December 29, 2009
Some more on class war
A couple more thoughts on class war following on from yesterday’s post.
Sunny Hundal has picked up the tenor of my argument about how 21st century appeals to privilege and minority interests is neither a disastrous retreat to 1970s antagonisms nor the suicidal doom-and-gloom message that New Labour dinosaurs claim. Yet he seems insistent on labelling the overall strategy one of “class war”.
To be fair to Sunny, he does say that this is intended merely as shorthand, holding his nose and agreeing with Ed Ball’s on this matter. But even then, I’m suspicious of using the term even as shorthand in strategy-debate. For terms have a tendency to stick. Especially when a predominantly right-wing media has already shown itself desirous of squawking about the “class war” label.
And there’s (at least) two more reasons why “class war” is an unwise use of language, on top of yesterday’s list.
First-up, I think it’s fair to say that the very notion of “working class” (which is inextricable from “class war” language) can be alienating to at least 50% of the population. For what do we think of when we use the term “working class”? Well, men down the mines, men striking at the docks, men wearing flat-caps and racing whippets. The concept of a “working class” came into usage when women mostly did not work at all, or if they did were employed in spheres of labour not generally covered by the “working class” label (primary school teachers, secretaries, check-out girls). “Working class” still invokes the image of working men united in labour (think: working men’s clubs). It’s surely alienating, therefore, to a vast number of women who not only never knew the world of the traditional “working class” (for it is long-since departed), but may surely perceive it as a thoroughly alien (and perhaps hostile) notion to boot.
Secondly, what on earth does “class” mean in the 21st century? I certainly believe Britain remains a class society. Yet I’m hard-pressed to give you an account of what constitutes the dividing lines of class today. In an era where many of the poor may never have worked at all – poverty-trapped on benefits in cycles of deprivation and under-education – it’s no longer the case that “poor” and “working class” are clearly or usually synonymous.
This is the era of chavs and chav-nots. Clearly, this means Britain is still a class society; there remain big (and growing) divisions of wealth and opportunity. I find my social antennae sufficiently well-attuned that I can spot poorer and richer members of society a mile-off from how they dress or talk.
But whilst Maggie and Tony certainly didn’t make us all middle-class (as the rhetoric had it), the economic changes under their premierships altered and eroded the old, (relatively) clear-cut class distinctions. Again: these are classes, Jim, but not as we knew them.
In an era where “class” no doubt exists, but no longer tracks the divisions and economic stratifications of old, it’s unlikely to prove tactically wise to campaign on the language of “class war”. In 2010 it’s time to talk about the many versus the few; the privileged versus the ordinary; the Etonians versus the people.
Grace said,
December 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I’ve just finished a really interesting book, “Unequal Childhoods” by Annette Lareau. About differences in child-raising methods in middle-class, working-class and poor families. She defined middle-class (if i remember rightly, don’t have the book with me) as a household with one or more parents working in a professional/skilled job, i think using college-level skills. working-class = parents working in a job that doesn’t use these skills. poor = dependent on public assistance. even using these rather crude divisions, she finds significant class differences in child rearing – with poor families and working class families being similar. these different strategies led to the children acquiring very different skills, eg working class children were better at occupying themselves for long periods of time and middle class children had better verbal reasoning skills. very interesting how the skills acquired by the middle class children were much more advantageous in major social institutions, eg workplace, school => inequality. (problem for egalitarians, just how deep-seated inequality is, can’t be solved by redistribution?)
i was certainly surprised about how much parental occupation makes a difference, i wonder if it’s the same in England
Paul Sagar said,
December 29, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Grace,
I can’t believe your suprised by this! Of course class differentiations translate into different – and deep – seated inequalities regarding things like well-remunerated skill sets.
“(problem for egalitarians, just how deep-seated inequality is, can’t be solved by redistribution?)”
Whoever said redistribution was the only tool available to egalitarians? Or that they could use no other simultaneously? Or that they cannot be method and value pluralists? There’s no problem here for egalitarians, at least not as currently implied/stated.
“i wonder if it’s the same in England”
Of course it is!
Tom N said,
December 29, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Hey Paul,
Merry xmas/ new year and all that. When it comes to class now, the book I’ve read that best deals with this is ‘Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour’ by Kate Fox. I really think you’d enjoy it and I can’t recommend it enough.
It reminded me how a lot of the distinctions are cultural and linguistic and have very little to do with net worth or wealth e.g. whether you call a napkin a ‘napkin’ or a ‘serviette’. Another good on is whether you say ‘pardon’ as opposed to ‘sorry’. Who’s higher the footballer’s wife with the bulging bank balance and unfortunate partiality to Mock Tudor homes or the low paid, highly educated Classics teacher who won’t embarrass herself at a cocktail party with a gauche faux pas?
It reminded me, contrary to class war rhetoric, how often the working class, oddly enough, have more in common with proper aristos culturally and how both have united against the middle classes. To take a small example, fox hunting has always been a working class and upper class sport. Never a middle class one, as the hunting ban amply demonstrates. Like I said, fabulous and funny book. Would be interested to hear what you think of it.
The shocking news that Cameron is an Etonian and – the audacity of the man! – is wealthy, has been in the public domain for a quite a while now. I’m still waiting for the fall out.
Hasn’t this class war thing, in any guise, been tested to destruction at Crewe and Natwich? Call it what you want, label it however you please, it can still be stigmatised as ‘politics of envy’ which DOESN’T work. Isn’t this the Blair/Mandelson insight? Brits just don’t go for it. And we’ve had recessions before.
Yes, people are angry at the bankers – the few – but not really because they were and are so fabulously wealthy. It’s because they fucked things up for everyone. They’re not felt to have done their penance. But Brown’s reputation for competence of any kind is in tatters so it doesn’t really help him either.
Personally, I’ll be delighted if Balls and Brown try it. It will lessen my nagging fear of a hung parliament at the next election.
Paul Sagar said,
December 29, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Hi Tom,
1. Sounds like an interesting book, will check it out. except, on fox hunting, it’s startlingly obvious that the working classes never hunted foxes in the same way as the upper classes. And Labour’s ban was most definitely targetted at one and not the other.
2. Re Crewe and Nantwich: that’s the sort of 20th-Century-class-war I don’t think will work. Walking around in top hats and talking about toffs is idiotic. Emphasising Tory plans to help out millionaires whilst cutting public spending is a different ball-game altogether…hence why I don’t think the left should be talking about “class war” at all (even if a form of class war is what’s going on underneath).
3. It would be idiotic to offer up Labour as “anti-aspiration”. But a “many vs. few”/”privilege vs. ordinary” narrative has enormous amoutns of power because it can encompass aspiration. Consider: “we want everyone to have aspirations and have the chance of succeeding in them; the Tories only want the already privileged to be able to fulfil their aspirations”.
Aspirations-narratives and emphasising class differentials are very much compatible. So long as the class-war language is abandoned.
Knowing New Labour strategy, what we’ll see is knee-jerk idiocy. So you’re dreams will come true. I reckon, however, if they played it my way a hung parliament could be a very real possibility. Enter Nick the king-maker. What a frightening thought, eh?
Paul Sagar said,
December 29, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Oh, and re Cameron and Eton – yes, everyone’s known about it for years.
But to most people, it’s just an abstract concept, a bit reminscent of Harry Potter or Brideshead Revisited.
What makes the difference is fierce representations of class status and elitism. Hence why that Bullingdon photo got copyrighted and is now only wheeled-out on Tory-approved propaganda ploys.
Grace said,
December 29, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Yeah, i probably shouldn’t be surprised.
i still do think it’s a problem though, the parent’s child-raising strategies have such a massive difference, eg in interactions with the doctor – the middle class child studied (used to having adults keenly listen to him, undivided attention, use of reasoning in discussion with adults etc) was confident and assertive with the doctor, interrupted him to get him to explain, asked questions (“emerging sense of entitlement”). the working class child displayed an “emerging sense of constraint”, quiet, submisssive, deference. i just don’t see how the state could change parents’ parenting strategies…. all of the parents were convinced theirs was the right way. could the institutions be changed? hmm
the reason why i ask if this is the same in england is that my middle class friends and i haven’t been all raised according to the strategy that predominates in the middle-class families in america, “concerted cultivation”. some of the elements certainly are there – for example use of reasoning, eliciting views/opinions from children, word games at dinner time (though my parents used directives a lot more than the middle class americans in the book). some really aren’t – eg multiplicity of extra curricular activities (i spent so much time on my gameboy… heh). similar for my friends too, some of them i’d say were raised according to the accomplishment of natural growth (nannies, not interacting much etc). so the middle classes might still be raised differently from the working classes, but not in the same way as the american middle classes, i wonder how she’d characterise us.
Paul said,
December 30, 2009 at 9:42 am
Some good points but…..
The reason the working class got called the working class is that it was the class defined by its economic role in capitalist society, and its relationship to the bourgeoisie; the working class worked, the bourgeoisie owned.
There’s no middle class in that. That’s a social construct which, the attachment to which, as you suggest, was reinforced under Thatcher etc. but which isn’t any more intrinsically valuable because of that.
Until the different between economic relationships and cultural identification (and self-identification) is grasped properly by the Left, we’re not going to get that far, whether or not the appropriate language is adapted, though clearly it’s better that we do so in the short term, what with an election to win.
As Sunny admits, this language-based electoral strategy may stop us losing too badly, but nothing more.
Written about it at lengthish on TCF.
Enough to make me want to beat my head against a wall « Though Cowards Flinch said,
December 30, 2009 at 10:07 am
[...] If you read this blog, you know where I’m talking about and broadly what people are saying. [...]
Rob said,
December 30, 2009 at 11:01 am
I’d be careful about assuming that the UK is exactly the same as the US. Ancedotal evidence from friends who’ve lived in the States suggests that American middle-class children are much more hot-housed than I was, although that may now be different – this was near-enough two decades ago. The US is also a more unequal society, not just socio-economically, but I think also in terms of status, which is likely to be both cause and effect of the hot-housing if the ancedotes are accurate. This isn’t to say that there aren’t advantages that middle-class British parents enculturate in their children through their parenting methods; it’s to point out that they seem likely to be different advantages, and differently distributed. Also, interestingly, Annette Lareau is, so far as I know, married to Sam Freeman, the currently designated voice of Rawls on Earth.
David said,
December 30, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“(problem for egalitarians, just how deep-seated inequality is, can’t be solved by redistribution?)”
There are two very important points to make here, the first of which challenges the assumption in this sentence.
The assumption is that “picking up different skills” from different parents is necessarily inequality. I think we assume it is because different jobs are valued very differently in society (and I’m not just talking about salary here), so this is indicative of a bigger problem than merely the fact that kids from different backgrounds learn different skills.
Incidentally, I don’t mean to imply there isn’t a problem with kids from the poorest backgrounds being less likely to benefit in education and training. There is, and research has tied it down to a number of factors. But implicit in saying that children learning different *skills* from parents leads to inequality is believing that different skills are unequal in value, and not just economically. Of course, in some cases, I’d probably agree — you could term burglary a skill, after all. But in others, I definitely wouldn’t.
Secondly, you seem to be viewing redistribution as purely redistribution of money here. But it covers a lot more than that.
It covers social education including University, whatever Dave Semple might claim, it covers early intervention projects designed to offer opportunity to the most disadvantaged kids, it covers taxes on inheritance and social housing. Redistribution is merely a vague term that refers to funding — far more important is how it’s applied.
David
Paul Sagar said,
December 30, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Rob: you’re right, of course; the specifics are likely to be different in America, but the overall phenomenon broadly similar. Though I do likewise suspect that “hot-housing” is increasing here too. At least, judging by the number of whiney guardian articles hand-wringing over the dilemma of whether to send Veronica for piano lessons as well as ballet and horse-riding, or whether to let her actually sleep once a week.
David Jones said,
December 30, 2009 at 11:07 pm
‘In 2010 it’s time to talk about the many versus the few; the privileged versus the ordinary; the Etonians versus the people.’
Or the Balliol boy versus the rest, eh Paul?
Paul Sagar said,
December 30, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Balliol boy who went to state school, worked hard for 5 A’s at A Level and earned it.
But you’re right, whoever I am invalidates whatever intellectual points I might make.
David Jones said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:27 am
Paul, as with your own previous remark that you’d called everyone on the Right either thick or nasty but that holding it against you would be playing the man not the ball I’m just pointing out your own inconsistency.
‘Etonians versus the people’? Cameron and Osborne chose their schools did they? No, of course not. They had even less of a hand in their early education than you did in your choice of Oxford. But apparently it’s fair for you to try to score some silly points.
This is oafish. And I don’t think it’ll work, either, if that’s what you’re hoping.
David Jones said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:30 am
Incidentally Paul, as I know you think you’re interested in philosophy, you might want to read Nagel on positive discrimination and the observation he makes about whether you ‘deserve’ preference because of your abilities. You can read the argument in ‘Mortal Questions’.
Paul Sagar said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:31 am
Thing is though David, i’m not asking to be allowed to run the country.
You don’t seem to understand that when debating intellectual arguments it’s point-missing to play the man not the ball, whereas in the field of national politics affecting millions of people’s lives it’s just a little bit different.
But I don’t expect you to grasp my point. You’re a footsoldier for the Tories, and soldiering is what you’re supposed to do. There’s nothing more to be said here.
Paul Sagar said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:33 am
“as I know you think you’re interested in philosophy,”
I do labour under some such delusion, yes. With my degree in philosophy and my studying an MA in Intellectual History. I’m sure that one article by Nagel will radically restructure my entire philosophical Weltanschauung. Cheers.
David Jones said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:36 am
‘Thing is though David, i’m not asking to be allowed to run the country.’
Er…but you’re working for a Lib Dem MP
Oh, I see what you mean.
Paul Sagar said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:39 am
Er, I was working for one, hmm, 4 months ago.
You have massive comprehension problems…
David Jones said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:39 am
‘With my degree in philosophy’
It was PPE, Paul. And you’re a little young to have covered the entire output of philosophical thinking however precocious you were when getting your 5 As. And as you haven’t actually read the piece, why not do it? Nagel’s a decent enough philosopher and I’m not suggesting your entire worldview will need revision. Or your Weltanschauung if you must…
David Jones said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:40 am
Er, I was working for one, hmm, 4 months ago.
And have now doubtless recanted?
Grace said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:45 am
david – yes differences skills doesn’t necessarily lead to inequality, but if the interaction of skills+institutions does (eg look at barry lam’s comment on http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/12/does-academia-including-philosophy-exclude-people-based-on-class.html)
“earned it” – hang on aren’t you skeptical of these kinds of desert claims? you did nothing to earn the natural ability that got you into balliol. and all the other social factors that made it possible, eg parents talking to you and developing language skills, teachers teaching you. (there are people who worked much much harder than i expect you did to get into oxford, completely obsessed by it, read so so many books, wrote loads of extra essays for teachers, minimal if any social life during oxbridge term, they still didnt get in because they weren’t clever enough, they earned it more than you)
Grace said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:47 am
“You don’t seem to understand that when debating intellectual arguments it’s point-missing to play the man not the ball…But I don’t expect you to grasp my point. You’re a footsoldier for the Tories, and soldiering is what you’re supposed to do.”
slightly contradictory?
David Jones said,
December 31, 2009 at 12:58 am
Grace, I agree with Nagel in part though I don’t think his argument is a good one for positive discrimination. Paul here certainly seems to think he’s done something more than most to earn preference, rather than to being fortunate enough to have the abilities and characteristics that result in preference. Of course if he holds to that view he can then defend his ownership of and enjoyment in the advantages that come his way and claim they are, in some sense, his.
This position seems to contrast rather startlingly with that of Rawls, who I’d have thought Paul, as a fan of philosophy, might have bothered to read.
Paul Sagar said,
December 31, 2009 at 1:25 am
Grace: are you seriously suggesting that the existence of unearned advantages means that no outcomes can be deserved? So I no more deserve my achievements that flow from working hard than if I’d sat on my arse, watched TV and done nothing (and hence failed to gain entry)? There’s nothing inconsistent on recognising that many people have unearned advantages yet also earn some things. And to decide what follows from that requires a LOT of careful thinking. But one rather stupid position to take is to reason from the observation that some advantages are undeserved and therefore conclude that ALL consequences are undeserved.
And no, I see nothing inconsistent in what I wrote…maybe expound?
David Jones said,
December 31, 2009 at 2:05 am
Grace didn’t say that no outcomes can be deserved, Paul, did she? She was perhaps suggesting that the particular features which distinguish your advantage are not of your doing.
‘worked hard for 5 A’s at A Level and earned it.‘, you said. Now we want the best and the brightest to be educated well if they wish it, of course. It’s another matter entirely whether your advantages are deserved, isn’t it.
‘I see nothing inconsistent in what I wrote‘
You keep on making ad hominems but decrying it:
‘it’s point-missing to play the man not the ball…But I don’t expect you to grasp my point. You’re a footsoldier for the Tories,‘
When as a matter of fact I’ve never voted Tory in my life and I don’t think my politics are well-matched to Toryism. But I don’t expect you to grasp that your persistently playing the man not the ball (good to see a little of the public-school has smeared off on you there) is inconsistent, Balliol Boy.
Peter said,
December 31, 2009 at 2:38 am
David Jones,
“It was PPE, Paul. And you’re a little young to have covered the entire output of philosophical thinking however precocious you were when getting your 5 As. And as you haven’t actually read the piece, why not do it? Nagel’s a decent enough philosopher and I’m not suggesting your entire worldview will need revision. Or your Weltanschauung if you must…”
- You have to have covered the entire philosophical corpus to have a philosophy degree now?
Tom N said,
December 31, 2009 at 3:57 am
Oh goody! I go away for 2 minutes and blog war 3 erupts.
Re: foxhunting. ‘Startlingly obvious’ aside, my point is that it doesn’t matter who the ban ‘targets’ but which groups are affected by it. Yes, they hunt in different ways but all I meant to point out is that it was and is a working and upper class pastime, a salient fact. Given how many people think of the two classes as being utterly opposed it is interesting to note culturally how both often can have more in common with each other than either do with any tranche of the middle class. Another example? Support for the monarchy. Overwhelmingly drawn from those two groups. Ditto for the armed forces and overt patriotism (though I guess you’ll probably see it as jingoism). Fox anatomises these and other cultural similarities brilliantly.
The Marxist analysis of class is always to look at what individuals have in common in their shared relation to the means of production. In a British context, such considerations as listed above – unless you want to argue they’re merely superstructural – mean the issue of class might be a bit complicated than this.
There is something in David Jones’ somewhat obnoxious posts. You two have history? You do decry the ‘infantile’ ad hominem styles of Parliament and right wing bloggers but can get insulting under very little provocation. Rise above it.
There is a deeper latent inconsistency in your position on class war without ‘class war’.
A ‘many vs. the few’ narrative is not about providing some frigid intellectual description: ‘Nothing personal against these people but we have to recognise that their policies are disastrous for the many and that they will help out only their rich mates’. It’s bloodless and won’t win elections, as the left well knows. A ‘class war’ approach, cloaked in whatever language, is about getting under people’s skins. Much more like ‘look at these toffs, [display that Bullingdon photo at the appropriate time perhaps], look at these bankers celebrating – they’re not like you and me’. It’s not intellectual, it’s clever ad hominem. You and the ‘high grounders’ might like to remember that.
I’m closer to being the ‘Tory foot soldier’ and I think Cameron is a prick. For me the most powerful slogan is Ken Clarke’s: ‘Conservative governments always have to come in and clean up the mess Labour govs leave’. Twice in my parents’ lifetime a Lab gov has buggered country’s finances. One economic catastrophe can be counted a misfortune, two seems like carelessness. That’s a pretty powerful sell.
‘But one rather stupid position to take is to reason from the observation that some advantages are undeserved and therefore conclude that ALL consequences are undeserved.’ For stupid, try consistent. You can indeed end up in a ludicrous, chasing-your-own-tail, reduction. What if I say your ability, to concentrate, focus, and be motivated for an extended piece of time – those things that constitute the ability to work hard – are advantages which you did nothing to earn? Ditto for your lack of interest in TV. It seems to me that when you do go down this line of thinking it becomes very hard to distinguish what is an unearned advantage and what is some irreducible part of you as PS. Which is precisely the problem I have with the whole line of thinking. Such things really used to trouble me. Not so much now.
Ste For Sure said,
December 31, 2009 at 4:56 am
“A ‘many vs. the few’ narrative is not about providing some frigid intellectual description: ‘Nothing personal against these people but we have to recognise that their policies are disastrous for the many and that they will help out only their rich mates’. It’s bloodless and won’t win elections, as the left well knows. A ‘class war’ approach, cloaked in whatever language, is about getting under people’s skins. Much more like ‘look at these toffs, [display that Bullingdon photo at the appropriate time perhaps], look at these bankers celebrating – they’re not like you and me’. It’s not intellectual, it’s clever ad hominem. You and the ‘high grounders’ might like to remember that.”
why can’t right wing people understand that when you live in an unequal society, there is nothing wrong with harbouring feelings of resentment towards immensely privileged rich people trying to run the country you live in? I might be getting the wrong end of the stick with your comment, but you seem to suggest that saying “these toffs and bankers – look at them! – they are not like you and me” is discriminatory, or childish or something. Its not. They aren’t like you and me! (even I feel that way and I was privately educated for five years!) – they can fuck right off!
David Jones said,
December 31, 2009 at 9:26 am
Paul,
You have to have covered the entire philosophical corpus to have a philosophy degree now?
Not at all. Go back and read what I wrote. It was your attempt at irony, in fact, that insinuates you don’t have anything left to learn after a PPE. I’m sure in fact that you do.
Grace said,
December 31, 2009 at 10:47 am
“So I no more deserve my achievements that flow from working hard than if I’d sat on my arse, watched TV and done nothing” – . let’s put aside tom n’s points for a second (more full-blooded attack on desert than i think is necessary to criticise your assertion) and suppose that given natural advantages x (intelligence, character-shaping by upbringing, etc) you could have done y (hard work) or z (TV). yes you are more deserving of balliol if you do y rather than z. but that observation doesn’t justify the (slighty smug) claim that you “earned it”.
(1) your natural advantages may have been a more important causal factor in your getting in (i’m not sure how to measure which causes are more important than others, there’s a bit about this in relation to contributions of land/labour in cohen’s SOFE, am still a bit confused. but i can certainly say that intelligence is a necessary cause, and the amount of hard work you did might not have been, since some lazy people get in)
(2) that intrapersonal desert comparison doesn’t help us much with interpersonal comparisons. everyone else in the world (unlikely, but conceptually possible, not excluded by anything you’ve said so far) might make more deserving choices, but have natural advantages much smaller than x, and fail to get in. there are certainly at least some people like this (i know them)
Paul Sagar said,
December 31, 2009 at 11:09 am
Ok way too much to do today, not going to have time to respond. Grace, Tom; I will try and drop you emailed replies if I get breathing space.