April 02, 2004

• something about this article reminds me of 1995 for some reason.
• I know several people like this. But I'm definately not in that club ... It came as a shock when I went ski-ing with some of them last year: I'm used to easyjet - they all have BA club cards and were swanning in and out of the club lounges - It's a different world, but I'm glad I'm not part of it
• I find it interesting that they are referred to as a 'cosmopolitan middle class.' Cosmopolitan certainly, but I wasn't aware that folks with Gucci luggage qualified as middle class.
• What is it with the abuse of class terminology? These people would only be middle class by a VERY old (eighteenth century) definition - that is, they work for a living, rather than owning an estate, in a non-manual job. Perhaps in Britain, where there still is a landed upper class who (though not as powerful as they once were) have a very distinct culture (in which my brief brush with the bottomest of left me feeling a gauche colonial, and wishing for my nice comfortable, back-deck beer-swilling Canada) - but for the rest of the world, North America included, these people are our upper class. Actually - in Britain, the children of the landed gentry do have to go out and get jobs in finance, etc, to keep up their land. So this class is co-opting the traditional aristocracy.
• I dunno - you could probably argue that these days the upper class, if they're still the ruling class, are the minute group of super rich business man, politicians and dictators who actually do the ruling. That just means that every one in the world, except for about 2000 people, is middle class or below. Anyway, Britain's a classless society, these days, don't you know?
• It would probably, for the sake of clear academic discussion, make sense to distinguish between an upper class and a ruling elite. In the medieval and early modern period, the upper class in England (can't speak for the other three countries of Britain) were all those who were large landowners, and thus, some degree of gentility. It definately shades off at the bottom (class is fuzzy at best) into the large farmers and yeoman, but the small gentry still tried to live a different lifestyle (heard a really good paper on that last year). The gentry were, in the early modern period) about 2% of the population - and yet, there were only about 400 peers, and maybe another 500 MPs. Of course, considering the limited franchise, one could argue the gentility were the ruling class simply because they (and a few yeomen, and some unwashed urban folk) could vote. You are definately right that in terms of power, the super rich bussiness men are the ruling elite. But I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the traditional upper class. Who fills JP seats and local government? Whose children are most likely to move into powerful positions in business and government? And who funds the *&^& hunting lobby? ;) I think, though, that the traditional English upper class will be co-opted, adopt this international cosmopolitan class - I see it happening with people around my age (25-35). The gentry are sending their children to business school. Of course, so are the middle classes, and even some working class, so it is a very interesting time. But one culture may prove dominant - I visited a Cambridge college for some time last year, and I found that while the majority of the students were middle and working class, the upper class culture has a great deal of staying power, especially in the undergraduate culture. Since I met many social historians, I also met people who would conciously reject it, but they were also mostly professors and graduate students who may be under a different sort of peer-pressure. Oh, yes, dng, of course there are no classes in England anymore. That's why I met people who talked about class war when Fitzwilliam played Trinity at football :) (actually, I wish people overhere were more willing to talk about class - in North America there are people who are actually convinced it doesn't exist until it confronts them.)
• The idea that America is classless always amuses me. Also, I'm not going to argue history with jb. You'll kick my sorry arse. (Actually, I'm not going to argue with jb cos I agree with her. And her username is shorter than mine. I only argue with people whose user name is longer than mine. Some sort of envy, I expect) An opinion piece from today's Guardian about the lack of social mobility in Britain. (Polly Toynbee is one of those ever so well meaning, infuriating, middle class liberals the Guardian has so many of - and sells so many copies of itself to. When they need a story about how terrible it is to be poor, they get here to pretend to be poor for a couple of weeks, instead of obviously paying an actual poor person to talk about it. That just wouldn't have any resonance, now, would it?) Britain, actually, is in an odd position, now. For the first time in my life - and probably for the first time since the war - the British are the richest people in Europe. Close to full employment, bouyant currency - we're the new pre-Unification West Germany right now. But without any sort of social mobility, I wonder if this is just a short term positive. In my opinion, the greatest move towards true democracy, true inclusion, within a society is free education, at all levels. Without it, my Dad would be pipefitting today, most probably, instead of designing satellites (he'd probably be making more money, too, but thats not really the point). My sister would be working at Tesco's instead of being an actuary. Etc, etc, etc. Free education, both academic and vocational, for all allows each and every person to do what they are good at, so the people who'd excel at pipe fitting become pipe fitters, and those who would excel at designing satellites are able to do this, too. Unfortunately, education is becoming more and more expensive in Britain, which is only going to end up reinforcing class lines. To my mind, the biggest failure of America is the cost of its education. (I'm posting while drunk, so apologies if this is all a little incoherent, or completely off topic. I haven't even read the article, yet.)
• No, the biggest failure of America is the quality of its early education, and the business community and other bureaucracies' failure to uplift kids from poverty. Unforgivable.
• dng: If you're right, then Britain is in danger of falling hard. They've been raising university tuition fees rather rapidly, I hear. And it's very likely to go much higher. Soon, British graduands can proudly join the Americans in becoming debt-ridden once they start work.
• dng: I'm so flattered. Actually, I really wanted the username "j", but the system wouldn't allow less than 2 characters :) I try to make up for the succinctness of my name with comments to contrast. You are more than right to disbelieve in a classless America (or Canada, for that matter.) Though the class cultures over here are very different from England, they are definately there. Race is a bigger issue, of course, especially as the most prominant minorities are not immigrants (notably African-Americans, many Hispanics and Native Americans), and race sometimes blinds even people who study inequality to the issues of class (personally, I think a great deal of the meaning of race in the US is the fact that your race makes you more or less likely to be a member of a particular class and culture - it's not simply skin, but the combination with income and education/culture that makes the biggest disadvantage, but then I have professional reasons to push for that interpretation). I also agree whole heartedly with you on the access to education issue, and that a healthy state education system is the backbone of a socially mobile society. What I have come to realise, however, in my slightly obsessive reading about university admission, etc, issues is that lowering or eliminating tuition seems to have less effect than we social-democrat types hope. From my reading of studies and articles, and the observation of myself and others, I think there are many "soft" issues around social mobility though education that are rarely addressed. Like the impact of both parental literacy and culture (pro-education?)/support on achievement in primary and secondary education. The nature of one's school is also very important - schools that rarely send students to university will be much more hard-pressed to prepare or advise already disadvataged pupils on applying to universities, especially prestigious ones. I think this shows in the fact that the most prestigious British universities tend to have just about as many students trained in private schools as the most prestigious and expensive American ones. Which is not to say one should have high tuition - that causes its own terrible effects, like high debt and discouragement of poor students from even trying to better themselves. But that it is not enough to simply have low costs, and hope things work themselves out. If the will is there (as I think it is in Britain, but maybe not in the US - again a different culture, as I mentioned in the thread on socialism/capitalism), attention to equality and social mobility issues must start at the very beginning of education. But the problems are also fueled by inequalities between the universities themselves. In Canada, I found that not only did it matter less what university one had been to at the undergraduate level, but it also happened that even the most prestigious universities were so large they were not difficult to get into (partly because those who care about such things go for the American Ivy League, etc. or Oxbridge). But I gather that income and opprotunity differentials are much greater in Britian for someone who went to Oxbridge, or one of the other prestigious universties (what are they called? so they have an easy handle like the Ivy League?) than they are for those who attend different Canadian universties. (Where I think I actually received a really good education - certainly to hold my own among students trained at more prestigious and expensive places in the US.)
• AND BACK TO THE THREAD OF TOPIC: I did find this article very interesting, though it illuminates a world I have brushed against, but never understood. I don't know if many of us would. It is a life as different from the typical middle class experience as living in a slum on welfare is. (Yes, I agree again with dng that pieces on poverty written by those who are slumming are more common than any other - but I think that is because Middle England/America would never trust a poor person to be telling the truth (They are all lazy, dirty liers, don't you know?). The articulate uni-educated have to do it themselves, so that they can tell the other middle class that really, it does suck to be poor, and they aren't just putting you on. But then, the non-intellectual middle-classes don't listen, because clearly the writer is just a bleeding heart liberal who was faking what being poor is - had they just bugetted better, they would be totally comfortable in their badly maitenenced, cockroach infested cramped apartments.) I found the comments about civil society interesting - I have to disclose that I am currently studying with the professor, Frank Prochaska, cited in the article, and I don't know that I always agree as to his assessment about the factors that encourage civil society/its importance versus other things like social welfare. The local issue is something he has not brought up in class, but that seems like it is something worth investigating. The connectedness one feels not to so much a city, but to a neighbourhood, would have a huge impact on the amount of involvement in that community. One of the things I have noticed since moving from Toronto (large, fairly prosperous city) to New Haven (small, very poor and economically depressed city) is that the local people here have very strong historical ties to this place and a sense of community I didn't often feel in Toronto (exceptions to be noted, of course). One of the effects has been that I actually feel safer here (where crime is supposed to be high) than I would in many places in Toronto. (Well, except that I am so oblivious to these sorts of things normally, that I generally feel safe everywhere. Powers of non-observation do much for peace of mind).
• From the article: This may mean discovering their native country after they have come to know a few others, but perhaps that is no bad thing. That about sums it up. I discovered my country after immigrating to Canada at 16. If people (who can afford it) want to see a few countries before choosing one to call their own, more power to them. The choice could be as important as choosing a spouse.