“Mr Corbyn also suggested a series of proposals for the BBC, including publishing the social class of ‘all creators of BBC content, whether in-house or external'”, reports the BBC, trembling.
That would be fun to watch, but what is to stop the Beebourgeoisie, middle class to the tips of their Shiatsu-massaged toes, from foiling the plan by self-identifying as proletarians?
Watching the debate on self-identification within the Left is like watching a long fuse slowly burning down towards a time-bomb. Though nicer. As things stand this week:
Gender – completely a matter of choice and how dare you say chromosomes. Voluntary efforts to eradicate sexism having failed, compulsory quotas for females must be imposed by the power of the State. But anyone who wants to be included in the quota only has to ask.
Race – is nothing but an oppressive social construct. To cease participating in this oppressive and delusionary social construct is forbidden.
Class – They called it “Catch BBC”. You started working class, worked like mad, finally got a soft job, which made you middle class, so in the interests of social mobility they won’t hire you again. Edit: Or your kids. But their re-impoverished kids will be favoured. Social oscillation, the wave (geddit?) of the future!
What side do I take on all these controversies? None. I’m for freedom of association. It is so restful.
For Corbyn, a Social Supremacist, people maybe sooner or later will be given to use in public “social stars” showing their social class.
I wonder if they will have the yellow star…
In addition to gender, race, and class, they should identify their contributors by blood type. Although I do not self-identify as a vampire, I sympathize with those in the community who have a difficult time finding meals that fit within their dietary restrictions.
I foresee a simple amendment to the UK’s Equality Act 2010 (all 90,000+ words of it) to include ‘class’ as a ‘protected characteristic‘, and watch Her Majesty’s Judges grapple with and define the concept (and ‘perception of class’ as well), as the UK becomes a place where anyone can sue for almost anything, thereby expropriating and humiliating the bourgeoisie (unless they work for the BBC) .
Ah. Didn’t realise there was a separate thread about this. Well, as I said in the Venezuela one, I simply wouldn’t be able to give an answer. I just don’t know. My dad was a solicitor, but he came from a family of clerks, farm workers, and butchers. My mum worked for about ten years as a typist, gave it up when I came along, and her parents were both manual workers. I went to an independent school, but not university. My neighbours in this building are doctors, lawyers, architects, but also nurses, taxi drivers, van drivers, and shop workers. That said, I was shocked to discover, a few years back, that my cousins, who are all vastly better off than myself, consider themselves “working class” (chiefly because I didn’t think they’d know or care either, but they seemed adamant). I’m genuinely baffled by the question.
There was a link to this on Instapundit, from which i gather that Corbyn wants to introduce “objective” measures of social class, such as educational background (mostly “public” school vs state school, i suppose) and occupation of parents.
The basic problem, however, (in my arrogant opinion) is that most Brits, actually most human beings, have trouble identifying the ruling class, especially as distinct from “the rich”. The problem might be worse for Brits, though, since they (not including samizdatistas, i hope) also tend to confuse the ruling class with the upper class.
The plain fact is that opinion makers are part of the ruling class by definition, and therefore all BBC employees are either ruling class, or utterly dependent on the ruling class for career advancement.
There used to be three classes as defined by Cheese, Barker and Corner, upper, middle and lower. A few years ago there was a light hearted news item about some new theory that there were in fact seven. The guy who came up with this had names for all seven but I can only recall the Elite at the top and the Precariat at the bottom. Part of his theory was that it was about more than just money. I did the quiz which gave me bonus points for liking classical music and sometimes going to the theatre. I would consider myself to be working class because I do a skilled but hands on job. On the other hand, there are lots of people who make me inclined to think of myself as very lower middle class. According to the above mentioned quiz I am level six, just below the elites, which is pretty ridiculous unless standards have slipped quite a bit. Having said all This, who cares?
On a lighter note: i have re-read bits of The Bluffer’s Guide to British Class a few days ago.
What i found interesting is the gradations within the 3 main classes: upper, middle, and lower. Within the middle and lower classes, gradations depend on income/wealth.
For instance, you are upper middle class if you make lots of money in a respectable business; or you are upper-lower class if you make money as a successful soccer player or the owner of a betting shop. (The author is occasionally self-contradictory on this.)
Within the upper class, the logic is different: as the author says, it is not possible to become upper-upper class in much less than a thousand years* (except as a member of the Royal Family), and even the dividing line between middle upper class and lower upper class has more to do with
a) manners
b) popular acclaim
c) self-conviction
than with income or wealth.
* perhaps Perry qualifies?
Hm. Is the Great Foot fixated on Groupism? First sentence in the article cited:
I don’t see anything about the right of individuals to accept or reject customers according to their own criteria, to buy from or trade with persons or businesses according to their own criteria, to pursue or not to pursue personal relationships chosen according to their own criteria….
Actually, I think it’s mildly interesting evidence that there is a tendency in certain quarters to interpret things as seen through a lens focussed on Groups rather than on individuals. That is, the individual’s F of A applies to his relationships with groups, but not with interpersonal relationships nor with a person’s business or trading relationships.
(While one might argue that a business, other than a sole-proprietorship, can be considered an “association,” I don’t see that buying clothes from the Salvation Army store or from Nieman Marcus involves joining the association that exists in the fact that more than one person really is “associated with” the enterprise. At least not in the general understanding of the word.)
Hm again.
My Inner Lawyer does argue that that allows a business, considered as an “association” — which technically it is, and I note that there are any number of business enterprises entitled “Murgatroyd Associates” or whatever — to reject applicants for employment according to its own criteria.
So the heck with anti-discrimination laws. They are against the Human Rights statement/doctrine/Council or whatever it’s called.
Julie:
And consider all the sole propietors out there.
Never mind Mr Corbyn’s plans for BBC staff surveys.
His proposals also include more funding for the state broadcaster, typical of Labour’s approach of throwing money at it to keep it loyal.
And he’d introduce a new internet tax too, and we all know how Labour loves increasing taxes.
So just the usual from a future Labour government.
Max Yasger- (actual) host of the American “Woodstock” music festival. (Which was not in Woodstock)
“I’m a farmer.”
It would be considerably more interesting if BBC staff were required to disclose (a) which daily newspaper was their preferred choice and (b) whether their intention was to vote Leave or Remain if a further EU-membership referendum were to be held.
This makes it easier for a business to stay out of the sights of the P.C. Simply define the people working in the business arbitrarily as members of whatever group lacks representation until all the groups are fully staffed. While at work, if someone with a clipboard that you don’t recognize asks, you simply state that you identify as whatever the company assigned you. If they ask why you’re not wearing the proper “uniform” of the group you identify with, the answer is that you are required to go incognito when interacting with the ______ist people on the outside but it’s like being a double naught spy and therefore rather fun.
Your company gets sterling ratings, makes more money, and everyone gets a raise.
Some of us, though admittedly we who occupy the peasant line of life, don’t see social classes much at all.There are just, er, people though some have more money than others. Some shriek louder than others, as well. So it goes. In which case, El-Presidente Corbyn is suggesting something that might set the odd heart fluttering in Islington’s better cafes but is largely meaningless to the rest of us.
However I look forward to hearing: “I am a BBC newsreader and I read an autocue. I identify as a member of the serious-faced newsreader class.”
My family – not untypically in Scotland (where a strange unconscious confusion of class and national prejudice is not uncommon) – managed to ‘identify’ themselves (strongly!) as working class, right up to and including the generation that produced me, despite some indicators that might have prompted scepticism: being doctors, being well-paid civil servants, even running small businesses. The reality for me was always summed up by the New Statesman that popped through our letterbox every week: first half (political) all about how great working class people were and how wickedly they were oppressed by the upper crust; second half (social) full of sycophantic praise for arty-farty stuff no member of the working class would touch with a barge pole. 🙂
I’m Welsh me, we got no class at all Mun! What Aristocracy there was, was wiped out by the time Owain Glyndwr faded into the thick mountain mists in 1416. Some of us are richer and some of us a poorer, but we all seem to know each other and get along fairly well.
I’ve only just noticed what the dreaded auto correct did to my post. I’m hopeful that most visitors here would know from the context that Cheese, Barker and Corner should have read Cleese Barker and Corbett. I get a pain in the back of my neck.
Stonyground,
I seem to remember reading that John Cleese’s father’s name WAS Cheese, but he changed it.
Being obviously upper class (having the sort of Russian accent that is unknown today) never did “Lenin” any harm in Marxist circles.
Karl Marx himself was upper middle class – and he exploited a servant girl (fathering a child upon her), again none of this harmed him the eyes of the left.
Mr Corbyn will not be harmed by being from a wealthy background, and being white, male and heterosexual.
The left do not REALLY care about such things – the left only care about two things.
Power and Destruction. Everything else is just a means to this end.
Word, Paul Marks.
How crazy do you have to be to believe that “race”, which can broadly seen in photographs and found in DNA, is a meaningless social construct, but “class”, which is by its very nature a subjective and personal value judgement, is an important and immutable personal and group characteristic?