'Middle Class' it's basically just a construct isn't it...
- Thread starter stuff_it
- Start date
weltweit
Well-Known Member
That depends.
This thread kind of started talking about class as an idea but then got bogged down with individuals, perhaps that is inevitable.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Actually I think I may have contributed to this thread more even than you kabbes.
That does not mean that I agree with everything expressed in it, because I don't.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Jobs were mentioned a few times on the thread, can you quote the post number?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Presumably you mean this one then :
Santino said:
And your question to me was :
kabbes said:
Considering that Santino used the specific words "Actual, individual people." I would say it was to do with individuals yes.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'THE FACT THAT PEOPLE THINK IT IS GOOD NOT TO THINK IN CLASS TERMS IS WHAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BE FUCKED OVER BY THE RICH.'
I agree with this. But I wouldn't term 'having to do something in a particular way as a reflection of your class' as thinking about class. It's just doing stuff.
Then again, even the most politically aware person isn't going to think about the way they're being exploited every time they go to the shop. And there's no need to.
I agree with this. But I wouldn't term 'having to do something in a particular way as a reflection of your class' as thinking about class. It's just doing stuff.
Then again, even the most politically aware person isn't going to think about the way they're being exploited every time they go to the shop. And there's no need to.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
To be honest kabbes I think you have lost the plot completely you seem to be arguing for the sake of it and getting yourself quite worked up completely unnecessarily.
Santino was talking (I quote) about "individual people" which implies individuals you said "an individual" which is singular where is the significant difference?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I think I understand a lot of Santino's points. That does not mean I agree with them, but to argue about each of them would be unneccessary and probably pointless.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Thing is, if all you know about someone is what job they do, the only thing you know about them is that a) they do that job, and b) they presumably have the skills required to do that job. If you also know how much they earn, that's another bit of info.
All else is probability based on studying large groups and identifying trends. But it is only probability. If you have a kilo of radioactive material with a half-life of 10 years (and you only know the half-life from studying the behaviour of this material in the past), you can know for sure that almost exactly half of it will have decayed after 10 years. But you know nothing about the individual atoms. Any one atom might decay after 5 minutes or 5 million years.
In this kind of discussion, there's little point in talking about individual cases. All the babies lying in the hospital have different odds on becoming wealthy/going to uni/living longer depending on the economic and social class of their parents. But they are only odds. Nothing is determined yet (in any way that we can know). That's what gives us all hope, I think - knowing that things could get better.
All else is probability based on studying large groups and identifying trends. But it is only probability. If you have a kilo of radioactive material with a half-life of 10 years (and you only know the half-life from studying the behaviour of this material in the past), you can know for sure that almost exactly half of it will have decayed after 10 years. But you know nothing about the individual atoms. Any one atom might decay after 5 minutes or 5 million years.
In this kind of discussion, there's little point in talking about individual cases. All the babies lying in the hospital have different odds on becoming wealthy/going to uni/living longer depending on the economic and social class of their parents. But they are only odds. Nothing is determined yet (in any way that we can know). That's what gives us all hope, I think - knowing that things could get better.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
In this kind of discussion, there's little point in having a discussion, to be fair.
It started well, but then got personalised. That is not to say that class doesn't matter for real individuals, however. It does.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I should add, it got personalised by the people who are class sceptics. They always seem to think it's about them.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Would you like me to analyse your mass?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Not consciously no.
But do you really think class is as omnipotent for humans as gravity?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
No. Not in the sense that you're thinking about the way that a large mass like Earth distorts space-time in such a way that you appear to fall towards it in a highly regular way.
You can think about and deal with the problems thrown up by your class without having the first idea about the causes of those problems. You can think about and deal with the effects of gravity without knowing anything about relativity, or even for that matter anything about Newton. Every life form on Earth has to deal with gravity.
That's a good analogy, in fact. You have particular problems in your life and a class analysis can help explain how those problems came about and why others don't have those problems, just as relativity or Newton helped to explain gravity. And knowing that explanation can equip you with predictive knowledge so that you can work out what is best to do about not solving the problems (they'll still need to be dealt with the same way), but solving the problem that caused those problems.
Hmm. That might be a bad analogy. My point is that people don't plod through life thinking 'left, right, left, right', 'breathe in, breathe out.' They are constantly navigating a physical and social world. They know which shops they belong in, they know what sort of clothes they wear, they KNOW THEIR PLACE, in other words.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
If that's what you mean, then fine. Although in the sense of 'knowing your place' there are whole places were 'your place' is everywhere. I live in Hastings, a town of some 85,000 people, and there is no class divide in Hastings really at all culturally, not in the sense of knowing your place. There's a simple reason for that, which is that there are very few rich people here, but there's no reason to ever consciously know your place here really.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Actually I thought your gravity analogy was more thought provoking.
We do all wear uniforms that is certainly true. And there are some behaviours that are more common to some categories of people than others. But is class, with its three main designations an adequate descriptor for these many differences, what about National Statistics Socio-economic Classification :
1.Higher managerial and professional occupations
2.Lower managerial and professional occupations
3.Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales, service)
4.Small employers and own account workers
5.Lower supervisory and technical occupations
6.Semi-routine occupations
7.Routine occupations
8.Never worked and long-term unemployed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Statistics_Socio-economic_Classification
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Not sure that works, either, though. You can work in number 3. in the City and earn a fortune. Also, small employers below lower managers?
It's a difficult thing to work out. My objection to the 'middle class' definition as it is mostly used currently is that it is too broad to be useful. butchers' definition was a good stab at one, but he really was talking about 'upper middle' only, I think. 'Lower middle' is more a cultural signifier than an economic one, it seems to me. Economically, 'lower middle' are best off throwing in their lot with those classified as working class, the richer of whom are on similar money - all the important interests are shared in common.
It's a difficult thing to work out. My objection to the 'middle class' definition as it is mostly used currently is that it is too broad to be useful. butchers' definition was a good stab at one, but he really was talking about 'upper middle' only, I think. 'Lower middle' is more a cultural signifier than an economic one, it seems to me. Economically, 'lower middle' are best off throwing in their lot with those classified as working class, the richer of whom are on similar money - all the important interests are shared in common.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Well socio economic groups are used to try to sell things to people, treating people as sort of homogenous groups. There are better categories such as Acorn although that was not the one I was looking for.
http://www.businessballs.com/demographicsclassifications.htm
http://www.businessballs.com/demographicsclassifications.htm
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm more interested in the way that different groups perceive their political interests. Santino coined a phrase earlier - precarious middle class - that's useful, I think. That's what I am, I would say. And the precarious middle classes really do share the political interests of the precarious working classes. It's the 'precarious' bit that's important.
Similar threads
