The topic of the article wasn't all that interesting to me, but I thought this quip was interesting.
Does anyone have any references that expand on the merit of it?
Or thoughts on the idea in general?
They seem to think they will be working class for the rest of their lives and there's noticeable hate/resent for the rich.
Being an immigrant, I didn't notice any of this stuff. I didn't notice the dismissive polite attitude, I thought it was just politeness. You know, when someone wealthier talks to you, they're polite but there's subtle signals that they consider you "inferior".
I only saw the opportunities, of which there are plenty. I didn't see classes, I just saw that it is possible to go from working class to upper class, much easier than in most other EU countries.
I did start noticing these "subtle signals" after a year and a half or so, but honestly I just decided to ignore them. Since I would always be a foreigner, people would just cut me some slack for not understanding stuff (this also happens in Japan afaik).
Clothes play an important role, surprisingly (OK, maybe not that surprising). If you're in dirty workwear and a hi-vis vest, you're pretty much considered bottom of the barrel. With the right clothes, you can turn into anything from a "chav" or a middle class manager to a millionaire (though you also need the attitude - no slouching, make eye contact, etc).
Just some of my thoughts.
The subtle signals are about who your parents are, which of the different educational streams you went through, and - more than anything - who you know. Clothes will display all of that indirectly, but the core is always about families and networks.
The idea that opportunities exist is very much a middle class mindset, and anyone who pursues it will inevitably run into the class ceiling. You can make a huge pile of money but it won't buy you entry into the upper classes. At best you'll be a nouveau "someone we can do business with" - or the technical help.
Under the considerable surface polish and politeness the defining characteristics of the upper classes are effortless social - not just professional - confidence, personal entitlement, and exceptionalism. Members are strongly encouraged to believe in all of the above from birth, and it's very hard for outsiders to understand this. There's also a curious affinity with more successful - let's say almost managerial - working class criminals.
I used to live in an upper class enclave, and it was quite astonishing how much time these people spent trying to screw each other over with disputes over family inheritances, property and land rights, various investment scams, and so on.
"Class", by Paul Fussell, is amusing, if dated.
Told to me by an Irish person:
You know the difference between an Irishman and an American? The American looks up at that big, shining mansion on the hill, and says, "someday... someday... I'm gonna be that guy". The Irishman looks up at that big, shining mansion on the hill, and says, "someday... someday... I'm gonna get that bastard".
As an American living in Ireland 8 years now....
Yup.
Disclaimer: my knowledge of British culture is horribly outdated, and mostly draws from George Mikes' "How to be an alien" and TV shows.
I always thought that truly high society in Britain sometimes wears rags, and the neat clothing was a sign of either working class or "new riches". George Mikes makes fun of this:
> On Sundays on the Continent even the poorest person puts on his best suit, tries to look respectable, and at the same time the life of the country becomes gay and cheerful; in England even the richest peer or motor-manufacturer dresses in some peculiar rags, does not shave, and the country becomes dull and dreary.
But it's not just his opinion; for example in the TV show "Traitors", set in postwar London, a character coming from a high society family derides someone for dressing "too well", signalling lower class/new riches, and because of how he pronounces "opera" (according to her, it's "opera" for the lower classes, and "op'ra" for the higher classes).
Your observation that the subtle cues seem to be the only thing keeping the classes apart is precisely the goal. This way it costs minimal effort to keep the stratification in tact.
https://scontent.fqls1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/88175441_110...
they'll continue to make a career in entertainment, never transitioning to posing for banknotes like the woman in this picture:
https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_1100,c_fill,g_aut...
(Both backgrounds have automobiles and feature greenery, and the men in them all wear trousers. Are there any other similarities?)
Brave New World's "I'm glad to be a β" is funnier if one takes it as an observation, like Cleese's and the 2 Ronnies' 60's treatment, of the actual british class system as it existed in 1930. Having read the M-M-Mitford sisters as well as White Mischief, "everyone belongs to everyone else" may not have been ethnologically that far off of the faster upper class sets. Compare note 3,5 of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24250082 . On a grimmer note, an irish friend told me that the wide eyes of fetal alcohol syndrome were obvious in many faces of the generations before hers.
Is there a name for the "straight man" who motivates an infodump in fiction? In the Yes, Minister series, Sir Humphrey Appleby GCB KBE MVO (as he is now, Winchester) frequently has an excuse to infodump because Jim Hacker (as he was then, school unknown) went to the LSE and therefore couldn't possibly be expected to know how things are done. Fortunately for Mr. Hacker, Sir Humphrey platonically helps him to recall the ideals of government, e.g. "When there is a Labour government, the education authorities tell them that comprehensives abolish the class system and when there's a Tory government we tell them that it's the cheapest way of providing mass education; to Labour we explain that selective education is divisive and to the Tories we explain that it is expensive."
You can't really do that for "traditional" definitions of upper class (which isn't based on anything as simple as having loads of money).
And anyway - everyone is middle class these days. Nobody claims to be working class and there are so few actually upper class people that most people will never meet one.
It's fascinating to see the differences. One side has flash cars, the other ordinary hatchbacks. One side is happy to wander around in a dressing gown during the day whilst the other is always smartly dressed. One side let their kids play in the street whilst the other has them in studying. One side is mostly trades people whilst the other works in offices.
Despite all the differences (or perhaps because of) it seems to work. I doubt either side would chose the situation but the fact the system forces them together is genius.
So to answer your point, no, everybody is not middle class.
I think "Working class" is a distinct thing from "Lower class."
At least here in the US, I know a fair number of people that would claim the label "Working class", though I doubt any of them would claim to be "Lower class."
"Working class" is a synonym for "Blue collar" to many people.
"Middle class" is less of a synonym for "White collar", but I think that distinction exists for some people.
For instance it is an old people’s saying in Japan to look at someone’s shoes to know if they are rich/value good objects (the basis of that was that poor/undiscerning people would have poor shoes maintenance, or plain bad shoes).
Or you would tell someone’s rank in a company by the amount of stuff he (was about men, yes) was carrying every morning (basis was higher ranked people would have less manual roles)
Of course these saying become pointless and people find other stupid stuff to look at to rank other people on a scale. But yeah, in my short experience it’s a thing people train to do, and is valued as useful skill.
Also as people tend to dress rather uniformly, so you need a decent amount of effort to stand out without being flashy, which means trying to prove good taste with exotic and expensive but plain looking goods, that you justify owning by touting their good quality and not their high price.
That said, I think there is a correlation between the amount of social signalling one must do to be successful in a society and the amount of wealth that that society allocates to those that are capable of navigating organizations. It's one of the reasons I think the tech sector is mostly jeans and sneakers.
Fancy shoes don't mean you're capable of knowing what a gin index is or when to use it.
While I have many qualms with modern tech, this is not one of them.
Ideally your rain jacket is appropriate for weeks-long alpine or warmer-weather arctic expeditions, and costs at least $250. It should pack down unbelievably small so you can excuse/brag-about the expense as an expression of "minimalism". You wear it on your $1000 bike for your 2km commute to the coffee shop to work on your MacBook. Shoes should be ready for many kilometers of hard, high-performance trail running, and should have been priced to match. Or else rock climbing or bouldering. No activity is more hip-tech-culture-approved and laudable than rock climbing, at least for now (the trends come and go).
There's that stuff, then there's the hipster-mimicking tech-fashion sect in $200 Japanese selvedge jeans and $300ish Red Wing Heritage workboots. There's plenty of overlap and mixing of the styles, though.
Don't forget the right hoodie. If the aglets aren't metal and the zipper's not a heavy, smooth-but-crunchy-feeling YKK, you've screwed up.
If in doubt, just shop REI and Patagonia. Little they stock will be too far off the mark.
This is a pretty good (if not perfect) allegory for working classes / middle classes and upper classes. Those with power want to hold on to it - so entry to power is gatewayed through things like birth obviously but also a series of educational and life choices that prove you are not here to burn it all down.
Social hierarchies exist to both keep the powerful in power, but also as a contract against anarchy. After Brutus murdered caesar he expected to be greeted as a saviour of the republic by the populace of Rome. Instead they all shut their doors and withdrew from the streets for days as they knew what was coming - the chaos and destruction of anarchy and power fighting for a vacuum.
But we should still have our rage. even in the face of anarchy. I think.
Revolutions are the worst possible move. They cause more harm than good and generally involve orgies of injustice and a swapping of a crusty old guard with an even worse power-hungry band of criminals and Jacobin savages. Typically, revolutions draw their monstrous energy from the envy of the haves rather than any kind of injustice. Even when inspired by a desire for justice, it come from a desire to immanentize the eschaton. This always ends badly.
Sometimes, it is better to suffer the shabbiness of a predicament. Building healthy communities and a healthy culture to suffocate the corrupt order with goodness is more constructive and ultimately stronger.
There's then "Standard" English, where one is expected to utilise the language correctly.
Beyond that, you get into demonstrating a classical education, with the inference that knowledge of Latin phrases ipso facto means intelligence.
I'm much more likely to trust a source written in Standard English as you'd find in a newspaper, as opposed to a poorly written FB post.
I’ve been reading some classic English books, and it is really noteworthy that the writers use Greek phrases and references to Greek plays, clearly as a sign of status (synonym: culture). The οἱ πολλοί are not educated.
Having one’s English corrected is reviled by many, because the implication is that they are poorly educated and lower status. Take care when correcting anyone’s English online or offline!
When Japanese people are purchasing foreign products at least, they are responding to the same pressures and cultural biases that guide their purchase of Japanese products and services. In my experience this is stuff like age and legacy of the company, how much other Japanese people like and trust the brand, and all the other arbitrary things that shape the ebb and flow of product and service popularity in a given culture.
This is not to say that there aren't unique aspects to how Japanese people choose products which maybe overlap with the English, but in and of itself the markers of status in Japan are distinct from those in the U.S. (for example), so it doesn't seem likely that Japanese people somehow have some sophisticated notion of not just how to find products that have high status but high status according to U.S. consumers. It's silly simply taken at face value.
I do think the question of whether the English and Japanese share similarities because they are island nations with a royal family (and more) is interesting, though.
EDIT: I should be clear that I'm responding to the entire section of the piece, not just what you highlighted:
It's something like: if you want to know what's good about what your country makes look at what the Japanese and British import. (I can't find the actual quote). And his reasoning is something like: Japanese and British cultures are so hierarchical and stratified, in such long-lasting and subtle ways, that they've become incredibly good at discerning status from tiny signals.
Also worth stating that "what's good" != high-status, so the whole thing seems confused to me.
Even black t-shirts are not all the same if you know where to look.
Hell, if we both have a Porsche 911, but I share it on instagram as my wonderful car and you just never mention it because a Porsche 911 is a normal car to you ... which of us is higher class?
Then there are shibboleths. We use this in professional contexts. If you’re a Fortune500 person and I say I will consult my lawyer, you know I’m a schmuck and a small vendor. Otherwise I’d have a department and would say I will “talk to legal”
Edit: the point was that shallow things easily copied with minimal investment make bad signals.
If you’re not part of the in crowd you’ll never know what glaringly obvious signal makes you stand out.
Another anecdote: In the 1950s the KGB thoroughly infiltrated the British government and security services, but their assets would send back would be public school English so convoluted it literally could not be read by their handlers at times.
It wasn't until the 70s that there was a proper effort to weed out the communists.
I would bet £10 that Hollis was a mole.
I am not joking.
"Look at my fucking red trousers" blog -> http://lookatmyfuckingredtrousers.blogspot.com/
followed by a piece in The Guardian "in defense of red trousers" which cites a YouGov poll saying that almost half of Britains hate them -> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/in-def...
followed by a piece in The Telegraph about how that blog ruined the ultimate upper-class fashion statement -> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/style/look-at-my-fing-red-tr...
I wouldn't expect someone from "new" money to wear red chinos.
In stratified cultures, it means "rich-looking person is important", but also can convey more meaning, as the small variances that are allowed take on meaning.
In less stratified cultures, you get jokes about the sales schmuck who lost a sale because he assumed the man was buying the car.