Knowing your place

Don't know if this is the right place for this but anyway...

I keep getting the impression that a lot of the right wing opinion and policies suggested at the moment seem to have quite a bit element of 'knowing your place'.

Would those of us in difficult situations be any happier if we 'knew our place' and accepted it rather than trying to fight against adversity?

There seems to be an overall kind of ethos in right wing thinking that people would be better off if they had 'values' re-instilled (family values, the value of hard work, paying tax, earning your own wage, respect for other people's property etc etc) and would then self-police in terms of accepting an essentially shit life and get on with it quietly.

Er, this is not very well thought out just something I keep thinking about recently...

Who defines one's place though?

'Your place' is entirely subjective. It's where you want it to be. If someone else tells you where you place should be it's more likely to be their place.

The Groke said:

Who defines one's place though?

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the second part I just came up with in the shower...in t'olden days it was defined by the socio-economic class you were born into and there was very little opportunity to move out of that position. As for women, they, by law, had a different 'place' within society than men.

I guess now, with lines between classes more blurred, more supposed opportunity for equal access to education and social mobility etc the question is how is 'place' defined?

I guess if you can't afford somewhere decent/big enough to live for your family and the council don't have houses available etc the argument to know your place might be that that's the situation, know your place and accept it.

The other aspect is in law, if it is enshrined in law that, for example, those who do not have employment must do menial work in order to qualify for benefits, law has defined that for those people their 'place' is to do menial work for less than the minimum wage. I can imagine that being told that you are in that position would probably make you quite angry and frustrated but if there was literally no other choice but to do it maybe you would have to bring an element of 'knowing your place' into your thinking in order to endure it, even if it was for a short time.

Another example might be if the next government started to lower tax credits for families - an argument that some people will certainly put forward will be 'well you chose to have children, you shouldn't have done it if you couldn't afford it'. The same goes for the provision of decent schools for all children etc etc.

I'm not making any kind of argument really or trying to bring this round to support a particular theory or politics or whatever, just trying to work out the general sort of interaction between the psychological process of 'knowing your place' in order to endure hardship and the moral and ethical questions of governments and those in authority to use 'know your place' as an argument for bringing in unpopular measures...

Um...I sort of think I know what you are getting at coming from...

But...um...

Hm...

I think there is a clear difference between taking a pragmatic view of one's circumstances or hardships - enduring if that is the only real option available - and somehow feeling that due to one's race/class/creed/sex/profession ("place") that one is inherently entitled to, or worth, less (or more!) than those in a different "place".


The former is often unavoidable and those unable to endure, unable to choose the right battles, can fall by the wayside. The latter is obviously bullshit and should be fought at every turn.


Or maybe I am completely missing your point?!

BigPhil said:

'Your place' is entirely subjective. It's where you want it to be. If someone else tells you where you place should be it's more likely to be their place.

Click to expand...

Well, no, not really. I think that might be simplifying things a bit. If your 'place' is something that only exists in your own head then yes it is subjective and transient, but there is always more to life than what someone thinks of themselves.

If someone who was born into a family that has material wealth to pass on to the children, e.g. inheritences from grandparents, spare cash to help out with costs while at uni, property that can be cashed in in an emergency etc might have somewhere to live that is big enough for their needs and in a nice area etc because they have extra finances behind them that is nothing to do with their own hard work.

A single parent might be really struggling to get somewhere decent for their kids to live despite working, but not having any other options than to work and claim additional benefits like tax credits, housing benefit etc. The richer person might say to the other person 'well you got yourself into that mess, just get on with it' - essentially, 'know your place'.

No matter how much self worth the person in lesser circumstances has, no matter how resiliant they might be to such attacks on what they 'deserve' the reality is that they don't actually have the same standard of living so their 'place' i.e. situation is different. The richer person might deserve a bit of a walk in someone elses shoes but it doesn't reverse the roles...

The Groke said:

Um...I sort of think I know what you are getting at coming from...

But...um...

Hm...

I think there is a clear difference between taking a pragmatic view of one's circumstances or hardships - enduring if that is the only real option available - and somehow feeling that due to one's race/class/creed/sex/profession ("place") that one is inherently entitled to, or worth, less (or more!) than those in a different "place".

Or maybe I am completely missing your point?!

Click to expand...

No, I think you are getting the point but I don't really know what the point is. Erm, I guess another interesting question to arise from this is whether taking a pragmatic view of difficult circumstances serves the individual better than taking an indignant 'chip on the shoulder' type view and refusing to endure and help themselves because this 'place' they have found themselves in is not the 'place' they should be. That is certainly something that could be studied and tested in a fairly measureable way...

radio_atomica said:

Well, no, not really. I think that might be simplifying things a bit. If your 'place' is something that only exists in your own head then yes it is subjective and transient, but there is always more to life than what someone thinks of themselves.

If someone who was born into a family that has material wealth to pass on to the children, e.g. inheritences from grandparents, spare cash to help out with costs while at uni, property that can be cashed in in an emergency etc might have somewhere to live that is big enough for their needs and in a nice area etc because they have extra finances behind them that is nothing to do with their own hard work.

A single parent might be really struggling to get somewhere decent for their kids to live despite working, but not having any other options than to work and claim additional benefits like tax credits, housing benefit etc. The richer person might say to the other person 'well you got yourself into that mess, just get on with it' - essentially, 'know your place'.

No matter how much self worth the person in lesser circumstances has, no matter how resiliant they might be to such attacks on what they 'deserve' the reality is that they don't actually have the same standard of living so their 'place' i.e. situation is different. The richer person might deserve a bit of a walk in someone elses shoes but it doesn't reverse the roles...

Click to expand...

That's why I said it's 'where you want it to be' rather than 'where you are'.

radio_atomica - I do take your point though. My response was quite simplistic. As 'the groke' summed up the difference is someone telling you to know your place, or the individual knowing where they are and where they want to be.

We are quite blessed in the West because if you know where you want to be and have a realistic idea of how to get there you stand a good chance attaining it. IMO hard work and a bit of luck enables you to get to where you want to be. Of course a good education helps. In some way inheritances and spare cash can actually be a hindrance as this may even reduce your desire and motivation to work hard and make a success of your self.

radio_atomica said:

I keep getting the impression that a lot of the right wing opinion and policies suggested at the moment seem to have quite a bit element of 'knowing your place'.

Click to expand...

I really don't see this. Can you give us some examples?

Would those of us in difficult situations be any happier if we 'knew our place' and accepted it rather than trying to fight against adversity?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Someone's got to rise up the greasy pole, and it's going to be me.

Don't know your place.

Decide yourself what your place should be and go out and get it!

re the op, its right wing people wanting to protect their own position. they will be more able to defend that position after thursday.

Values - 1/5 - collect the set!

"family values"

Values - 2/5 - collect the set!

"hard work"

Values - 3/5 - collect the set!

"paying tax"

Values - 4/5 - collect the set!

"earning your own wage"

Values - 5/5 - collect the set!

"respect for other people's property"

'Self improvement' rhetoric often comes from the right though, not the left.

Thatcher didn't get working-class and lower-middle-class votes by telling people they ought to know their place, but by telling them they could improve their lot and have the things they wanted.

There was a trend in some liberal-left thinking that didn't like the idea of Essex Man getting above himself, being self-sufficient, owning his own home and so on. You can see it expressed in films like 'The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover' and some of Mike Leigh's films, where the proles are alright so long as they suffer in a noble way and have outside toilets.

Briefly...

"Self-made Man" [esp.from Descartes onwards] is the essential Modern characteristic - meant as emancipatory from the "natural order of things" of the previous Epoch, where we could make ourselves into what we want to make ourselves into, as opposed to the "natural order of things", where "one giveth to the Emperor what's Emperor's"... and shut up... "No initiatives", as Austro-Hungarian Emperor used to say, "that's only for me!!!"

So, the Modern Left-Right [politically speaking] slant on it is something else, with a different background/context...

The Right/Liberals would gladly forget that the stack of cards is seriously stacked against those starting from a different position than "their own"... The initial Liberal position, at the beginning of Capitalism, was that everybody - as Feudalism was falling to pieces - started running from the same starting point, which was not quite true even then, let alone nowadays...

So, they [the Right/Liberals] can stick that bit of empty, content-less rhetoric up their hinies and suck on the essentially idiotic nonsense everybody can see through...

Mind, these days even Gates' of this world see that it is "not good to leave a huge amount of money" [and with it power/influence] in the hands of one's offspring, who neither "earned" it, to put it loosely, nor know what to do with it and subsequently can't "appreciate" it... [Good riddance it mostly went to a fund for good causes...]

The Left comes and insists on taking these presumptions back to their originators, taking them seriously at their word and questioning whether we really are starting from the same point, if no one of the "competitors in the race on the market" is really allowed to trip others and if the state is "neutral" or siding with the Capital/Ownership and so on...

Geschichliechkeit/Historicity/Povijesnost is essentially a Modern trait of our world, where we are aware of the fact that we are partaking in its creation... "History making with consciousness" in this context has a very different meaning from what the Right would possibly want to put into it...

What say you...???

Btw, Ernst Bloch's book "Naturrecht und menschliche Würde" ["Natural Right and Human Dignity": http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Dignity-Studies-Contemporary-Thought/dp/0262521296] is paradigmatic in this sense!!!

One doesn't have to agree with all this but...

From Library Journal

An unconventional Marxist philosopher who left East Germany when the Berlin Wall was built, Bloch is perhaps closest to the Bernstein revisionist tradition which affirms a neo-Kantian ethic as the basis for Marxism. In a style influenced by Hegel, Bloch surveys the concepts of law and right from Plato to the present, rejecting positive law theorists and defending natural law. Since Bloch excludes any transcendent validation for natural law, he finds for it the practical rationale that it is essential to preserve the concept of human dignity which, in turn, is essential to the realization through socialism of a humane society. For academic collections on Marxism, German philosophy, and philosophy of law. Brent A. Nelson, Univ. of Arkansas, Technology Campus Lib., Little Rock
Copyright 1985 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review


"Bloch's sweeping and passionate essay on behalf of freedom and human dignity redeems the principle of natural rights and liberty as a revolutionary impulse from the ancients to Marx. In the spirit of Rousseau, Bloch upholds the original ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity - 'a tradition that has not yet become' against all forms of tyranny. Skillfully translated, this work demonstrates the power of Bloch's heretical Marxism and the contemporary relevance of his defense of human rights and social justice."
- Anson Rabinbach, editor, New German Critique

Click to expand...

IMR said:

'Self improvement' rhetoric often comes from the right though, not the left.

Thatcher didn't get working-class and lower-middle-class votes by telling people they ought to know their place, but by telling them they could improve their lot and have the things they wanted.

Click to expand...

She may not have got votes that way but she certainly made sure that that is what happened. Some of my friends growing up in the 80s remember not having enough to eat, wearing coats inside the house in winter and going to bed at 8 because there was no more money to put in the meter. How, exactly, would the right expect someone to 'self improve' under those conditions?

Yes, the self improvement vibe comes from the right, but for every person with the skills and luck to be a 'boy done good' there are hundreds if not thousands of normal people who can't/couldn't see any further than getting food on the table and coal on the fire.

If the right wing government does not offer comprehensive ways (a welfare state/nhs healthcare/decent education for all) for people to live in decent enough surroundings to enjoy a normal life above and beyond one of toil and poverty (as the working classes in victorian times did) then they can pay as much lipservice to 'self improvement' and 'get where you want to be by working for it' as they like but it is not borne out by the actions of a right wing government as those who are supposed to be doing it are already in the worst position to actually be able to carry it out.

The 'knowing your place' bit comes into play when the disadvantaged complain about lack of opportunities and are essentially told 'if you're not good enough to sort it out for yourself, know your place and get on with it'.

gorski said:

Briefly...

"Self-made Man" [esp.from Descartes onwards] is the essential Modern characteristic - meant as emancipatory from the "natural order of things" of the previous Epoch, where we could make ourselves into what we want to make ourselves into, as opposed to the "natural order of things", where "one giveth to the Emperor what's Emperor's"... and shut up... "No initiatives", as Austro-Hungarian Emperor used to say, "that's only for me!!!"

So, the Modern Left-Right [politically speaking] slant on it is something else, with a different background/context...

The Right/Liberals would gladly forget that the stack of cards is seriously stacked against those starting from a different position than "their own"... The initial Liberal position, at the beginning of Capitalism, was that everybody - as Feudalism was falling to pieces - started running from the same starting point, which was not quite true even then, let alone nowadays...

So, they [the Right/Liberals] can stick that bit of empty, content-less rhetoric up their hinies and suck on the essentially idiotic nonsense everybody can see through...

Mind, these days even Gates' of this world see that it is "not good to leave a huge amount of money" [and with it power/influence] in the hands of one's offspring, who neither earned it, nor know what to do with it and subsequently can't appreciate it... [Good riddance it mostly went to a fund for good causes...]

The Left comes and insists on taking these presumptions back to their originators, taking them seriously at their word and questioning whether we really are starting from the same point, if no one of the "competitors in the race on the market" is really allowed to trip others and if the state is "neutral" or siding with the Capital/Ownership and so on...

Geschichliechkeit/Historicity/Povijesnost is essentially a Modern trait of our world, where we are aware of the fact that we are partaking in its creation... "History making with consciousness" in this context has a very different meaning from what the Right would possibly want to put into it...

What say you...???

Click to expand...

I've read that 3 times and I still think I maybe don't totally understand it but very, very interesting. More please

It is standard one nation toryism. God is in heaven and all layers beneath go 'me and mine' then the rest of society. It as a political philosophy ties to the sort of liberal humanism espoused by matthew arnold. The structure works if those at the top look after and educate those at the bottom. Those at the top deal with serious affairs and those at the bottom deal with the smaller affairs of actually making shit.

An idea that took a serious knock when they fed nearly half the w/c youth of the population into the meatgrinders of somme and ypres in WW1. Basically bollocks. Paternalistic bollocks but bollocks regardless.

radio_atomica said:

I've read that 3 times and I still think I maybe don't totally understand it but very, very interesting. More please

Click to expand...

One could say, together with Marx and Bloch, that Liberté, égalité, fraternité should all be taken together - and seriously!!!! - not just a piece of it and even that rather partially and superficially!!!

Some interpret Marx as a "Liberal", taking Liberals very seriously at their word, actually going behind the scenes and testing the limits of possibilities of Modern Capitalist setup.

Wasn't only Liberté, as freedom to own and exploit [nature and fellow Men], left on the scene, while égalité and fraternité were quickly disposed of, to the best of owners' abilities???

Let's go behind the scenes and ask about interests! What's in it for you [owners/haves] and what's in it for me/us [labour sellers/have nots]. That is a legitimate question, not to be frowned upon, as Liberals often do, because the very first question in any deal they make is precisely that: "What's in it for me/us?!?".

But it is "not polite" to talk of one's "income" and all the other alleged "mores" of "Liberal society" etc. Oh, really?!? And why is that, Marx asks, as a young journalist, reporting from Landstag. Why does allegedly rationally structured Parliament pass irrational laws, hurting the most of its citizens? How come that General interests get screwed, while Partial/Particular interests sell themselves as General, while huge numbers of individuals from certain "groups of society", i.e. the other "particular" interests [of the have nots] get completely short-changed?!?

In the course of his investigation it turns out that the modern [Political] State from the start isn't meant to be impartial/neutral - as opposed to the alleged Liberal "ideology" - but that it is there to side with a particular mode of production. That leads him onto Hegel's earlier studies of English [first] National [later Political] Economy and his insight that in Modernity there is no hiatus between citoyen and bourgeois, political state and bourgeois society but that, in fact, both spheres have the same principle behind them.

There, he criticises his own, earlier understanding of Modernity/Capitalism, in his early, pre-'848 writings, after which he studies English National Economy and re-reads Hegel's Philosophy of Law. Which gets him to Capital, later on...

In effect, bourgeoisie - the revolutionary class of Modernity - quickly turns against its yesterday's ally, without whom it couldn't have pulled the Revolution off and becomes a counter-revolutionary, conservative force! Yesterday's "Liberals" turn to... whatever piece of shit one can think of here...

Although, even if it's not very "popular" on this forum, one has to state that some part of "Liberals" [today also know as "middle classes" ], as predicted earlier, have turned against the Conservative Liberal element and continued pushing for a fuller implementation of the above mentioned and quickly sabotaged, plus seriously crippled Modernity's password, Liberté, égalité, fraternité!!!

But somebody should inform BA about it...