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

[timo]

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.

[Cyclone]

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.

[nick2]

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.

[JonJParr]

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.

[timo]

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.

[nick2]

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 ?

[foo_fighter]

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.

 

 

 

 

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

 

[Cyclone]

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

[foo_fighter]

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?

 

 

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.

 

[Cyclone]

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.