Why do people from privileged class backgrounds often misidentify their origins as working class?

[quimcunx]

Surely middle class is a subset of working class.

 

[ska invita]

Posted this on the 63 UP thread, as just finished watching. There's a good essay looking at the series which makes the case - correctly IMO - that over time it showed how just many people resent their class-identity labels. It mentions: " As Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite argued in Class, Politics, and the Decline of Deference in England, 1968–2000, although class continued to matter—even as inequality worsened—people resisted labeling themselves by class; the very word seemed snobbish or blinkered. Most preferred to say they were ordinary, and yet they were still able to define complex identities for themselves. "

This is echoed in the massive Social Class in the 21st Century study - vast majority of people resent class stigmatisation. Its a major problem for a left that puts class consciousness and therefore class identity as its starting point, when people resent and try to escape the stigmas of all class identities. IMO the left can resolve that, not by abandoning class, but by finding new language for class-relationships that sidesteps old class stereotypes. The 99% was a failed attempt at that. I just dont think the terms 'working' and 'middle' cut it anymore if they ever did -as structural or identity categories - and maybe they did in the industrial revolution.

 

[8ball]

I'm not sure that's fair/accurate. There's more to it than that.

It's not accurate, I know. Just very marginally less grating.
Other suggestions welcome.

 

[Winot]

So, for me, I would absolutely say that I'm middle class, but with working class roots - certainly my grandparents were skilled working class, and my parents started their working lives in skilled working class jobs - but if my children ended up doing exactly the same jobs as us I think it would be difficult to say they had working class roots, simply because their experiences and the experiences of the people around them are pretty much entirely middle class..

Yes that’s what the authors found - that when describing themselves the middle classes emphasised their forebears working class roots.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes that’s what the authors found - that when describing themselves the middle classes emphasised their forebears working class roots.

Including they had a hotel. Another funny bit.

 

[hitmouse]

People in the UK are more likely to ‘misidentify’ as working class rather than middle class. Drawing on data from the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA), Evans and Mellon (2016) show that 60% of people in Britain identity as working class – a figure that has not changed since 1983, despite working-class jobs declining sharply and now making up only 32% of the workforce. And among those in ‘middle-class’ professional and managerial occupations, just under half (47%) say they are working class...
How might we make sense of this widespread misidentification of class identity? Sociological literature points in three possible directions.

None of the three possible directions they identify involves the possibility that the sociologists might be the ones getting things wrong. Principal Skinner strikes again.

 

[chilango]

I would say that careful use of terms such as :

position
identity
privilege
status

can help (a little) in clarifying what facet of class is being talked about.

 

[danny la rouge]

Surely middle class is a subset of working class.

Its role in the structure of capital is what’s important:

Yes, there are inherent contradictions in the system. But if our conversation was about definitions of class, and we’re now moving on to discussing the nature of contemporary society, then we’re widening the conversation somewhat. Which is fine, but let’s be clear about what it is we’re discussing.

You’ve said you don’t find class a useful concept (correct me if I misrepresent you). I’ve said I think it the fundamental political concept. I had assumed that you understood why, even if you disagreed. But for the sake of exposition, for now I’m going assume you don’t. Let’s make that a “you”: ie, the reader.

However, keep in mind that this is an internet post, and by its nature incomplete.

The structure of society under the current mode of production was described by Marx in Capital vol. 1, but the part I’m interested in now can be found in chapter 13, where he discusses the “formal subsumption” and the “real subsumption” of labour into capital. In other words, the process by which the labour process is subsumed directly into capital.

What does this mean? Well, in earlier stages of history the merchant capitalist would bring the raw materials to the workers, perhaps cotton, and pay a certain amount for finished products, perhaps cloth. So, we have weavers, say, in cottages, who perhaps own their own loom (the means of production). These are artisans. They aren’t proletariat. But they are selling their labour, and they are having their surplus value appropriated. (For a discussion of the different types of value, including exchange value which is relevant to us here, and what surplus value is, see the first three chapters of Capital vol 1). This is “formal subsumption”. The role of the worker is clear: they depend on the capitalist for income, and they don’t own the products of their labour: they aren’t really selling the products as such (they aren’t making stuff to hawk around different potential customers); they’re selling their labour.

So, yes, the labourer is part of capital. The labourer relies on capital for a livelihood. But this does not suggest any ambivalence about class. It is not vague. There is no duality. Their surplus value is being appropriated. That is exploitation. Now, that’s not saying anything at all about whether we as a society or as individuals might think they are getting a “fair” or “reasonable” wage. I don’t imply that everyday meaning of “exploit”. “Reasonable” is a relative concept. Rather, I am talking here about a structural phenomenon which exists whether or not the market, or you, or I, or anyone else thinks a fair wage is being paid.

But in our discussion the next point is the important point: under formal subsumption there was no, or merely transactional, supervision of the worker (ie your piece-rate is down, your products are below acceptable value, etc, but nobody is in situ supervising you). Real subsumption occurs when the whole process is brought within the factory. The loom is no longer yours (ownership of the means of production), and, critically for our discussion, you are now being actually supervised.

However, whereas the capitalist is capital personified (for which see especially chapter 10), the supervision may not, probably will not, directly be conducted by the capitalist. For that, the capitalist employs (wage labour, and don’t own the looms either) a middle class of supervisors.

That is a definition of middle class. And that is why it is structurally important.

Now, there are strands within that supervisor class. And some may own certain amounts of property that they use to exploit others (note: economically exploit). But their major role is supporting the capitalist class in its subsumption of labour.

Now, for illustration I used a textile production model. But the structural principles we’ve discussed remain the same even if we’re talking about a service industry; even if we’re talking about financial services.

Does that make the members of the supervisor class “bad” people? I’m not interested here in individual morality. They are where they are in the structure of society. They play the role they play.

They might see themselves as “progressive”: they support gay rights, they don’t discriminate according to race or gender, and so on. But for a full description of how that whole identity politics arena can be fully subsumed into supporting the interests of the capitalist class, see David Harvey’s excellent work on the history of neoliberalism.

That's probably quite long enough a post!

 

[mauvais]

I've just had a quick read of the paper. The authors are quite obviously not using a Marxist lens on class, and neither are their subjects. So you do end up with a negotiable and contestable notion of class that tries to take elements of economic position and cultural identity and construct a "class" out of that.

I am poorly educated on the detail of political theory so I will ask a probably stupid question.

So to take 'professional' as a starting point - there are a lot of people who are well-paid but nonetheless must as it stands continue to sell their labour to live, and do so payday to payday, such is the nature of PAYE. But, these people are afforded the structural capability of not doing that - they probably have the means to become employers or managers, BTL landlords, merchants, self-employed contractors, etc etc. Are we best defined by what we do, or what we are able to do?

In that sense, is there a useful modern compromise between economic position and Marxist class?

 

[kebabking]

Yes that’s what the authors found - that when describing themselves the middle classes emphasised their forebears working class roots.

Formative experiences/culture?

 

[Pickman's model]

20 pages by tomorrow but for this to be in any way considered to be an urban classic there must be bannings

 

[danny la rouge]

what we are able to do?

Able to. Lots of people who would be able to live on the performance of their capital alone also have a paid job, in which they sell their labour power. The point is that they don’t have to do the latter.

 

[mauvais]

Able to. Lots of people who would be able to live on the performance of their capital alone also have a paid job, in which they sell their Labour power. The point is that they don’t have to do the latter.

I think you're probably right, except what you use to illustrate it is a slightly different thing - they already have that capital. PAYE professionals don't, although they may be able to accrue it if they behave differently.

 

[chilango]

I am poorly educated on the detail of political theory so I will ask a probably stupid question.

So to take 'professional' as a starting point - there are a lot of people who are well-paid but nonetheless must as it stands continue to sell their labour to live, and do so payday to payday, such is the nature of PAYE. But, these people are afforded the structural capability of not doing that - they probably have the means to become employers or managers, BTL landlords, merchants, self-employed contractors, etc etc. Are we best defined by what we do, or what we are able to do?

In that sense, is there a useful modern compromise between economic position and Marxist class?

I don't think "professional" is useful economically. it may be a signifier of cultural capital, but not necessarily of economic position. "Managerial" is more useful, though still flawed, for that imo.

 

[hitmouse]

I am poorly educated on the detail of political theory so I will ask a probably stupid question.

So to take 'professional' as a starting point - there are a lot of people who are well-paid but nonetheless must as it stands continue to sell their labour to live, and do so payday to payday, such is the nature of PAYE. But, these people are afforded the structural capability of not doing that - they probably have the means to become employers or managers, BTL landlords, merchants, self-employed contractors, etc etc. Are we best defined by what we do, or what we are able to do?

In that sense, is there a useful modern compromise between economic position and Marxist class?

I mean, I think part of the problem is that Marxist class isn't meant to be a matter of slotting individuals into careful categories like a butterfly collection or something. I suppose how I'd look at it is that you can think of a number of measures that would be good for renters and bad for BTL landlords, etc - for instance, rent controls, eviction bans, tighter regulations on what landlords are required to provide, and so on. That's where you can see antagonistic class interests take shape, and I'd guess that in that instance a renter who had the possible means of becoming a landlord would still be more likely to side with other renters than with landlords in that issue. Obviously, that's assuming a crude/mechanical relationship between class interests and consciousness, of course in reality anyone can be the kind of mug who empathises with landlords or whatever.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think you're probably right, except what you use to illustrate it is a slightly different thing - they already have that capital. PAYE professionals don't, although they may be able to accrue it if they behave differently.

Ones relationship with the means of production is whatever it is at any point in time. If I have no capital now, I am not a member of the capitalist class. If I accrue it, I then become a member of that class. No matter how I pronounce “bath”.

 

[hitmouse]

I don't think "professional" is useful economically. it may be a signifier of cultural capital, but not necessarily of economic position. "Managerial" is more useful, though still flawed, for that imo.

Yeah, the diffusion of managerial responsibilities throughout the whole workforce is a really interesting topic, and seems understudied, imo.
For instance, this article:

When I started my job, there were about 10 people that could tell me off. These semi-supervisors were all recruited from the pool of part-time precarious staff. Because they were all recruited from the part-time staff they had a lot of knowledge about the job and usually pretty friendly relationships with other part-time staff. They knew us, they knew the job, and we got on. That meant they were very effective supervisors.

When you get ‘promoted’ you get 20p more an hour and a load more stress. You’re basically still as skint as you were beforehand, but now you have to make two or three other workers work harder, you have to discipline them, and you have to make them work Sundays.

I’ve seen both sides of the complicated line. As a worker it was disempowering. I didn’t have a clear enemy, because the lowest layer of supervisors were all really still workers. As a duty manager, everything that pissed me off as a worker still pissed me off, but with the added bonus of having to build ‘morale’ in the workplace. This meant being alienated from my own friends and never being able to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of other staff who I was responsible for supervising.

Something you commonly hear in work up and down your country is the question, “Who is your line manager?” You’ve got a whole heap of positions that are in someway managerial, or at least supervisory - and the weird thing is that they’re basically all as skint as you are. This is the proletarization of management. The person who shouts at you, starts a disciplinary procedure, or makes you work on Sunday is probably only slightly better paid and slightly more secure. And, for their trouble, they act as a lightning rod for all the pressure coming from other layers of management above them.

Supervised workers quickly realise that any anger directed at their supervisor is misdirected. If you have a massive go at a supervisor it’s probably justified - but in the back of your mind you feel guilt and pity, not satisfaction. Having a pop at low level supervisors just causes additional stress for other workers, rather than actually getting at the managers who make the decisions and reap the benefits. There is no direct power relationship with management, instead, the low-level proletarianised supervisor operates as a human shield.

Shift supervisors definitely play a "managerial" function, but is useful to understand them as PMC?

 

[chilango]

Ones relationship with the means of production is whatever it is at any point in time. If I have no capital now, I am not a member of the capitalist class. If I accrue it, I then become a member of that class. No matter how I pronounce “bath”.

...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.

 

[cloudyday]

i keep it simple, me.

if you have to get out of bed to get money to live* = working class
if you can stay in bed and get paid via something you own (labour/property) = middle class

*where this gets fuzzy is when this work goes towards defending/reproducing bourgeois hegemony, but that is a different argument.

And i'm not arsed if you've got a cupboard full of couscous or pork scratchings.

 

[The39thStep]

I've heard various people equate being 'Northern' with being working class. It's very strange.

 

[brogdale]

...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.

might being an important word, there...

 

[Winot]

Formative experiences/culture?

Sure - I agree it's important. Just thought it was amusing that you did exactly what the paper talked about.

No judgement - I do it too (grandfather left school at 14 and was a panel beater; parents didn't go to university etc.).

 

[mauvais]

I don't think "professional" is useful economically. it may be a signifier of cultural capital, but not necessarily of economic position. "Managerial" is more useful, though still flawed, for that imo.

I'm a professional. I choose not to manage anybody, and I get paid about the same as my manager. I work in a sector where there is a skills shortage, broadly and in specialism, and so to some extent that I wouldn't like to try and define, I have greater control than most over my labour. The best fit is probably from DLR's post earlier - 'artisan', if you ignore the modern identity association of that.

I mean, I think part of the problem is that Marxist class isn't meant to be a matter of slotting individuals into careful categories like a butterfly collection or something. I suppose how I'd look at it is that you can think of a number of measures that would be good for renters and bad for BTL landlords, etc - for instance, rent controls, eviction bans, tighter regulations on what landlords are required to provide, and so on. That's where you can see antagonistic class interests take shape, and I'd guess that in that instance a renter who had the possible means of becoming a landlord would still be more likely to side with other renters than with landlords in that issue. Obviously, that's assuming a crude/mechanical relationship between class interests and consciousness, of course in reality anyone can be the kind of mug who empathises with landlords or whatever.

This is a really good post. Capital interests like home ownership certainly change your default interests, at least if you don't think about it very hard. This is partly why I asked the question - in 'American Dream' style, is it structurally problematic that as you become afforded the option of something like landlordism, your interests may become aligned (do they?) with that thing, even if it's not what you presently do? e.g., 'well, I might want to buy a house as an investment, so...'

 

[danny la rouge]

...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.

Indeed. Which is why these indicators are not irrelevant.

I probably tend to dismiss the cultural indicators more than I should because in these discussions people always focus right in on them and get stuck, instead of seeing the structure. I want people to pull out and see the structure, and therefore get the cultural identity elements into perfective.

 

[cloudyday]

...although how you pronounce "bath" might be an indicator of of cultural capital you might have, which in turn potentially enables access to a different relationship to the means of production than those lacking that cultural capital would ordinarily be allowed.

this is a good point.

 

[chilango]

might being an important word, there...

View attachment 250054

Yep. Absolutely. Accent is just one signifier of cultural capital. This is where habitus is a useful concept.

 

[Sue]

There were some interesting anecdotes. I liked the bit about a respondent having gone to a not very good, and inexpensive private school. That was hilarious.

Yes. Someone I came across who did the 'Northern' therefore working class thing went to a 30 grand a year public school. They didn't find it hilarious when I went 'erm, how does that work...?'

 

[Deej1992]

I just call these folk champagne socialists...

 

[chilango]

Further complications included the changing "shape" of the economy.

A generation or two ago someone following my trajectory would be bourgeois as fuck with a nice big house, secure career, pension and investments. Significant social status and the autonomy and power that come come with that.

Now I do the same actual work for £14 an hour on a casual basis. if I'm lucky.

 

[brogdale]

I think the paper is quite interesting in that it explores one particular aspect of self-identification (self perception) of class and, as such, in this instance, I don't think it is overly productive to pore over definitions of class.