You can't beat a bit of good old fashioned class envy can you? I have to admit I've never really understood the British obsession with class. Any society that embraces freedom, liberty, and the movement of labour and capital will inevitably have a range of wealth from bottom to top, and movement on the scale is bi-directional. If you want to rise up the through the ranks then you can if you have brains and work hard.
The problem in the politics of envy seems to come when someone finds themselves helped along the way by virtue of their class and wealth. People are seen to get jobs because Mummy or Daddy knows someone the board etc. Now, in some cases that might actually be true, but when it comes to class, there's a definite tendency to assume it's true.
This sort of assumed envy that says X cannot have got anyway without the help of Y is not restricted to the traditional class system that is considered to be based on aristocracy though. Take a look at today's White House and President Bush.
The class obsessive - albeit plutocratic rather than aristocratic in origin - say Bush only went to Harvard thanks to his Dad and that he's stupid. By implication they say that an Ivy League University with a global reputation, essentially passes people on who their family is rather than merit*.
The point I'm making here though really is that the envy inherent in class obsession means that regardless of evidence, injustice is assumed. "Well Daddy helps on that matter doesn't he?" is effectively considered true by default. It can, quite simply, never be that someone from a certain background can be considered to have achieved something on their merit.
This leads to a strange contradiction because if someone from another background achieves something not through merit but through "who they know" the same aspersions are not cast upon them, even if there is evidence that they ought to be.
Today these aspersions are the essential basis of criticism towards David Cameron and others in his Shadow Cabinet. "They all went to Eton" is the line that we hear, and it is considered a means to the argument ends. And the "argument" if you can even call it that given its fallacious nature is not restricted in political terms to one wing or the other. Hazel Blears (notionally on the Left) has used it and so has Peter Hitchens (definitely on the Right).
This morning's Daily Mail carries a brilliant example of this as well with an "exclusively revealed" photograph of George Osbourne at Oxford and a member of the Bullingdon Club. Of course there is also a political dimension to the Mail's report, as Paul Dacre relationship with Gordon Brown is well documented, but still, at its base, the Mail's position is one of expressing class envy.
It details the picture and the people it can identify in it, and casts aspersions about each of them whilst essentially pushing the line "Osbourne is an aristocrat, therefore he is not suitable to govern". It's bollocks. Yes, George Osbourne, David Cameron, hell even Hilary Benn are aristocratically born. That should not, and does not negate their ability to perform or carry out any job whatsoever.
The other day, Danny Finkelstein wrote in the Times that perhaps we should consider the option of having politics that was more honest in the sense that policy was presented with it's risks as well as it's benefits. I'd go further and say that perhaps we should have politics that no longer dealt in the fallacy of class as a means to a political end, but I doubt it will ever happen.
18 comments:
a simple question , who is better educated a man from eton or from kickaldy comp? hhmm dificult one eh?
the comps record on economics would seem pitiful.
If you want a simple suggestion to make politics more representative abolish the party whip system.
The class thing is self-inflicted. I was a victim of "class discrimination" for years, until I decided not to give a stuff anymore. Then it went away.
Either it was all in my head, or people were exploiting my fears. Either way, the answer lay with me, not others. I suspect the same is true of all types of unfair discrimination. Be yourself. Do your best. Any problems people have with that are their own.
On the George Bush point: Although I don't suppose it's easy to get into Harvard without the proper qualification, being the son of the one-time most powerful man on earth is surely something of an extreme case.
More broadly I think you miss the importance of the tacit effect of class. If going on to be in Westminster is something that everyone expects you and your class mates to do it must be a) a more obvious choice for you and b) something you are more confident about achieving. Not to mention being at ease with the atmosphere and customs of the place.
Posing the counter-factual of whether Dave could be where he is without going to Eton, or being born in his circumstances, exposes the frame work which we are discussing this in as not sufficiently broad.
Is it the case that the people who run the country are the people who, at birth, had the most raw talent regardless of background? Resoundingly, no. I would argue that the top echelons of industry are better in these terms, but still class has a potent effect on the heights to which one might rise.
actually, pointing out the counterfactual expose exactly the sort of fallacies that surround the notion of class and some people's obsession with it.
Certainly, I'm sure many people are soothed by the thought that the very successful are there through luck rather than (as well as) hard work and merit.
But in this case, at least to some extent, they are right. Britain ranks very poorly for social mobility, and you can't question that a many, many politicians have had a very privileged background. If that's because they had a much better education then that's part of the issue, not a separate one.
You are right to say that X or Y politician might well qualified for the job they have (or want) and that their privileged background can't count against them. However taken collectively we would have better people with more social mobility. This is a bad thing for everyone, and thus warrants concern.
Bollocks. You make your own way in this world and there is social mobility if you want it.
It's just a matter of the odds. To rise to a certain point, how intrinsically good do you have to be and how hard do you have to work? That depends in large part on your background, particularly your parent's wealth (this is especially true in the UK where certain elite private schools have an awesome hit rate in terms of Oxbridge entrance and later salaries).
It's unavoidable and people should stop whining about it. The advantage of the 'old school tie' won't go away (it's a big deal here in the US in terms of college alumni more than private schooling); the best you can do is to give kids an education that is appropriate for their talents (rather than appropriate for the talents of the less gifted, which appears to be direction that British education has long been headed) and so they have a chance, even though they'll have to work harder to get where others of more fortunate birth get.
The helpful trappings of birth, such as helpful associates through family friends, the right accent and the right social and educational history, they just are what they are. The 'unfairness' of it all would be reduced, however, if every kid had access to an education that was of a high quality and appropriate to their talents. Achieving that requires more good teachers (although that's not a sufficient move in itself), which will cost money because they'll need to be paid more than teachers currently are and there will need to be more teachers in total. In my opinion, which you can take as correct (why waste the mental effort arriving at the same conclusions as I do, when you can just accept them?)
I agree that if you really "want" it anyone can, theoretically, end up at the top. Alan Milburn in his role as Labour's poverty mascot springs to everyone's minds.
However, you have to "want" it an awful lot more if you come from a poor background. As an example, in 2004 Eton scored 100% 5 A-C GCSEs, while the state average is now 58.5%. I think we can agree that most people who don't manage to get 5 Cs at GCSE aren't going to Uni, and are going to find the political world hard to penetrate.
Are you suggesting that people educated by the state are lazy, stupid, or do you think that they've been less well educated than those at Eton?
I don't think its unfair to suggest public school = posh, and so here I think we have evidence that coming from higher social strata opens many doors.
I'm not suggesting this effect can be eliminated, but a reduction must be for the better.
That's such bollocks to say "public school = posh" there are many public schools that are anything but posh, and I also know people who went to Eton who are anything but as well. It's striaght out envy politics steeped in fallacious reasoning.
Think you overstate the mobility in both directions rather. The two question on Osbourne, Cameron and Johnson (and the other Etonian fucks) ought to be :
"if they were part of the Bullingdon Bullies Bollinger club with habitual activities including restaurant smashing, fox cub monstering, booze and drugs in excess ... are they suitable"
and
"why the hell are there so many Old Etonians on man of the people DC's front bench ... actually quite a few of them are rather dim, but not nice"
Howzaat?
All completely irrelevant pointless, or evidence less questions in my opinion.
I don't think drinking or drugs in the past should exclude you. The fox monstering is rampant speculations about what people in that club "have" done, not what they did. The same is true of the restaurant smashing point.
Guilt by association is a fallacy after all. A bit like me saying that you're Labour membership makes you responsible for the three day week or Stalin.
The bit about the front bench has a simple response, why not?
note, the answer to "why not" will prove my point about the politics of envy. Tread carefully with your response.
I really fail to see why people are getting so excited about this. I read that Mail article with such a huge yawn I barely made it to the end. All I thought was if their hacks have nothing better to waste their time on, there is a sad dearth of intellect at the Mail.
The question: when we complain that the upper classes have too many powerful jobs is out of envy, or is there in fact a good reason to complain about this?
Maybe we are envious, however its not fair either, or beneficial to the nation. We could, through improving the education for the lower classes, reduce the disparity. End of, surely. Unless you have some "born to rule" rubbish in mind.
Public school = posh. OK, class could confuse the issue. Public school = rich. Eton's fees are £17,000 a year, average family income is about £25,000 a year. Even with only one child, and making a great sacrifice, you would need double the average wage to even think of sending a child to Eton. However we all know that the average family income of those sending their kids to public school is a great deal higher than twice the national average.
That you may know someone who went to public school who isn't posh is no doubt the case, but it isn't the norm. I can't see anyone making the argument that public schools are not for the wealthy.
jimmy said:
"We could, through improving the education for the lower classes, reduce the disparity. End of, surely."
You should be right with that, although I think "lower classes" is a bit patronising. Unfortunately, this govt has destroyed any aspirations to improve. Improving is a NuLabour crime. Sadly, the Conservatives are now complicit in this.
"Certain elite private schools have an awesome hit rate" -
They are bound to: the teaching is 1st class & the pupils are selected. Being envious is a waste of time. The question is, how to improve the teaching for others and how to select the pupils capable of benefiting.
interesting name you have there.
Post a Comment