I am writing an essay for a class and could do with your thoughts on this.
What do you think is social class, how would you define it, how fixed/fluid are class distinctions?
Id be grateful to hear your thoughts on this.

As Im bordering on being "late" to "work" Ill be uber quick...

On the basic level, social class Id have thought is lower, middle, and upper class. Defined by a combination of wealth and the social circle. Though there is a degree of flexibility, I think maybe social class is mostly defined by wealth and the lifestyle associated with it. IE, well of people are generally more likely to enjoy more extravegant food and hobbies. Less well off people might just eat normal food and hobbies may be less costly etc.

However the flexiblity is due maybe to the fact that some well off people might choose not to spend their money, so you have the instances of the uber rich old people living in a poor state which might be classed as lower class, even though they could happily live in the middle or upper class states.

The general spread of the "Classes" in a country might also be indicated I suppose through the internet on a basic level. If you can find some niche interests or hobbies, and calculate the associated costs, you might be able to determine the average wealth/class of that countries citizen. The example Im thinking of is that in insect/beetle breeding and keeping it appears that places like Asia and Czech dominate the information on the net. Is this because its a very low cost pet/hobby? (In Asias case theres also the aspect of space)

This is all probably just all totally off the mark, gotta go.

True upper class cannot be bought into, you have to have lineage to make it there. If a 19 year old council estate chav wins 50 million on the lottery and starts spending like theres no tomorrow they do not become upper class, no matter what they buy, where they live or where they go.

I also make a distinction between a "lower class" and "working class", though the working class is a dying breed. I would see working class as those who were miners, that sort of thing, whereas lower class is your council estate chavs.

Although there may be certain monetary influences as to which class you belong to I think it is a lot more to do with your social status.

I think it was George Carlin who said the upper class exists to own money, the middle class exists to make the money and the lower class exists to scare the crap out of the middle class and keep them working. Not strictly relevant, but funny.

What about a school teacher who earns 20k and enjoys white wine and the opera. What class are they? Middle class?

What about a truck driver who earns 40k and drinks beer and watches greyhound racing? What class are they?

How do you resolve the fact money here is not an indicator of class. This is the issue I am having with my definition.

I dont know if youve read the wikipedia entry yet but it suggests that class is based more on profession than earnings.

Quote from: wikipediaTitle (Having a title will automatically place you in the upper class category)

Upper Middle Class - (professionals such as doctors, lawyers, bank managers)
Middle Class - (professionals, such as teachers, managers, accountants, ministers of religion)
Lower middle class - (Basic graduate professions, basic office and clerical).


Upper Working Class - (Working in role such as supervisor, foreman, steward, or skilled trade such as plumber/bricklayer)
Working Class - (Working in traditional working class profession, often basic skilled industrial/construction)
Lower working class - (Working in low/minimum wage occupations, such as cleaner, shop assistant, bar worker)

Wages (Wages tend to be the main distinguishing factor, having any wages moves you into the working class, whereas earning a salary moves you into the middle class)
Underclass - (reliant on state benefits for income, described by Marx as the lumpenproletariat; sometimes colloquially referred to as chav class)

The boundaries are more blurred than ever before but I would tend to agree with the Wiki definition that sexytw has posted in most cases. I always saw the modern class system as distinctly seperate from wealth and earnings and having far more to do with aspirations than anything else, its been hard to tie people to a genuine "estate" system since the late mediaeval period. So if you dont base it on money but base it on aspirations, the truck driver (if he is going to stay a truck driver) cant really aspire for any kind of promotion or move up the ranks in their job that will make much difference to their salary. On the other hand the teacher earning 20k can aspire to far greater positions of authority by moving up the ranks to head teacher of a large school and even above that. Your managers can move to bigger branches and take on more roles, accountants can rise through the ranks and set up their own firms and so on. One thing I do disagree with regarding the wikipedia article is placing anyone "employed" in religion in the middle class, for this I cheat and hearken back to the mediaeval period when there was a seperate "estate" (class) for the clergy that was equivalent (or in some cases more powerful than) the aristocracy. (Obviously it is not equal to the upper class now but I find it useful to seperate these individuals out for the purposes of sorting things out in my mind).

Again I think my concept of the modern class system works back to this mediaeval idea, you have the aristocracy and the clergy as two estates, the working class working the fields every day and the merchant class (who nowadays equate to what we call the middle class). Those in the fields could never really aspire to anything different and got on with their job (obviously there are always a few exceptions to the rule on occasion) whilst the merchant class could accumulate knowledge through their aspirations, they were always working for a better future and trying to change their lot in life compared to the working class who simply accepted what they were given, got their heads down, and got on with it in the knowledge that this was probably as good as it was going to get for them. (Incidentally I think its worth saying that there is no right and wrong and I dont elevate one above the other, many merchants and middle class people ended up down and out and loosing everything as quickly as they had earned it).

So to summarise for a modern class system the middle class are those that aspire to what are traditionally considered better things, whilst the working class are the 9-5ers who live somewhat more in a shell and are less concerned with promotions and rising through the ranks. And obviously we also have the underclass who rely on state benefits.

One major problem with a working 21st century class system is that people are incredibly prone to lying about their classes (or just generally being unaware of them and considering the class system properly) and whilst in years gone by people had a clear understanding of their class and their lot in life nowadays I find no-one wants to be middle class. The stereotypical middle class person wants to be either upper class (more common with younger people) whilst more middle aged and older people tend to identify more with their working class roots and are jealously proud of being working class and consider it an insult to be called middle class.

Its an interesting discussion to have I suppose. I think in general it can only vary based on personal opinion in the 21st century, many see the middle class as something to get away from but I always enjoyed the slightly more ancient idea of the middle class as those who worked to change their own situation rather than working the 9-5 every day until retirement. Hence my basing the whole thing on aspiration rather than wealth and income.

Havent got time to post much now, but theres a lot of an interesting discussion on this topic in Kate Foxs "Watching the English".

Focuses a lot on the idea of class being as much about behaviour, which is more difficult to change, as it is about wealth and profession.

Ideas like folding your shirt sleaves over your elbows indicating a certain class distincton, and the various different levels of aspiration between classes being a strong distinguishing factor.

Quote from: sexytwI dont know if youve read the wikipedia entry yet but it suggests that class is based more on profession than earnings.

Thanks this is an academic essay. I dont get any points for copying Wiki. And Im looking for your ideas to help shape my own.
I believe class (here) is only wealth related but not sure if Im convinced myself yet.

Quote from: BigSoyHavent got time to post much now, but theres a lot of an interesting discussion on this topic in Kate Foxs "Watching the English".

Focuses a lot on the idea of class being as much about behaviour, which is more difficult to change, as it is about wealth and profession.

Ideas like folding your shirt sleaves over your elbows indicating a certain class distincton, and the various different levels of aspiration between classes being a strong distinguishing factor.

Thanks Ill dig out that essay.

Upper Class = those who dont need to worry about ones self
Middle Class = those who worry about ones self & everyone elses
Lower Class = those who dont care about ones self or anyone elses

Quote from: GoblinTrue upper class cannot be bought into, you have to have lineage to make it there. If a 19 year old council estate chav wins 50 million on the lottery and starts spending like theres no tomorrow they do not become upper class, no matter what they buy, where they live or where they go.

Lineage has to start somewhere? Obviously a chav that wins loads and starts spending wouldnt have the "class" to be upper class. But over time I think his/her social values and that of his/her family would be shaped by the surroundings. I think its partly wealth, partly social (as in social circle and your own behaviour)

Quote from: Sam

Quote from: BigSoyHavent got time to post much now, but theres a lot of an interesting discussion on this topic in Kate Foxs "Watching the English".

Focuses a lot on the idea of class being as much about behaviour, which is more difficult to change, as it is about wealth and profession.

Ideas like folding your shirt sleaves over your elbows indicating a certain class distincton, and the various different levels of aspiration between classes being a strong distinguishing factor.

Thanks Ill dig out that essay.

Sorry, shouldve said, its a book rather than an essay.

Quote from: zpyder

Quote from: GoblinTrue upper class cannot be bought into, you have to have lineage to make it there. If a 19 year old council estate chav wins 50 million on the lottery and starts spending like theres no tomorrow they do not become upper class, no matter what they buy, where they live or where they go.

Lineage has to start somewhere? Obviously a chav that wins loads and starts spending wouldnt have the "class" to be upper class. But over time I think his/her social values and that of his/her family would be shaped by the surroundings. I think its partly wealth, partly social (as in social circle and your own behaviour)

I disagree.. David & Victoria beckham are a prime example. Lots of money but not an ounce of class. they are still working class.
Upper Class is in the breeding (there must be the same amount of interbreeding as there is the european royal families) , education & access they have to things.

Just your basic things like private schooling, fox hunting, clay pigeon shooting & anything else you consider upperclass (like sleeping with the woods man mellors)
If someone not from that background done it, they basically look the twat.

I disagree with your disagreement Using the Posh and Becks example, they havent exactly been rich "That" long. Id liken the process of "class transition" to the process of changing nationalities perhaps (Someones bound to easily pick a flaw on this but bear with me). Say an englishman moved to france, and that this was akin to getting wealthy. Now, the englishman isnt good at french, and he might be able to pick the lingo up pretty quickly and be able to understand and speak it quite well within a few years. This could be akin to starting to get into the various upper class circles/clubs...

However, the englishman will stick out for a long time (decades) due to his accent and mannerisms. The same can be said for the rags to riches person. However, if the englishman then has a family in france, the kids are brought up knowing only the french (upper class) side of life with the only middle/lower class experiences coming from their parents and their friends. Should these children have children, that influence might become further reduced. This might be likened to posh and becks paying for their kids to go to a posh school. (Forgetting the celebrity status) Those kids then are influenced by their peers and pick up the upper class accents and mannerisms. Their parents might be scum but the kids will gradually integrate into the class the parents wealth provides for them.

I think perhaps just as some people seem to be able to move to another country, and then pick up the language and get the accent right quickly, so might some people be able to fit in with a different social class fairly quickly. Similarly some people might have the wealth (move to the other country) and make no effort to change whatsover...

Thinking about it, its not so much disagreement with your view, education, access to things and breeding are all above, the beckams might not have become upperclass from their fame and riches, but in a few generations their family might be able to become "upper class" provided the children are provided the right experience.

Nature & nurture and all that gubbins?

Quote from: zpyderI disagree with your disagreement Using the Posh and Becks example, they havent exactly been rich "That" long. Id liken the process of "class transition" to the process of changing nationalities perhaps (Someones bound to easily pick a flaw on this but bear with me). Say an englishman moved to france, and that this was akin to getting wealthy. Now, the englishman isnt good at french, and he might be able to pick the lingo up pretty quickly and be able to understand and speak it quite well within a few years. This could be akin to starting to get into the various upper class circles/clubs...

However, the englishman will stick out for a long time (decades) due to his accent and mannerisms. The same can be said for the rags to riches person. However, if the englishman then has a family in france, the kids are brought up knowing only the french (upper class) side of life with the only middle/lower class experiences coming from their parents and their friends. Should these children have children, that influence might become further reduced. This might be likened to posh and becks paying for their kids to go to a posh school. (Forgetting the celebrity status) Those kids then are influenced by their peers and pick up the upper class accents and mannerisms. Their parents might be scum but the kids will gradually integrate into the class the parents wealth provides for them.

I think perhaps just as some people seem to be able to move to another country, and then pick up the language and get the accent right quickly, so might some people be able to fit in with a different social class fairly quickly. Similarly some people might have the wealth (move to the other country) and make no effort to change whatsover...

Thinking about it, its not so much disagreement with your view, education, access to things and breeding are all above, the beckams might not have become upperclass from their fame and riches, but in a few generations their family might be able to become "upper class" provided the children are provided the right experience.

Nature & nurture and all that gubbins?

Still disagree. just cos you got money doesnt make you upper class. I dont think the beckhams could ever be upper class, as I dont believe the snobbery would want to mix with them & would still look down their noses at them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_class