Class

Everyone knows that we in Britain are more class-bound in our attitudes than anyone-else, except perhaps the Hindus in India. We are known to define ourselves in terms of a range of classes and sub-classes from upper class to working class. And we look down on or up to each other accordingly. Following the takeover by William the Conqueror, it was he and his entourage who took the positions of power and became the new upper class, much no doubt to the chagrin of the previous Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, who would have regarded them as ‘nouveaux' and ‘arrivistes' and just, well, too français. We didn't really have any other major upsets after that until the aftermath of the two world wars. Oliver Cromwell did have a go at changing things permanently, but the fact that he didn't really do class was probably the reason why his new order didn't last much after his death. At the top level, after all, the trappings of class are a reward for faithful service. If you don't reward your followers well, particularly after a civil war, then they'll transfer their allegiance to someone who will. I do wonder, however, to what extent class is still important in society, rather than being simply an echo from earlier times. Advertisers, for example, faced with getting a good return on their budgets categorise us in terms of income, jobs type, educational attainment and many other measurable factors and target adverts accordingly. They do not take much notice of the traditional class divisions. Now it is certainly true that there is still a nebulous idea of class which permeates society and much time and ink has been used in trying to categorise people by their titles, manners, accents and use of the word ‘lavatory'. But do the class divisions have any generally agreed definition? Is class useful in describing people? Personally, I find it very difficult to use it in a way which tells me anything very useful about any individual. Rather, I find myself trying to shoehorn a person into my rather vague notions of a class category, when in reality no individual can be defined so simplistically. Most of us have characteristics which cross traditional class divides to some extent. I dare say that even the toffs like bangers and mash from time to time. If we look at individuals, we see that each will belong to many different social groups: the banker who goes to Aston Villa matches; the lawyer who goes to evening classes at the local comp to improve his French; the newspaper editor who belongs to the local bowls club. In the detail of what we do, we are able to see each other in more than the monochromatic light of class. It is perhaps an irony of our times that the stately homes are now largely owned by the National Trust (i.e us), or else by aristocratic owners reduced to making ends meet by letting the public parade around them and hiring them out for corporate events. Such is the relevance of our old class system. Indeed probably the most visible ‘class' nowadays (in the media, at least) is a new group of people - the Celebrity Class, which is a mixture of everyone who has somehow contrived to get in the public eye, from actors and billionaires to the latest winner of Big Brother. It is a class of all classes and possibly both the most desired and most despised of all of them. And also the most irrelevant to the reality of almost all of our lives. But whatever I may think about the relevance of class, it is still true that I am not likely to mix much with other groups of people who do not share one or more of my interests. Why would I? And my interests are quite likely to be influenced considerably by how I was brought up, my education and the type of work I do. In itself this is not a problem: we do what we want to do and mix with whom we want to mix. And if an aristocrat does not want to mix with me simply because of his perception that he is superior to me, then his blinkered vision is his problem. John Prescott, as we have seen in documentary, in being fixated on seeing things from a working class perspective, is similarly blinkered. I was brought up in working class circumstances, with the tin bath hanging on the kitchen wall, but do not now define myself by that. I had my opportunities, as did my parents, and we took them. As did John Prescott. By my own efforts, and with the support of my parents, I have moved on. But this is not a way open to everyone. And it is here that a real class problem exists: amongst that underclass of people, who live in dreadful conditions and who do not have the choices which the rest of us have. They cannot take advantage of the chances that education gives if they are not encouraged to attend school, if they take drugs or are in prison. They will not maximise their chances of good health if they live in conditions where chips are the only vegetable. For us to talk about equality of opportunity for them is vacuous: even if excellent schools and health systems are there for them, the major influence in peoples' lives remains that of their parents or indeed parent. Statistically, the children of well-educated, well-off parents will usually progress just as well if they go to reasonably well-performing state schools as if they go to private schools. For the other extreme in society, no amount of external provision of opportunity will overcome the malign influence of a home where there is no thought of trying to improve their position; where it is perfectly normal for state benefits, rather than work, to put burgers on the table and to keep the TV turned on in the corner of the room. Can we deal with this in any way? You would think that the Conservatives would say that it is up to each person to ‘get on his bike' and sort himself out. It is therefore all the more surprising that the Conservative sponsored ‘Centre for Social Justice', run by former conservative party leader Ian (Duncan) Smith is saying just the opposite. (See http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk ). They say that more state-sponsored intervention is needed in such families to help them to cope with their circumstances and so lift them out of poverty and into a more productive life. As always, the devil is in the detail, both that of the policies and of the individuals lives. Combining the need for intervention to help such people out of those circumstances with the need to let them take responsibility for their own lives as much as possible is very difficult but, it seems, is possible granted the will, and money, to do it. So then, it seems to me that we can live with most of our class system: its influence on most of our lives is largely imaginary, but it helps us to promote the picture that foreigners have of us - as totally bound up in tradition. That, after all, is why they continue to come and spend money here as tourists. What we do not want them to see, however are the conditions of those at the bottom of the heap. And that is where the influence of class is real and, sadly, not imaginary.

 Home      Caro Diario     Philosophy     Who am I?      Links     Photos of Annecy