thinking about pedantry, I wonder if it's partly due to programming. Afterall, if the compiler says it's not right, or the program crashes it's no use in saying "well, that's not what I meant". The computer executes the program exactly as it's written, not as I intended it (more's the pitty). The english language isn't quite as declarative as most computer languages, but it's clear sometimes that people didn't actually mean what they said, it's just that none of us like admitting that.
55 mins to leaving time, and tomorrows a short day, roll on the weekend.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Thinking about pedantry, I wonder if it's partly due to programming. Afterall, if the compiler says it's not right, or the program crashes it's no use in saying "well, that's not what I meant". The computer executes the program exactly as it's written, not as I intended it (more's the pitty). The english language isn't quite as declarative as most computer languages, but it's clear sometimes that people didn't actually mean what they said, it's just that none of us like admitting that.
55 mins to leaving time, and tomorrows a short day, roll on the weekend.

It must take patience to do computer programming - patience I just don't think I have. But then, SPSS does try my patience! Rrrrrr!!!

Originally posted by JonJParr
It must take patience to do computer programming - patience I just don't think I have. But then, SPSS does try my patience! Rrrrrr!!!

I have been known to declare that I hate computers on ocassion.

But to be honest programming comes pretty naturally to me, and errors are generally logical ones rather than syntactical ones.
Of course the bigger the system the more developers have worked on it and the more 'fun' it gets working out what any given bit is doing.

Well, it looks like I missed a lot of fun here. Foofighter - I think you're being unreasonably harsh on Cyclone. It seems you're trying to wind him up rather than discuss the issue with him.

Just noticed you added this as an edit, rather than being "up-front" about it, oh well. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Cyclone
Look ff - I have no idea what point you imagine you are proving, but frankly you're wasting my time. You asked for a concrete definition of something that isn't all that concrete and ridicule it when I present it. Is that your idea of discussion or did you give up discussion at some point in this thread?

Just accept that I don't like your definition of working class as I think it's pointless and I'll accept that you don't care what my definition is and never actually did.
The point is, your main argument against the definition I presented, is that no one (else) would understand it, and yet, you cannot represent a sensible alternative (frankly the one you suggest is farcical) that is universally understood.

In fact no one can (so far), although there have been some credible options presented, they have not been agreed on by even a simple majority.

So, how can you state that the "3 class" system is alive and well?

Your words:
Originally posted by Cyclone
I think the point we were originally arguing against is that Foo's father takes a commonly used phrase (whether it be a lazy one to use or not) and assigns an uncommon meaning to it. Thus making it rather difficult to talk about since we all think it means something different.
Despite the laziness inherent in using the 3 class system, it is not commonly used in a way that means the majority of people are working class, so unless it's a discussion between foo and his dad then using that definition is silly.

Can I try to answer the original question?

No we are not living in a classless society, and yes it still matters.
You believe so strongly in something that you cannot define in a meaningful way, and it really matters to you, even though you don't know what it is.

This sounds more like a religion than a social structure.

:suspect:

I do still find it interesting that you spend so much time attempting to debunk other people, and yet when invited to put forward your own beliefs you become very uncomfortable.

Timo, is there a word (or definition) for this perhaps?

:confused:

Anyway, back a few pages,
Originally posted by foo_fighter
I think we've established what was being debated, the 3 "class" system is pretty much dead and buried, in all real terms.




PS. t020, I am not trying to "wind up" Cyclone, I just don't see where he is coming from, he seems to argue (his words) against people a lot, but be unable to actually present his own case in any legible manner.

Surely the reaction to this thread answers the thread title question with a "no" and a "yes"? Whilst we can't agree on the method of deciding class, everyone has their own ideas about what it means, so we obviously don't live in a classless society. The effort put into the posts shows that it definitely does still matter.

Originally posted by t020
Surely the reaction to this thread answers the thread title question with a "no" and a "yes"?
Not necessarily, it means people disagree with each other about the subject, that's all.
Originally posted by t020
Whilst we can't agree on the method of deciding class, everyone has their own ideas about what it means, so we obviously don't live in a classless society
Quite, we can't even define the subject in a meaningful way, so how can you put people in a given "class", and if you can't do that, the system must be defunct. Case closed your-honour.
Originally posted by t020
...The effort put into the posts shows that it definitely does still matter.
See the first answer.

:)

Foo,
I don't think there is an expression to describe Cyclone's traits. However, as Jon J says, Cyclone is certainly no quitter. As is the case with your good self, and To 20 too. This thread has been the site of some ferociously intense argument but nobody has fallen out. Cyclone, once you get to know his ways , which probably do stem from his 'logical', programming job, is infinitely preferable to some, demented posters I could mention.

Yes, I hand it to Cyclone, he can take the jibes, and the interrogations, and still hold on in there.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Not necessarily, it means people disagree with each other about the subject, that's all.


For people to be disagreeing about something, it has to matter, or else they wouldn't bother arguing about it. Therefore class does still matter.

Originally posted by foo_fighter

Quite, we can't even define the subject in a meaningful way, so how can you put people in a given "class", and if you can't do that, the system must be defunct. Case closed your-honour.


Ok then, what is time? Clearly define the concept of time and if you can't it must be defunct (by your logic).

Population wide (not on this forum) I believe most people have similar ideas about what makes a working, middle or upper class person. This is why the terms are still so widely used in the media.

Originally posted by t020
...Population wide (not on this forum) I believe most people have similar ideas about what makes a working, middle or upper class person. This is why the terms are still so widely used in the media.
This has all been covered in the previous 13 pages.

If you have a sensible definition, which can be agreed upon, please produce it for us all to discuss.

:)

Originally posted by t020
For people to be disagreeing about something, it has to matter, or else they wouldn't bother arguing about it. Therefore class does still matter.





Does that mean it matters? Or does it mean it matters for it not to matter?

Originally posted by bonny
Does that mean it matters? Or does it mean it matters for it not to matter?

It's not appenin fo shizzle.

Mod. Note

Just a quickie - I know that this thread has calmed down now but could users please refrain from name calling.

Some of it comes from people who should know better!

Joe

Originally posted by timo
Cyclone, once you get to know his ways , which probably do stem from his 'logical', programming job, is infinitely preferable to some, demented posters I could mention.


It's odd, but I work in programming and my mind is like a ball of tangled string, I like to keep it that way incase I start to sound like a machine.

Yes, Nick, we know and love how your rare and beautiful mind works. Your bon mot was either your announcement that, if ever you came to power you would have Sir Cliff Richard hurled into a volcano, or possibly, your reference to 'Aldi Qaider' as the supermarket favoured by Saddam Hussein. Sometimes the ball of string unravels in amusing ways...

edit : post removed

Originally posted by LoopyLou

Whether I have agreed with what people have written or not , all opinion matters and everyone is entitled to voice it on an open forum. The personal attacks though were out of order.

If someone's view is different to the 'majority' then it may well feel like they are being backed into a corner but in this case I think this person could have guessed the reaction he was going to get and should in all honesty have been prepared for it and be prepared to back up his views when questionned. I think his emotional and personal response was a mistake and I hope he learns from this on his return.


What happened? Did I miss something?

Originally posted by t020
What happened? Did I miss something?
Me too.

Hey, t020, we finally agree on something. ;) :)

I'm glad it's not just me that felt a little confused by that, it was a bit too cryptic for my feeble brain. :huh:

I'm absolutely baffled too! Loupy, please elucidate. The tangles between Foo, TO20, Jon Parr, my self, Cyclone etc are not to be taken too seriously. I might, for example, refer to Cyclone as 'Metal Mickey' due to his [admitted] pedantry at times, but I also acknowledge his sheer guts in coping with intense interrogations en masse. None of us are enemies...

agreed, although sometimes it does go a little beyond what I would consider to be friendly debate.

Originally posted by Greenback
I'm Greenback!

No, I'm DanSumption!

No, I'm foo_fighter!

No, I'm DanSumption!

(Cirkey, good thing SupraSteve started the threads you are mentioned in (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62514) thread, otherwise I'd never realise I'd been talking about myself)

The Class System has always existed, and will always exist, as class is just an extension of the 'Us' and 'Them' mentality.

It exists on international levels (Developed vs Developing)
On National levels (Northerners/Southerners)
Regional levels (Scousers/Geordies)
City Levels (Eccleshall/Manor)
and even on street levels, where by people at one end of a street think they are better than those living at another side.

Class systems are at individual and group levels, and there are probably people who hold class systems, into which we may fall and we dont even know about it.

For every class given coverage, there are probably many more that aren't.

Class is after all in the eye of the beholder.

you cant buy class, if you come from working parents then your working class

if you won the lottery and lived in a large mansion your past would betray you in the way you speak or carry your self and there would always be some one waiting to remind you of your roots

Originally posted by depoix
you cant buy class, if you come from working parents then your working class

if you won the lottery and lived in a large mansion your past would betray you in the way you speak or carry your self and there would always be some one waiting to remind you of your roots

since class isn't something inherent (ie genetic or environmental) then it must be possible for people to cross class boundaries, otherwise we could never have differentiated into class groups in the first place.
I don't think it's quite as strongly linked to money as you imply anyway.

I say this, if you think we live in a classless society, then you've managed too allow the goverment to brainwash you.

How society has as many different classes now as it always as, if not more.

I do think that with the coming Oil Crises though we will dwindle the classes down to the haves and have nots, then in a short period just too the have nots.

http://www.hubbertwehaveaproblem.co.uk

Originally posted by t020
Surely the reaction to this thread answers the thread title question with a "no" and a "yes"? ... shows that [class] definitely does still matter. yes, whatever it is.

But we haven't got that far yet... ;)

Originally posted by wayne72
How society has as many different classes now as it always as, if not more.
http://www.hubbertwehaveaproblem.co.uk
Eventually we will all be in a class of our own then! Class!

Originally posted by wayne72
How society has as many different classes now as it always as, if not more.
Exactly! "Class" will always be with us in some form, but it will also be different from one era to the next - I've just been watching the Ronnie Barker tribute with the "I look down on him because I am upper class" sketch from the Frost Report - there are still many traces of the upper/middle/working class system with us, but I think that other factors are more important nowadays, and other types of classification have more bearing upon most peoples' lives.

Hmmm this reminds me of something that happened at work a few years ago.

I used to go into the works 'bar' on Thursdays for the regular quiz night. Often there would be one of the Directors and sometimes a member of the 'Board'. I knew them both to look at - often sat opposite them in the bar, but had never had a conversation with them, they'd never glanced in our direction - we, after all, were just 'workers'.

Then one Thursday hubby came to join us. He was dressed in his usual work clothes - smart suit, tie, tie-pin, cuff-links and looks imaculate.

He's sat with us about 10 mins when the 'Board' member strikes up conversation with him :loopy: I was gobsmacked - but quickly realised it was because of the way hubby looked - he did not dress as 'one of the workers' and looked every inch a 'senior person' the Board member saw this, identified with him and felt comfortable talking to him.

I guess the 'Board' member and the Director saw hubby as 'one of them' and to me, that's pretty much what class is all about - are you one of 'us' or one of 'them'?? It happens at all levels, and I guess that sometimes youngsters may see teachers as being in a different 'class' so don't relate to them in the way they might to someone who they see as belonging to their own 'class'.

Hope this makes sense!

Some, like the late French sociologist/philosopher, Pierre Bourdieu, argue that the old systems of stratification and socio-economic classes are out of date. Bourdieu argued that 'class' has been replaced by 'cultural capital'. This equates to the values and norms of the dominant social class. In other words, in order to 'succeed' in life, one must possess 'cultural capital' in the form of middle class speech patterns, deportment, knowledge of the 'high arts' etc. Bourdieu makes the point that working class children are at a great disadvantage in school because they are effectively placed within an alien culture in which their own culture [values and norms etc] is devalued by predominantly middle class teachers.

Bourdieu realises that not all middle class people possess huge amounts of 'cultural capital' in some cases, and identifies 'the philistine middle classes' too. This group are socio-economically 'middle class' by job definition, but they have more in common with the working classes in their scant knowledge of the canon of Western arts, humanities and sciences.

Of course, it is possible to run the proverbial 'horse and carriages' through Bourdieu's theories. There is no 'neatness of fit' here. However, in social science and political science circles, his theory of 'cultural capital' [the extent to which one has absorbed the values and norms of the dominant social class in any society] is a popular one.

Originally posted by timo
Some, like the late French sociologist/philosopher, Pierre Bourdieu, argue that the old systems of stratification and socio-economic classes are out of date. Bourdieu argued that 'class' has been replaced by 'cultural capital'. This equates to the values and norms of the dominant social class. In other words, in order to 'succeed' in life, one must possess 'cultural capital' in the form of middle class speech patterns, deportment, knowledge of the 'high arts' etc. Bourdieu makes the point that working class children are at a great disadvantage in school because they are effectively placed within an alien culture in which their own culture [values and norms etc] is devalued by predominantly middle class teachers.
Exactly so, in fact there was an article in the papers this weekend about how the "old school tie" is in decline (although it still has footholds in a few places) but has been replaced by other forms of "it's not what you know it's who you know". There's also a book by Jeremy Paxman, called "Friends in High Places: Who Runs Britain?" - it was written over 10 years ago, and charted much of the shift in the "ruling classes" particularly over the Thatcher years, but even more has changed since the book was published.

Also, there's another thread on the go at the moment about childrens' names which mentions the fact that teachers tend to be automatically wary of your Dwaynes, Shanes, Kylies and Latetias.

Dan,
You make a good point re names. They are most certainly coded, and act as indicators of socio-economic status. The worst cases are when parents give their offspring 'exotic'-sounding names which the child will grow up to loathe. I heard of a little girl named 'Kiora', the other week. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but isn't that a brand of dilutable orange juice drink?

Originally posted by DanSumption


Also, there's another thread on the go at the moment about childrens' names which mentions the fact that teachers tend to be automatically wary of your Dwaynes, Shanes, Kylies and Latetias.

Did you read the contraversial comments on the TES board? I found it amusing; it was pretty close to the truth too.

:)

Timo - that was interesting - that theory seems to hold a lot of truth. Though I have to ask how the following would fit into this theory: those people who may or may not be well educated (may be self-educated, may be educated to postgrad level) but who do possess incredible knowledge, appreciation and understanding of Arts and Humanities, and yet are distinctly working class in socio-economic terms?

As to whether we have a classless society, those who are poor or disadvantaged would not agree with this!

Originally posted by timo
Dan,
You make a good point re names. They are most certainly coded, and act as indicators of socio-economic status. The worst cases are when parents give their offspring 'exotic'-sounding names which the child will grow up to loathe. I heard of a little girl named 'Kiora', the other week. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but isn't that a brand of dilutable orange juice drink?

But then if you turn that round 360 degrees, you'll find that daddy's little princesses, who tend to work either in PR or marketing, have equally stupid names. Like Tiffinni, or Prima, or Zorah (for example).

Originally posted by timo
The worst cases are when parents give their offspring 'exotic'-sounding names which the child will grow up to loathe. I heard of a little girl named 'Kiora', the other week. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but isn't that a brand of dilutable orange juice drink?

Chiara is a quite ordinary Italian girls name. I think you misheard and misunderstood ;)

Tony,
No, I very much doubt that 'Kiora' is an attempt at the Italian 'Chiara' in this particular case. Her brother is called 'Vimto'.

Class shows itself in many different ways in human social interaction. One tell-tale sign of a genuinely upper-middle class upbringing, apart from other indicators such as speech patterns, deportment, clothes etc, is the ease with which such people converse and generally interact. The Hugh Grant stereotype of the 'umming' and 'erring', diffident, clumsy upper-middle class type is wide of the mark in my experience. The upper -middle classes proper [and I would class myself as merely 'professional, middle class' by virtue of career definition] are at ease with the world in general, though the world is far from at ease with them. They lack the embarrassment which holds back the working classes in particular. They rarely blush, because they are rarely caught out in 'bogus self-presentation'. They are what they are, and look the world firmly in the eye.

It is often wrongly assumed that they are gauche, and used to a life of luxury. I have made it clear that I believe the former a myth, and the latter is only relative. Certainly, as children, the upper-middle classes have to learn to fend for themselves more quckly than the majority of working class and middle class children, because they are so often packed off to boarding school. I often wonder if the life of so-called 'tough', inner-city children is really any harsher? Ultimately, there is no comparison in terms of life-chances, but upper-middle class children certainly have a childhood with greater challenges than mine featured. Few will have sympathy with them, of course, because so many people are 'chippy' about wealth. This includes the present Roundhead government , who despise tradition, and don't want the 'ordinary' middle classes to become affluent, despite relying upon them to pay their huge welfare bills.

Originally posted by timo
Class shows itself in many different ways in human social interaction. One tell-tale sign of a genuinely upper-middle class upbringing, apart from other indicators such as speech patterns, deportment, clothes etc, is the ease with which such people converse and generally interact. The Hugh Grant stereotype of the 'umming' and 'erring', diffident, clumsy upper-middle class type is wide of the mark in my experience. The upper -middle classes proper [and I would class myself as merely 'professional, middle class' by virtue of career definition] are at ease with the world in general, though the world is far from at ease with them. They lack the embarrassment which holds back the working classes in particular. They rarely blush, because they are rarely caught out in 'bogus self-presentation'. They are what they are, and look the world firmly in the eye.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. I used to work with a lot of "upper middle class" people, in a South Kensington advertising agency, and while they all put on a good front of being at peace with the world, behind the mask most of them were a mass of seething neuroses (especially the women).

Originally posted by DanSumption
while they all put on a good front of being at peace with the world, behind the mask most of them were a mass of seething neuroses (especially the women).

I think thats more of a London thing.

Originally posted by nick2
I think thats more of a London thing.
I agree, it is more prevalent in London because of the high cost of living, but these were people from all over the country.

You know, working class, middle class etc. I heard someone make a comment today about how they can't understand the working class yet she couldn't have spoken more common if she tried! Maybe a misconception on my part as to what a working class or otherwise person should look and speak like but I always thought the way people spoke was an indication? I never really thought about class and don't think about it when it comes to other people either. To me people are who they are regardless of their money, background and whatever else.

You’re right. People are people. Despite my still fairly strong Yorkshire accent I’ve never had any problems speaking with the various so-called ‘classes’ because stripped naked they’re all human beings. Unfortunately we do live in a ‘class’ society, it’s been with us for centuries so we now define those same people as upper, middle or working-class — despite the fact that many upper-class people do actually do a job of work. It’s just the funny old world we live in.

Merge with http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39236 ?

I think pretty much every 1 starts out as "working class" no matter of their background (unless they come from a really rich family).

What ever "class" they end up in depends on how much they earn i guess.... but I have never cared for any ones "class", I would rather know the person.

i see myself as a certain class...


...top class!

yes an ethnic down trodden class = white & working

im working class through and through

Im working class with aspirations to become scum. Im getting there slowly...

some people that see me on a school morning or at college may think im the local scruff bag just shover anything on a bit of foundation and thats it.
But the other day my mate from college and me was going out and she said she cant believe how lovley and diffrent i look out of college.
I think people are to quick to judge on image.
I know im not like half of the local tramps ,my house is clean,kids dressed tidy and my partner works id like to think im middle class.
Although i feel a little big headed today and will say im high class lol.
charlie

Im working class with aspirations to become scum. Im getting there slowly...

been there, done that, came out the other side, now im upper skum :)

It doesnt matter what class you see yourself as, that is just flattery to keep you going.

There are two classes only, Working class, and Ruling class.
Among the working class there are self imposed sub-divisions. It is these internal sub-divisions, and sqabbles amonst us, that serve to keep us forever in our position of supporting the ruling powers.

Be you from the lowest sink estate, or the leafy suburbs, in a million pound house, if you are not landed nobility you are a worker.
Any rights you have are only ones they allow you and they can be taken away at the drop of a hat.

Our current idyllic conditions have been fought for centuries, and they are just aching to take them away.
Every penny that you have is one less that they have, and they do not like the situation one iota.
Drop our guard for one minute and they will have us back to the fuedal system within the twinkling of an eye.

As Wat Tylers people were told 'Serfs you are and Serfs you remain'

yes an ethnic down trodden class = white & working



me too, or maybe drinking class

me too, or maybe drinking class

dont be daft....lad

me too, or maybe drinking class

Oscar Wilde "Work is the curse of the drinking class".

Started out working class, but making it up the ladder slowly.

It doesnt matter what class you see yourself as, that is just flattery to keep you going.

There are two classes only, Working class, and Ruling class.
Among the working class there are self imposed sub-divisions. It is these internal sub-divisions, and sqabbles amonst us, that serve to keep us forever in our position of supporting the ruling powers.

Be you from the lowest sink estate, or the leafy suburbs, in a million pound house, if you are not landed nobility you are a worker.
Any rights you have are only ones they allow you and they can be taken away at the drop of a hat.

Our current idyllic conditions have been fought for centuries, and they are just aching to take them away.
Every penny that you have is one less that they have, and they do not like the situation one iota.
Drop our guard for one minute and they will have us back to the fuedal system within the twinkling of an eye.

As Wat Tylers people were told 'Serfs you are and Serfs you remain'

Somebody please burn this mans soapbox and give us all a rest!:)

I am middle class.

And the worst type too.

I was born in a council house on a council estate.

But due to our excellent education system in the 1980's, I gained a free education through to University level.

I have subsequently done rather well and live in a nice big house on a nice estate. I even have a cleaner.

So, I have dragged myself out of the working class slums, and turned my nose up at my former fellow working class buddies and taken up with more middle class chums.

And it feels good.

Thank you Maggie Thatcher.

I am middle class.

And the worst type too.

I was born in a council house on a council estate.

But due to our excellent education system in the 1980's, I gained a free education through to University level.

I have subsequently done rather well and live in a nice big house on a nice estate. I even have a cleaner.

So, I have dragged myself out of the working class slums, and turned my nose up at my former fellow working class buddies and taken up with more middle class chums.

And it feels good.

Thank you Maggie Thatcher.
Only people such as yourself call yourself 'middle class'.
It is a made up phrase by wannabees.
You are working class and working class you will stay, sorry but that is the way it is.
You have burned your bridges, you cannot go back to your roots, and we will not accept in our nice little villages.
You are doomed to live on barrett housing estates for eternity.
You are in a place called purgatory.:hihi: :thumbsup:

Dont you think the 'class system' is out dated? ...

back in the days of marx, there was a distinct difference (ie ... mill owners and mill workers) ... now the defining lines are very hazzy. Bank managers were deffinatly middle class and manual (blue collar workers) working class, however, now a blue collar worker (plumber, electrician/builder ect) earns more than the bank manager ... so what do you gage class on occupation or finance?
I was born and raised in a council house but now live in a privatly owned house in a very conservative area ... does that mean i am now middle class? But i spend my money in the pub .... thats working class.
3 years ago i had hardly any qualifications (working class) ... now im at university (middle class)... have i moved up the class system because of that?

I live in a nice home, drive a nice car and my husband earns a good wage but my values and belief systems come from a working class background, therefore i regard myself as working class and proud.

I don't think there is a clear distinction between the classes anymore. Unless you take someone who works as a ...cleaner (no offence) and some hot shot lawer how are you supposed to define yourself as belonging to a certain class? Is it all about money? Or does appearence and speech part of it? Is it where you live? You can get a council house in many of the 'nice' areas, does this mean these people are middle or high class even though they live in a council property?

i personally cosider myself working class.but will treat and talk to anyone and everyone with the same ammount of respect regardless of class and status etc aslong as they show me the same respect.
basically never judge a book by its cover.
unfortunately society tends to judge people on how they look and dress.
for an experiment i went to a major car dealer in my work clothes looking at expensive cars.guess what not 1 sales person approached me or asked if they could help,i obviously didnt look as tho i could afford the cars.
went bk 2 weeks later with my posh suit on and a shave,and yes they couldnt do enougth for me,i could test drive any car i wanted no questions asked.
this is the sad world we live in.

Merge with http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39236 ?

Thanks, threads merged.

It doesnt matter what class you see yourself as, that is just flattery to keep you going.

There are two classes only, Working class, and Ruling class.
Among the working class there are self imposed sub-divisions. It is these internal sub-divisions, and sqabbles amonst us, that serve to keep us forever in our position of supporting the ruling powers.

Be you from the lowest sink estate, or the leafy suburbs, in a million pound house, if you are not landed nobility you are a worker.
Any rights you have are only ones they allow you and they can be taken away at the drop of a hat.

Our current idyllic conditions have been fought for centuries, and they are just aching to take them away.
Every penny that you have is one less that they have, and they do not like the situation one iota.
Drop our guard for one minute and they will have us back to the fuedal system within the twinkling of an eye.

As Wat Tylers people were told 'Serfs you are and Serfs you remain'

Pretty much sums up my opinion of classes in society too. It will forever be 'us' and 'them' and all the nuances of class are artificially created to keep 'us' bickering among ourselves.

class system is of course loada ol' lobbox

but

you can't tell class by how much money someone makes, but by how they spend it

simple as

How do you define class? Do you have to be "High born" to have it? Can people from council housing estates have an innate sense of class? Does it have to be learned or instilled in someone?
I know several people who have never even been close to a council estate who have no class at all, and I know people form these estates who are dripping with class. Of course, I also know people from both sides of the fence who fit the sterotype perfectly, from nasty little chavs on council estates to people in huge houses who act as if they have a pound of plums rammed into each cheek.
Does accent count...?

So, what defines class for you? Is there a medium, a level of class that is acceptable without appearing to lean too far to one way or the other? Do you consider yourself to have class?

Personally, Im OOZING with class even though I`m council house scum who managed to get away from the estates, but even when I lived on The Cross, I was classy enough to gob into the gutter instead of onto the footpath and I always said "Good `un" after I broke wind in public.

usually a group of 25-30 children hoping to learn something ;)

Personally I think that "class" is something you are largely born into, but dignity is something which any member of any class can have (or choose not to have through bad manners and apalling behaviour).
x

usually a group of 25-30 children hoping to learn something ;)

No. No no no no no I didnt mean THAT kind of cla...

Youre trying to wind me up...arent ya...?

Me? I'm far too classy to attempt a wind up ;)

You know that bint off big brother...? That Jade bint...?


Thats you, that is.

Shes your hero.

By someones behavoir? I don't think it's a money thing

Personally I think that "class" is something you are largely born into, but dignity is something which any member of any class can have (or choose not to have through bad manners and apalling behaviour).
x

Dignity associated with class, I never thought of it that way.

On reflection, I suppose Im saying the word "Class" but I actually mean dignity.
Good point.

i think that yes you are generally born into class, but i do agree, that even if you were born on a council estate (like i was) you can choose to have manners/etiquette and common decency.
I don't believe that money gives you class though, just education and upbringing.
I actually belive that i am the worst kind of snob, one who doesn't necessarily want to be a snob, but i do have ideals and as much as i am ashamed of it, i do sometimes look down my nose at people. Not necessarily poorer people, but those who are just ignorant and have no dignity and think that the world owes them a living and they can get what they want by having a big gob.

Threads merged

Personally I think that "class" is something you are largely born into, but dignity is something which any member of any class can have (or choose not to have through bad manners and apalling behaviour).
x

Very eloquently put i think that about covers it :D

From a sociological standpoint class is broadly defined by occupation, income and lifestyle factors.

ie: aristocracy, professional class, middle classes (lower, middle and higher), working class, (skilled and unskilled manual worker), and the underclass .. people living on very low incomes.

A persons so called class is largely a result of an accident of birth, family background, environment, housing schooling - the so called whole socialization process.

Don't forget the upper classes can display instances of appalling behaviour, its not just a working class, council estate phenomenon.

Think of, our Honourable friends in the Commons, high jinks from students, and the Hooray Henry brigade. Unlike our hoodies, their behaviour does not usually attract criminal sanctions.

I think it's pretty straight forward...there are too many variables to possibly lump people into a "class" system. Increase that to the modern day 8 categories and you're still having a laugh.

As all the threads show - there are too many "exceptions" to the rule.

Why try? What does it achieve? What matters, is that you're alive - health isn’t a bad thing either. To be blunt, anyone who bothers about class isn't worth bothering about. Look beyond the artificial/superficial - look at the HUMAN BEING. Are they decent, nice etc - that's the winning combination in my book.

That said, this has been a great thread to read! What people say and think about class can be quite insightful. But I wouldn't spend too long on it - time to get back to reality now and make more use of the remaining 50 or so yrs I have left.