Class in Britain
Tonight I've been reading about class. It's presently 2:30am and I intend continuing reading about class, but with a glass of wine. Which is poignant in so many ways.
I have been mainly reading David Cannadine's "Class in Britain". I intend answering a question on class in my exam on British Social History on Friday so I thought I ought to read up on it. As you do.
I remember buying this book in about 1997 for Neville's* birthday , which he shares with me. This coincidence allows us to send non-too-subtle hints via my mother as to what we expect from each other present-wise. Hence a 16 year old buying someone a work of sociological history as a birthday present. I have however fallen down in recent years by failing completely to honour his birthday in the manner I'm sure he'd expect. I don't even have the excuse of forgetting it. I'm generally a pretty inconsiderate person.
I had however, never read the book. Which is why, when I recognised it on the reading list I decided to tackle it first. I think it's really rather interesting. The basic thesis appears to be that there are three models of class identification in Britain:
1. Upper, Middle and Lower/ Aristocracy, Bourgeoisy, Proletariat
2. Us V. Them
3. Organic/traditional heirachy of individuals each with a determinate social position.
[Correction: I don't mean determinate here as in, 'inevitable' or 'scientifically determined' or anything. It's clumsy wording but I can't think of what I should have put instead.]
He appears to be arguing that actually none are true, and that all three are true. Essentially that in reality social relations are far more complex than class divisions can capture but that what has defined our relationship with class has actually had far more to do with how our politicians talk about it, and how we see ourselves. (I.e. the Inter-war political consensus was very much about perpatuating the 3rd for fear of falling victim to the 1st).
I've not read the final chapter regarding developments up to the present day (or, rather 1997) but I'll let you know how it progresses. I feel this may have me thinking...
*who shortly afterwards, married my mother. I'm not sure what
this says about anything really.
I have been mainly reading David Cannadine's "Class in Britain". I intend answering a question on class in my exam on British Social History on Friday so I thought I ought to read up on it. As you do.
I remember buying this book in about 1997 for Neville's* birthday , which he shares with me. This coincidence allows us to send non-too-subtle hints via my mother as to what we expect from each other present-wise. Hence a 16 year old buying someone a work of sociological history as a birthday present. I have however fallen down in recent years by failing completely to honour his birthday in the manner I'm sure he'd expect. I don't even have the excuse of forgetting it. I'm generally a pretty inconsiderate person.
I had however, never read the book. Which is why, when I recognised it on the reading list I decided to tackle it first. I think it's really rather interesting. The basic thesis appears to be that there are three models of class identification in Britain:
1. Upper, Middle and Lower/ Aristocracy, Bourgeoisy, Proletariat
2. Us V. Them
3. Organic/traditional heirachy of individuals each with a determinate social position.
[Correction: I don't mean determinate here as in, 'inevitable' or 'scientifically determined' or anything. It's clumsy wording but I can't think of what I should have put instead.]
He appears to be arguing that actually none are true, and that all three are true. Essentially that in reality social relations are far more complex than class divisions can capture but that what has defined our relationship with class has actually had far more to do with how our politicians talk about it, and how we see ourselves. (I.e. the Inter-war political consensus was very much about perpatuating the 3rd for fear of falling victim to the 1st).
I've not read the final chapter regarding developments up to the present day (or, rather 1997) but I'll let you know how it progresses. I feel this may have me thinking...
*who shortly afterwards, married my mother. I'm not sure what
this says about anything really.
posted by Pickles @ 2:28 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home