If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Social Classes and Mobility
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So. Following on from the fascinatingly derailed thread in the student forum, I thought I'd post something in the appropriate place - some comments got me thinking.
How would you define someone's social class? Is it interests? Income? Upbringing? And does it even matter any more? There's more mobility between the social classes now than ever before - some might say we have a classless system (clearly not, but that's the theory) - and is this why it doesn't matter any more?
I'm still formulating my thoughts on it
How would you define someone's social class? Is it interests? Income? Upbringing? And does it even matter any more? There's more mobility between the social classes now than ever before - some might say we have a classless system (clearly not, but that's the theory) - and is this why it doesn't matter any more?
I'm still formulating my thoughts on it
0
Comments
Your starting presumption is in fact incorrect, social mobility (by some measures at least) has fallen during the Blair years, but this is to be entirely expected goven that intelligence/ability is to a large degree a genetic inheritance..........
Well yes. Social class is of little interest to me.
Money doesn't buy class or intelligence. I know some very good examples of this.
Just had to stick that last bit in didn't you? Apart from that clearly bullshit last bit, I actually totally agreed with you on that one. Then your prejudices go and ruin it.
This debate is actually quite interesting as this term, one of my Russian units was a course on 18th century Russian thought and literature which may or may not interest you, but one of the central themes of the age, what with the Enlightenment knocking about, was whether nobility is inhereted or earned, owing to Peter the Great's massive reforms, moving Russia towards being a totally meritocratic society.
The central debate basically went as follows : if you are a member of the nobility, you cannot just rest on the deeds of your ancestors (ie. the deeds that gained them nobility in the first place) - it is up to you to honour your ancestors by doing noble deeds yourself and thus making yourself worthy of the title bestowed upon you by your birth. Also, it draws a very clear distinction between a nobleman and a noble man. This echoes what Montescieu (sp?) and all those French geezers were discussing at the time as well.
This is also touched upon in Great Expectations - the difference between a gentleman and a gentle man. Being a gentleman is not about education, knowledge of fine wines or knowing how to dance, it's about being a gentle man. Interesting stuff, n'est pas?
Perhaps the same is true these days? It's not about where you went to school, what your parents did or what you do for a living, but more how you yourself act. Perhaps it's not entirely like that these days but class distinctions have been becoming more and more blurred since the industrial revolution and I can only imagine will continue to do so.
Yeah I agree with the second part.
Yes, there was always going to be a limit on mobility because of those factors.
You say it's a largely meaningless concept, but still, as far as banks, surveys, market research etc are concerned, it's still a valid way of dividing up the general population. Is it valid though? Given that someone could be born on a council estate and end up with a business empire and a not inconsiderable amount of money (Gordon Ramsay, for example...). What would be more valid instead?
That's perhaps a description of an idealised middle class, rather than a description of 'class' (as in the social sense of working, middle and upper)
But your occupation isn't really the same as your class I would say.........
I think if one were to define someone as a particular class however, it would have to include considerably more information than just their occupation.
Economic class needs no explaination.
Social class is about different cultural values.
I do believe that 'class' is an issue. Some parts of the UK are a bit in the shit and it is more difficult for people to get jobs, or get away. Whatever people say about university, if you have kids, a house to look after and are already not very financially well off then it is a lot harder and I can easily see why it puts people off. There's also a class factor in some jobs (I believe)... hence some people I know who are in their early twenties and have never had a job will probably still find something the minute they leave, most likely through contacts.
Whilst still at university, somebody who has to work 30 hours a week to support themselves (I know people like this) has less time to study than somebody whose parents jus give them money. Furthermore, if you have more free time, especially in the summer then you can get an internship, or volunteer which is a good few steps higher at least on the career ladder in many areas, than three years of bar work and stacking shelves.
I do see class as an issue and have no idea how it is to be resolved. But it definately still exists. It also depends on what you call 'social mobility'. I don't see social mobility as something which can be defined by access to commodities and information, but personally I relate it more to the power you have in your job. People from upper/middle class (relative to definition) still rule the country. You only need to look at our history of grammar and private school and Oxbridge graduate Prime Ministers to see that.
The day a black gay woman who grew up in a council estate and who worked her way up to become Prime Minister is the day we can safely say social mobility exists. imo
What about interests and hobbies? There's a general stereotype of 'working class' people liking... i don't know, dog fighting (football would be the obvious choice but it's too easy to dispute) and 'upper class' people liking shooting, polo and opera (two extremes)... but do they enjoy it because of the class they are born into and that's how they're conditioned to spend their free time, or do they enjoy it because the wealth they accumulate gives them access to it? Because on that basis, people who support and want to see premiership football teams will ALL have to be in the middle and upper classes because of the price of tickets.
And that relies on the assumption that people more often than not achieve what their natural level of intelligence would suggest of them, which isn't the case because of the disadvantages someone has coming from a lower income family, as well as the simple fact that not everyone wants to achieve as much as they can at all costs. Not to mention that there are many other factors other than intelligence involved in making money. Who's richer? Steven Hawking or Bill Gates? Who's more intelligent? Who's children will have better opportunities? I realise I'm comparing the rich with the super rich here, but bring it down a few million pounds, and you have the difference between a private school and the local comp, the difference between volunteering in the summer and working for cash, the difference between having contacts who can give opportunities to your kids, and your kids having to find everything themselves.
This study carried out very recently, places Britain at the bottom of the so-called social mobility, just behind the USA. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are at the top. One of the reason's suggested is the educational advantages having money can get you in Britain, compared to other countries in the world (they quantified it on a graph on the BBC, and it was insanely higher, but I've not been able to find it).
I think it is simply defined as "If you're born into a family, which is in the bottom 20% of earners, how likely are you to still be in the bottom 20% of earners by the time you're grown up?"
I don't know how some of you can say that class doesn't matter anymore when people are so very different based on social class. Yes, there is reasonable economic class mobility - people from all backgrounds can become wealthy/successful doctors, managers, business leaders etc. But this won't change their social class - just because you become rich doesn't mean you'll suddenly be welcomed by middle/upper class social circles and do the things they do. In a country where a lot of these groups still ask ask a first question "what [prep] school did you go to" even though you've graduated, what your parents do etc there is rife elitism based on your background rather than meritocracy.
I think class divisions in UK are much greater than racial ones - if you are black/Asian but go to Eton you'll have a wealth of top opportunities, much more than a white person who goes to a normal school of course.
Some friendship groups, particularly those gained at some universities, will have people from a range of social classes/backgrounds, but generally social groups are much more likely to be exclusive to the social class in question - "posh"-looking people may not exactly be welcomed in a traditionally working class pub, and vice-versa for a gentleman's club.
Whilst economic mobility can easily happen within the space of 5 years - someone going from a bad school to a good uni to a good job, social mobility would take an entire generation, for example this newly rich person sending their children to a top school. We've seen this with a lot of British Asians for example, who came here with nothing, worked hard to become rich, and now their children go to Eton/Westminster and have penetrated the upper echelons of society.
Finally, this BBC article today is very interesting:
It will take time for things to trickle down. I suspect judges in 40 years time will be a much more mixed bunch.
I don't think a judge is there to represent the public. They are there to be impartial and to apply the law equally to all.
I go to court a lot and although all the judges I have seen have been old white men, a lot of the barristers are women, some are Asian and black...these are the people who will go on to be judges. I don't mean them specifically but judges are generally taken from barristers, so if more women/ethnic minorities/ppl from different backgrounds are barristers, it stands to reason that in years to come, the make up of judges will reflect that.
I would disagree, I would certainly say that the majority achieve what their intelligence allows them to, certainly a lot more than in earlier generations at least.
In general intelligent people will do better than less intelligent people, there really can be little argument with that.
The level of mobility may be less than other countries for whatever reason but the trend for lower mobility is to be expected because once you have moved from a relatively immobile society to a relatively mobile society and a meritocracy, because ability is largely inherited, families are likely to remain in their category in large numbers of cases.
hence why it is no surprise that children of graduates are more likely to go to university than children of non-graduates for example......
Exactly, when these old geezers were of University age, Oxbridge really did represent, to all intents and purposes, the be all and end all of higher education which couldn't be further from the truth these days.
All this shit about manners and dress sense are bollocks.
Social mobility was actually more prevelant in the 50's than it is today.
hmmm I am inclined to disagree. Having just completed the LPC at UWE and therefore meeting fellow students doing the BVC, I have first hand knowledge.
The majority of those at UWE either stayed from their degree or transferred from a similar uni, and most have pupillages.
Any chance you know Jomery? I think you would get on rather well.
Anyone can learn etiquette.
UWE = University of the West of England
I was under the assumption all the inns of court were based in London? Yeah it is hard to get in, but they dont only take those from Oxbridge.