A touch of class

Subject: A touch of class
From: the button
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 02:19 PM

I've put this in the music bit of the boards, because the issue of class appears to be playing itself out over a number of threads.

FWIW, I think class has two distinct senses: -

* economic. This I think is the most meaningful. Basically, if you have to sell your labour in order to live (whether you're a hammerer at the spark factory, or a desk jockey like me), that makes you working class. If you make money out of other people selling their labour to you, that makes you one of the bosses (boo, hiss).

* "sociological". This appears to be the most common idea of the notion of class. It relies on all kinds of little social markers of distinction (do I go to work in a suit, or a boilersuit? Do I pay a mortgage on where I live, or do I pay rent?, and so on).

It strikes me that this latter sense is quite pointless, and divisive. One of the great achievements of the Tory government (particularly under Thatcher) is that it made being "middle class" (in the sociological sense) into something both aspirational, and achievable for a lot of working class people -- allowing people to buy their council house was a political masterstroke, regardless of how despicable you think that government was.

There's a bit of hand-wringing that goes on along the lines of "Oh, is this really my music? After all, I'm not a ploughboy, jolly or otherwise." Thing is, most of the people doing that hand-wringing are probably working class. In my opinion, anyway.

So. All together now: -

I am a computer programmer from jolly Milton Keynes,
During the week I wear a suit, on a Sunday, Diesel jeans,
'Tis my delight on a Friday night to cook some haricot beans....

(and so on).

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 02:25 PM

Class is an outdated and derogatory means of classifying people, we are all the same.
The only people I know who are working class are those who proudly tell me they are.
Usually these working class warriors have university degrees, and a socialist mentality, but their income and life style is far removed from their self description.
To put a class label on someone is to either admit you think they are better than you. Or; perish the thought, lower down the social scale than you.
It's a passé classification, and should be abolished.
Giok

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 02:50 PM

Class is when everything is goin' to shit around you and there you be, lookin' gooood!

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 02:52 PM

That's style Bruce :-)
G

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Emma B
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 02:52 PM

I don't think this really belongs above the line but, for what it's worth, the Office for National Statistics in the UK replaced "Social Class based on Occupation" (formerly the Registrar General's "Social Class) with a new Socio-Economic Classification (SEC) for all official statistics and surveys in 2001.

The new SEC is an occupationally based classification but contains "rules" to provide coverage for the whole adult population.

so R.I.P. "Social Class" - or maybe it's just a rose by any other name?

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: number 6
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:02 PM

Derek Jeter (New York Yankees), he certainly has class.

biLL

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Emma B
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:05 PM

remember this :)

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:06 PM

Style again methinks

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: the button
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:07 PM

"R.I.P. "Social Class" - or maybe it's just a rose by any other name?"

^^^ Although, unlike a rose, the biggest pricks are closer to the top.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:10 PM

What's a boilersuit? Inquiring minds on the left side of the Pond would like to know.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:12 PM

Well that's a facile remark isn't it?
You remind me of those people who insist on retaining the label working class so they can justify hating Maggie Thatcher. Even though their lifestyle, is largely due to her input.
It's like football becoming more fashionable among the ranks of government ministers. We all know this was because it suddenly became a big money game thanks to Rupert M. It's all fashion, and doctrinaire stances.
G
Remember this........................
We're a' Jock Thamson's bairns.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:15 PM

A one piece workman's coverall Boiler Suit
G.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: the button
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:29 PM

"Well that's a facile remark isn't it?"

I aim to please.

"You remind me of those people who insist on retaining the label working class so they can justify hating Maggie Thatcher. Even though their lifestyle, is largely due to her input."

For what it's worth, I have nothing but admiration for Margaret Thatcher's political nous. She certainly had an understanding of class politics that's been sadly lacking on what passes as "the Left" nowadays.

As for my insistence on retaining the label "working class," I'll continue insisting on it as long as the majority of people have to work for a living, and a tiny minority continue to get rich as a result.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:30 PM

Uh, that would be "working STYLE". (Thanks for the tip, Giok.)

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Emma B
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 03:35 PM

"all the bairns o' Adam......."
I'm sure Giok will translate that too :)

"Em" - hoping to bring the music back!

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 05:33 PM

In the US side of the language, it is common enough to refer to someone as showing "class", meaning conducting oneself with a style befitting a high-class person.

"Class" is a lousy term to ue if defining an individual, since no individual really defines the class of his economic status by choice if he is lower than the upp-middle.

There are such things as economic classes of people -- a composite of ways of earning int he world and income -- but the concept is really useful for broad economic or sociological discussions. Individual cases don't necessarily reflect the attributes to which they might belong very well, any more than "men" are brutal or "women" are manipulative.

A

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:24 PM

Interesting discussion.

I know very rich people who have absolutely no "class". They surround themselves with cheap and garish decoration as an outward show of their wealth.

I also know people who have alot of "class". With or without money, they are able to surround themselves with simple beauty. They are also gentle natured and have no need to flaunt their riches.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 06:18 AM

Confusing taste and style with class I think Dianavan.
Even when one says she/he looks really classy, we are really saying that he/she looks better than their normal status, and is thus derogatory in a way. Sort of saying that person looks better than they ought to.
G

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 12:15 PM

Was a film starring George Segal and Glenda Jackson, in 1973....

When Glenda(IIRC) played a working girl....

(Before she became an MP)

Kitty

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: number 6
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 12:35 PM

That was a good movie Herga.

Now, by this definition of class "the best of its kind, the class of the league" ... I'd say Glenda Jackson has class ... and yes, as previously mentioned by me in this thread Derek Jeter has class.

biLL

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 12:37 PM

Do you mean they are in a class of their own?
G

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: number 6
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 03:08 PM

They are in the 'top league' when it comes to their craft ... yes skilled craftsmen (class acts) are in a class of their own.

biLL

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 04:14 PM

So we're talking collegiate and not social background here then?

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 05:53 PM

Class is how you hold your knife, and what school - Northlands and St Hilda's for the ladies for instance!

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

Nope, that's upbringing and it only takes money to achieve it. That and in the case of the lady to whom you refer, brains ;-)
G.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: number 6
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 06:21 PM

"not social background" ... exactly Giok ... that concept of 'class' ended with the sinking of the Titanic (I thought).

What I'm refering to (re: class) is accomplishment through determination and hard work,honing one's skills in whatever you aim to achieve ... totally exempt from social background.

Derek Jeter is one hell of a baseball player, Glenda Jackson one fine actress ... both true to their craft ... both have 'class'.

biLL

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 07:11 PM

There are a number of distinct meanings to "class" as is true of a lot/most of words, and "style" is one of them. It can be fun to switch around the meanings in a debate, but word play like that is just wordplay.
......................................

"...we are all the same" - in some ways that's true, in the most important ways in fact. But we are also divided, probably as much as we ever have been, between those who have the resources to control what happens, and those who don't. The markers change, and it's not just a matter of money (it never has been, wholly), but the divisions are still there, all around us.

We may all be in the same boat - but when it goes down, some people have places in the lifeboats and some have to sink or swim, and that's largely determined by "class". (And I don't mean class as style.)

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: 3refs
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 08:02 PM

"We may all be in the same boat - but when it goes down, some people have places in the lifeboats and some have to sink or swim, and that's largely determined by "class". (And I don't mean class as style.)"

Now that is a statement of Titanic proportions!

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Grab
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 07:40 AM

As for my insistence on retaining the label "working class," I'll continue insisting on it as long as the majority of people have to work for a living, and a tiny minority continue to get rich as a result.

That doesn't really help though. For example, my sister's a solicitor specialising in company law. She works *seriously* hard - 60 hours a week in the office is normal, and then she takes work home in the evenings and weekends. And she had to pay for 2 years of training herself. She's earning a bloody fortune now, but by god she's working for it.

Is she working class? Knowing our family, I'd say that by the traditional definitions she's middle-middle or upper-middle. By income and profession, she's completely upper-middle. But by work done, she's twice as working-class as a Tesco's shelf-stacker or a McDonald's Johnny-No-Stars.

As Giok says, it's really an outmoded concept. When only the middle-class got to do middle-class jobs and only the upper-class got to do upper-class jobs, it was true. But today, when anyone with the brains can become a stockbroker or solicitor or doctor if they choose, it's a pointless exercise.

More important really is "class" as in "style". Everyone can recognise a chav, and it doesn't matter how much money you have or what your job is, you'll still be a chav unless you have (or acquire through self-knowledge) the values that pull up your personal standards. Think Paris Hilton - chav to the max, in spite of all daddy's money.

Graham.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 08:57 AM

But Estuary English will never buy you class.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 01:41 PM

Don't be fooled by the "class" markers like accents or yobbishness or chavishness. When the shit hits the fan, the "class" that ties in with money and power and having influence pretty well always kicks in and saves you from the worst consequences, and the accents and attitude just don't make any difference.

People who've been wealthy and powerful just don't end up on the breadline, no matter what.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Grab
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 10:09 PM

People who've been wealthy and powerful just don't end up on the breadline, no matter what.

You hope that your friends and family will help out when you're in trouble, whether you're rich or poor. Depends on the size of hole, and how much your friends and family can help, of course. But if they won't (or can't) help, you're on your own, no matter what.

Of course, there is also the element that people who've been wealthy *and* powerful usually had a reason for being that way, namely they can actually do stuff. If they were just wealthy and they piss it away, chances are pretty good they'll be going down with the ship, and left with whatever they can salvage.

Graham.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 02:35 AM

"...there is also the element that people who've been wealthy *and* powerful usually had a reason for being that way, namely they can actually do stuff." - Grab

I disagree. Most people who have wealth and power know how to exploit others. They aren't generally hard workers. They are born with advantages and manipulate their social world in order to maintain their status.

I also know that there have been credible studies done in England that shows the closer your speech is to standard English, the higher your income. So I think its pointless to separate social class from economic class.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Grab
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 07:34 AM

Most people who have wealth and power know how to exploit others. They aren't generally hard workers. They are born with advantages and manipulate their social world in order to maintain their status.

Does one automatically preclude the other? How much advantage were John Major, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan born with? Or Richard Branson - you're telling me he got where he did through advantage and manipulation rather than bloody hard work?

Yes, there are some people born into an environment of wealth and power, who have no need to work. For them, whatever they do is nothing more than a hobby or a desire to impose will. America is the best example here - think Bushes, Kennedys, Shrivers, etc, making America the best example today of a working aristocratic system.

But most other countries, especially in Europe where there's much less inherited wealth, the "rulers" are born into families that are well off but still need to work - think Tony Blair and David Cameron, for example. They've both made it big-time, but only because they worked for it. Look at the rest of their classmates, and most of them are in comfortable but not spectacular jobs - hardly "wealth and power". Ditto Bill Gates for a spectacular example.

And in America too, you have plenty of people like Ronald Reagan and Steve Jobs who started from nowhere and worked their way up to acquire the money they have/had.

I'm concerned at the subtext here which says "they have more money and power than me, and I need something to blame it on". Yes, some people are unjustly rich, and some people are unjustly poor. Shit happens. In the middle, most people get approximately what's due in relation to their intelligence, education, willingness to take risks, and foresight in judging risks. And yes, some degree of luck. If there's any class element in these, it's in your family giving you a boost in one or more of these points.

the closer your speech is to standard English, the higher your income

But closeness to standard English is as much a function of vocabulary as accent, and an increased vocabulary (or a better ability to use it) is a function of better education and/or better intelligence. So is this cause or effect?

Graham.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 07:58 AM

the "rulers" are born into families that are well off but still need to work - in other words, comfortable/professional middle class.

Bill Gates is basically a lottery winner with the savvy to use his winnings cleverly. There are always a few of those, people who got lucky and used their luck. Always have been, even in feudal times.

Recognising socio-economic class as crucial in how society operates doesn't mean that rich and/or well connected people never work any more than it means that poor and/or powerless people aren't ever indolent. But it does mean that, overall, those aren't the things that are in the driving seat.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 01:41 PM

"Recognising socio-economic class as crucial in how society operates doesn't mean that rich and/or well connected people never work any more than it means that poor and/or powerless people aren't ever indolent."

I totally agree.

Grab - The ability to speak standard English has nothing to do with intelligence. Education is certainly a way to improve your language skills, but lets face it, access to higher education is seriously limited to the socio-economic class of your parents. Of course there are always those who can break the barriers but these people are the exception, not the rule.

I don't live in England but I have been told that you can determine a person's socio-economic status by listening to their speech patterns and their accent. If you don't speak "properly', you won't get far. Is this true?

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Grab
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 01:48 PM

Sure, Gates was lucky - but he worked hard for that luck.

But the others? Steve Jobs and Richard Branson haven't exactly been lottery winners, and they've both worked damn hard for it.

in other words, comfortable/professional middle class

If you like. But hardly "money and power and influence". Nor is it necessarily "comfortable" either.

My point is that if "class" exists, it's as a modifier on education, willingness to take risks, and foresight in judging those risks. In other words, an upbringing which gives the kids a better or worse foundation for success, and when those kids grow up they make their own way. But that difference in upbringing is down to *values*, not income.

Does that mean I think some "lower-class" (whatever that means) people have no (or poorer) values, and tend to pass on that lack of values to their kids? Damn right I do. And so do some "middle-class" and "upper-class" people - it's universal. If you've inherited daddy's money, then you don't have to achieve anything, so it probably doesn't impact you. But if you need to work for a living (and that covers everyone except the very richest "upper-class" bracket) then the lack of values passed from your parents is likely to screw up your future.

Graham.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 02:09 PM

But hardly "money and power and influence". Nor is it necessarily "comfortable" either.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "comfortable". What I mean by it is that sense you've got something in reserve that can be pulled out to meet a crisis, and an awful lot of people don't have that.

Here's an analogy for what I mean by "power and influence" - imagine you've got some bit of physical work to do, making something. You need some tools in order to do it. You might have a splendid top of the range set; or you might have a very basic cheap but adequate set. Either way you can do the job. But if you haven't got those basic tools, you are just stymied, you just aren't going to be able to do it at all.

A little money and influence and knowhow can likely get you a long way. But if you haven't got that...

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Art Thieme
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 02:30 PM

I use the terms working class and upper class because, as of the demise of viable Socialist power in this world, the terms have been replaced by the term "up scale"---although I have not heard the term "down scale" used anywhere.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 03:22 PM

'When Adam delved
    And Eve spun,
    Who was then
    A gentleman'
         
          John Ball

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 03:52 PM

Not Eve...

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 11:09 PM

Grab - Bill Gates came from a wealthy family and went to Lakeside, an exclusive prep school in Seattle. Luck had nothing to do with it - except maybe he was lucky he didn't go to Garfield and live in a run-down house with a single mom who worked graveyard to put groceries on the table.

Since you seem to agree that parents impart values, would you then say that two children (being instilled with the same value system) have exactly the same opportunities in life? That is so far from the truth it is laughable. It is money that buys the best educational opportunities. Therefore, if education is the key, you better have lots of it.

If not, you have to be smarter and work harder and longer than the rich kids. Upon graduation, some begin their careers with help from daddy and his friends and no debt to drag them down. Others face a job market with no foot in the door and a huge student loan debt. They are definitely disadvantaged, regardless of their values.

To overcome all of that and speak the 'Queen's English' may or may not entitle you to 'class'. Probably not. In fact, it is very likely that you will die in the same socio/economic class that you were born into.

You may still achieve the distinction of having a touch of class, depending on your manners, your speech and the choices you make in life.

I also think that the need for instant gratification should play a part in this discussion. It seems to me that those who were impoverished as children, have a greater need for instant gratification than those with a touch of class. It is the need for instant gratification that makes the lower classes so prone to cheap thrills. People with a touch of class do not seem to indulge in cheap thrills to quite the same extent.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Rowan
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 03:45 AM

Dianavan's question "Since you seem to agree that parents impart values, would you then say that two children (being instilled with the same value system) have exactly the same opportunities in life?" reminded me of an educational event we used to run from our inner suburban school in Melbourne. It was called "The Basalt Excursion" and was used to demonstrate the social consequences, in the 1980s, of volcanic eruptions some 10,000 years ago. Many of you won't know much about Melbourne so here's a summary of the event.

15-10,000 years ago, volcanic eruptions in Victoria's Western District produced a basalt plain (3rd largest in the world, according to some texts) that pushed the surface drainage and rivers at its eastern end, eastward to the where the older shales and mudstones had blocked the basalt flows. The river there is now called the Yarra; Sydneysiders regard it as the only river in the world that flows upside down, because of its sediment load.

When whitefellas arrived in 1836 and started to build the place we call Melbourne, the first industries (fellmongering and brewing) required lots of flat land and water; both were in plentiful supply along the Yarra in the area that is now regarded as the inner suburbs. Trouble was, both industries were extremely (and offensively) smelly, so the only people who built houses in those areas were the ones who couldn't afford to build anywhere else.

They were working folk that would, at the time, have been regarded as "working class" and their houses were frequently timber and occasionally brick, but almost always "terraced", with the building across the whole frontage of the block of land. The larger blocks had a frontage of 16' and there were (and still are) many that had only a 10' frontage. We would tour the students through Abbottsford, Collingwood and Richmond to show them the built landscape of this and then contrast it with the contrasting landscpae of where the bosses and the moneyed population lived at the same time.

The "upper class" lived away from the foul smells, which was usually across the river in the leafy suburbs of South Yarra, Toorak and Kew; the usual method of crossing the river was to pay (there's the rub) the operator of the punt from Richmond to South Yarra and the road to the punt (there's now a bridge) is still called Punt Road. This led to the social "class" division of Melbourne into "south of the Yarra" (where all the toffs lived) and "the northern suburbs" where us (I declare my 'bias') hoi polloi lived and where the school I taught at was located.

So much for "history"?

Well, in 1980 (from memory), one of the writers on education for Melbourne's "classy" broadsheet newspaper did a little experiment, straight after the HSC results had been published; the "Higher School Certificate" in Oz is the Year 12 final exam that gets you into uni and US and UK readers will have their equivalents. His experimental methodology was to write a series of job application letters to banks, insurance companies and similar institutions that routinely employed such school leavers. Apart from mythical names of such applicants, the only differences between the letters was the putative home address of the mythical applicant; all the HSC results nominated in the applications were exactly the same. There were equal numbers of applications from both sides of the class divide.

And guess the results!

3/4 of the applications which showed an address "south of the Yarra" were invited to an interview, while only 1/4 of the applications from an address "north of the Yarra" received an invitation to interview. We put it down to volcanic eruptions in the Holocene.

I'd say the experiment had a certain style. Yes?
But there's no such thing as "class" in Oz.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Grab
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 07:43 AM

What I mean by it is that sense you've got something in reserve that can be pulled out to meet a crisis, and an awful lot of people don't have that.

If you're talking financially, you're right there. But it doesn't necessarily make you "working class". For instance, plenty of folks have put all their money into buying a house or starting a business and then find that a small glitch in their jobs or in interest rates leaves them screwed. Vice versa, plenty of low-income people stash money away, or have luxuries they could cut back on in times of trouble (even if it's just cigs or trips to the pub) - or choose to spend on luxuries instead of saving money for an emergency, which brings us back to values again.

Or were you talking metaphorically there, as in having some capacity for action to deal with a crisis? If that's the case, then you're dead right on that too - but capacity to deal with a crisis again comes down first to native intelligence and secondly to values. And I don't think any of that has anything to do with whether daddy had lots of money, unless we're talking about hiring better lawyers or something.

Bill Gates ... Luck had nothing to do with it

So Gates got to be the head of the largest company in the world because it's the birthright of everyone in his position, yes? He had a good start with rich parents, sure, but a good start with rich parents doesn't automatically make people billionaires before they're 40. Partly he worked hard for it, and partly he just got lucky in that his company was contracted for MS-DOS and no-one else had an alternative to Windows running in time to compete with him.

I'm not saying that nepotism doesn't happen, but where it does, I think generally the people involved *aren't* the high-flyers who eventually end up with power. They're comfortable, yes, but they're not the next generation of "wealthy-and-powerful".

As far as education goes, I'd say it's a limited benefit in Britain at least. Where I grew up, there were several fee-paying secondary schools in the area. The comprehensive nearest us had a lousy headmaster and was pretty crap. While I was up there (at a different school), they got a new headmaster who sorted the place out, and Ofsted started making sure things were run properly. The fee-paying schools are now in the crapper because the comprehensives have better teachers, better class sizes and better facilities, so people *choose* to go to the state school.

What you need with education is the *values* to make the most of it, and that's passed down from your parents. If your parents don't value education, chances are that you won't either. Is that a class thing as in socio-economic class? Possibly, but if it is then it's a class thing in the other sense of the word as well! That's most clearly shown by the sterotype of Asian immigrants wanting their children to achieve the best they can, where their children outperform other ethnic groups (including often the "white British" ethnic group).

I guess the easiest way to show what I think is with a table. (Let's see if Mudcat can do this...)

                       Low intelligence,  High intelligence,  Low intelligence,  High intelligence,
                       taught no values   taught no values    taught values      taught values
  
  HIGH-INCOME DADDY    Playboy/girl - no  Playboy/girl        Well-off with      High-flyer
                       need to work       initially, maybe    job in daddy's
                                          high-flyer later    business
                                          if they learn from
                                          mistakes
  
  MIDDLE-INCOME DADDY  Failure - not      May have enough     Probably           High-flyer
                       enough safety net  safety net to be a  comfortable
                                          success if they
                                          learn from
                                          mistakes
  
  LOW-INCOME DADDY     Failure - no       Failure - no        Probably           High-flyer
                       safety net         opportunity to      comfortable
                                          learn from
                                          mistakes

If you want a soundbite summary, I'd say a well-off family can get you out of failure, but it can't make you a success.

Graham.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 09:21 AM

I HIGHLY reccomend the new film the American Ruling Class.

In case you feel likely to dismiss this reccomendation let me remind you that...
Pete Seeger stars in the film as well as Kurt Vonnegut and many members of the very real American Ruling class.

I offered this DVD free of charge to Mudcatters last month and not a single request was made. I don't know what to make of that but I hear you can filter out individuals on this site now.

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 12:46 PM

In his book "National Joke: Popular Comedy and English Cultural Identity" Andy Medhurst writes about the TV sitcom of "working class" life in the north of England, "The Royle Family"

"……If it does nothing else "The Royle Family" explodes the myth that England is a classless society. The ludicrousness of that view is perhaps most keenly obvious to those of us who have moved between classes and thereby know and feel, from first hand experience, what it is like to inhabit differently stratified social spaces……….."

As someone for who education enabled achieving a "professional" occupation at the expense of abandoning some of the "values" I was raised with I find myself agreeing with this statement.

Alas, dedication to a career caring for others meant I never achieved "high-flyer" status! :)

Subject: RE: A touch of class
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 12:58 PM

unless we're talking about hiring better lawyers Well that's one very clear example of how it works