Do you care about social classes ?

[Maciamo]

Thanks for this very insightful explanation on the "American way", Mal.

You start your argument by saying that the lower classes are the cause of most of the crimes. I think what you mean is just "poor people", regardless of their way of thinking (eg. class-related way fo thinking). Do you think for example that a well-educated person who has lost everything and become one of the Poor would be likely to cause troubles in your example of the park ?

Anyhow, why call economic differences "classes" if you can just define them as the poor, the less poor, the moderately rich and the very rich ? The idea linked to classes is a way of thinking that one acquires in their childhoos and keeps for life. The Beatles were lower class, and insited that they still were even after becoming rich and famous. The point is that they won't change their family, hobbies or way of speaking just because they have become richer (some do, but only because they want to change class, turn their back on their past, on their family and friends and become a new individual - but these are exceptions). That is why it is also possible in Britain to be a scoundrel and a gentleman. Any man born and raised in an upper-class family is a gentleman, but that does not prevent them from committing crimes (why did Lord Archer end up in prison ?).

British people like clubs, because that's a good way of like-minded people, and that is certainly related to classes too. I think that people find it easier to socialise with people of a similar education and sharing similar hobbies than just people sharing a similar income. As you said, the people with good jobs in the park get along, but share little in common. Class in about sharing something in common. If we want to enter stereotypes, we could say that lower and middle class people like football (soccer) and soap operas, while the upper-middle and upper classes like tennis and go to classical music concerts. That's a bit too general, but a gives an idea of the differences. Rich people also watch football and soap operas, and poor people also play tennis and listen the classical music. If a certain number of criteria are met (dress code, manners, education, family background, hobbies, interests, job, money, pronuciation, formality of language, style, morals, personality, etc.) one can be said to belong more to one particular class than any others.

I think it could be difficult to assess what would be your exact class in Britain if you are used to think of class as money related. I think "formality" (of speech, clothing, tastes, style, etc.) is a good way of estimating one's class, the more formal, the higher the class, although the real upper class can be quite unconventional in their formality (quite a few eccentrics).

[Mal]

Thanks for this very insightful explanation on the "American way", Mal.

You start your argument by saying that the lower classes are the cause of most of the crimes. I think what you mean is just "poor people", regardless of their way of thinking (eg. class-related way fo thinking). Do you think for example that a well-educated person who has lost everything and become one of the Poor would be likely to cause troubles in your example of the park ?

Well, you have to also realize that people self-identify in America. There is basically no formality, or way that someone can accurately judge where you are in society based on your manners or dress (or possessions). Flaunting wealth outside of your economic range is considered taboo. A conversation between say two middle class people will almost always touch upon economics or possession of wealth in some way, the same conversation between a middle class and a working class person is much more likely to revolve around popular culture, with any subjects relating to money being fastidiously avoided. People tend to segregate themselves into strata where they think that they belong. I think this has the general affect of people estimating that their position in life is better than it really is (Why is the middle class in a society always much larger in a poll than what statistics would indicate?). Also people who are well educated and then find themselves down on their luck are no more immune to the tempations of crime or drugs based simply on education - if that was true then crime and drug rates would be going down in this country as people increasingly become more educated. Most people here agree that the economy plays the biggest role in determining crime rate. When people are doing well - there is less crime, when they are doing poorly - there is more. Look at Japan for instance, a 15 year recession and increasing crime rates. The same thing happened here in the US but in the reverse, during the 90's we had a huge economic boom and crime dropped all across the nation. Hence I stand by my assessment that economic factors contribute more overall to crime and violence than most other things.

Anyhow, why call economic differences "classes" if you can just define them as the poor, the less poor, the moderately rich and the very rich ? The idea linked to classes is a way of thinking that one acquires in their childhoos and keeps for life.

We call them this because this is the system we have. The way the system works in society is almost analagous to what you know, atleast in terms of function. However the rules here are completely different. Still, it takes up the same place in society here as it does abroad. Think of it this way: Similar function in society, but with different rules. If you deny this to be true, then it would seem that America doesn't actually have a "class" system at all - which I think if you stayed here any particular amount of time, you would see is not true (No society is that advanced yet anyway).

The Beatles were lower class, and insited that they still were even after becoming rich and famous. The point is that they won't change their family, hobbies or way of speaking just because they have become richer (some do, but only because they want to change class, turn their back on their past, on their family and friends and become a new individual - but these are exceptions). That is why it is also possible in Britain to be a scoundrel and a gentleman. Any man born and raised in an upper-class family is a gentleman, but that does not prevent them from committing crimes (why did Lord Archer end up in prison ?).

I'm not sure where you are going with this - we're talking USA not Britain. People in the USA do quite frequently turn their backs on their family history if its advantageous for them. Parents will often pass down "values" to their children, but here in the states that most commonly refers to religious values. Why do you think we are such a religious country? Even people who are not religious (or identify themselves as not belonging to a specific institution) often parrot religious views to their children. Almost always in this country people will judge you on the following: Wealth, Religious Piety, Education. Usually in that order. Generally the second two are only even worthy of mention when dealing with people of the same social-economic background as yourself. (A wealthy businessman usually has little, or no respect for say, a lower income College Professor, regardless if the professor has better manners and education than he does - although it is doubtful he will act so in public, any acknowledgement of class in our society is taboo).

British people like clubs, because that's a good way of like-minded people, and that is certainly related to classes too. I think that people find it easier to socialise with people of a similar education and sharing similar hobbies than just people sharing a similar income. As you said, the people with good jobs in the park get along, but share little in common. Class in about sharing something in common. If we want to enter stereotypes, we could say that lower and middle class people like football (soccer) and soap operas, while the upper-middle and upper classes like tennis and go to classical music concerts. That's a bit too general, but a gives an idea of the differences. Rich people also watch football and soap operas, and poor people also play tennis and listen the classical music. If a certain number of criteria are met (dress code, manners, education, family background, hobbies, interests, job, money, pronuciation, formality of language, style, morals, personality, etc.) one can be said to belong more to one particular class than any others.

Ok, here is another thing that people often get wrong about America. Our culture revolves around consumerism - everyone across the world seems to know this, but they don't understand how profound it is. Status in the eyes of your peers revolves around how much you can accumulate as well as what sort of acoutrements that people have. Dress, manners, education, interests, etc are far less cared about than for instance, what kind of car you drive, or if you own a home, or where that home is. Why do you think the SUV is so popular here, especially by wealthy urban or suburban people who quite frankly have no use for them >< It's a social status symbol - and its tied directly to wealth.

Obviously there are people who don't buy into this system, but they should be considered not the norm.

I think it could be difficult to assess what would be your exact class in Britain if you are used to think of class as money related. I think "formality" (of speech, clothing, tastes, style, etc.) is a good way of estimating one's class, the more formal, the higher the class, although the real upper class can be quite unconventional in their formality (quite a few eccentrics).

Of course you think this way, you are an European And I agree with you, in Europe those things matter a great deal. In the United States - not so much.