Are we living in a classless society? Does class still matter?

[t020]

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".

 

 

He made his point well then?

[Cyclone]

Originally posted by t020

He made his point well then?

 

does that mean he lost the point?

[t020]

Originally posted by Cyclone

does that mean he lost the point?

 

It looks that way if that was his best comeback.

[timo]

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.

[foo_fighter]

Originally posted by t020

He made his point well then?

[YAWN] Oh dear [/YAWN]

 

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.

 

[t020]

Originally posted by foo_fighter

[YAWN] Oh dear [/YAWN]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

[Cyclone]

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

[YAWN] Oh dear [/YAWN]

 

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.

 

[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.

[Phanerothyme]

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.

[foo_fighter]

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?