Are Brits unusually sensitive to aspersions on their class origins?

[MrLee]

just to pick up on a couple of other things…

“but seems quite sensitive about his accent (fretting that he never picked up a proper educated way of speaking), the school he went to, and even the fact that he wasn’t actually born in London but a small town somewhere north of there”

It is true that accent and dialect are a part of cultivating a respectable professional identity; it would be hard to be a barrister (say…) with a thick working-class Glaswegian accent. Working-class communities tend to have stronger regional accents and dialects (aristocrats, on the other hand, sound the same whether or not they come from Exeter or Edinburgh). Therefore, members of the working-classes are disadvantaged because of their speech patterns; in order to rise up the socio-economic ladder, they need to learn an ‘educated way of speaking’, which may well involve complicated and conflictual issues of cultural identity. Studies abound showing that working-class communities feel isolated and ostracised by the mainstream and ruling classes in no small part because their speech patterns are not valued or recognised.

Still, learning an accent is not an especially difficult thing. Most people do it naturally without even thinking about it. Fretting about never having learned an ‘educated way of speaking’? That’s weird. The standard ‘south-eastern’ middle class accent (with ‘bath’ pronounced ‘bahth’) is hardly the most challenging phonological nut to crack - Angelina Jolie managed it very well for Tomb Raider. I would go so far as to say that people don’t feel sensitive about their accents per se, they feel sensitive about their social origins, which are (or can be) manifested in their accents.

Secondly, the colleague in the OP felt sensitive about the school he went to. The vast, vast majority of children in the UK go to state schools, of which there is little to no publicly known ‘ranking’ of quality (well…there are actually league tables, but no-one knows the position of every school in them). I could tell you all that I went to Raynes Park High School in Merton, and no-one would be any the wiser as to what that implied about the quality of my schooling or my social class. OK, those who go to private schools in the UK are, quite understandably, classified as ‘rich’, and they tend to do better academically - but there is no stigma attached in going to a state school. I don’t understand how anyone could feel sensitive about ‘the school they went to’ in the UK, it doesn’t work like that.

University’s a bit different. There is a rough hierarchy which everyone sort-of knows - Oxbridge at the top, then the Russell Group, then the ‘okay’ universities, then the ex-polytechnics. When someone asks ‘which uni did you go to?’ they are, in a way, evaluating you based on your position in said hierarchy. But - and this is important - at undergraduate level British universities all cost the same*, regardless of how prestigious they are or the courses in question. You don’t need to be rich to go to Oxford, so it is not the elite preserve of the aristocratic classes. While universities like Oxford and Cambridge do have disproportionate numbers of ‘posh’ people compared to the population at large, they are no-where near as exclusive as some might suppose. Most people don’t get into Oxbridge because they’re not clever enough, not because they’re not rich enough.

(* okay, a bit more complicated than that…)

Thirdly, the guy was worried about the fact that he was not born in London. That’s the weirdest of all. Most people in the UK were not born in London. Most people in London were not born in London. There is no special privilege to having been born in the capital city - or certainly not that I am aware. That’s no to say that where you were born does not count at all in determining social status - but saying or thinking ‘I wasn’t born in London, therefore I am considered to be of less value’ is plain deluded.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that the colleague described in the OP was talking bollocks.

[Koxinga]

Appreciate the replies – I have no doubt that he’s an odd character, but wasn’t sure whether this particular behavio(u)r was a British thing or yet another personal quirk.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Echo_Charlie

Right… other than William Hague, Danny Alexander, Theresa May, Phillip Hammond, Vince Cable, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, Eric Pickles, Justine Greening, Alistair Carmichael, Patrick McLoughlin, Sajid Javid and David Jones, who all attend comprehensives or grammar schools.

Now then, politicians never let the facts get in the way of a good snipe do they?

The left seem to forget that out of the last four conservative prime ministers, three of them came from average backgrounds as mundane and normal as any labour politician.

[casdave]

I have no problem with any British person, unless maybe they come from the other side of the Pennines, or perhaps the Scots and Welsh, but no-one likes them, oh, and of course those Southern pooftas.

So, if you’re from North of Sheffield, South of Redcar, or East of Pendle Hill that makes you plenty fine in my book

[Bozuit]

@Novelty_Bobble

Now then, politicians never let the facts get in the way of a good snipe do they?

The left seem to forget that out of the last four conservative prime ministers, three of them came from average backgrounds as mundane and normal as any labour politician.

Perhaps they don’t. Perhaps they just think it’s irrelevant now.

[SciFiSam]

@Echo_Charlie

Right… other than William Hague, Danny Alexander, Theresa May, Phillip Hammond, Vince Cable, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, Eric Pickles, Justine Greening, Alistair Carmichael, Patrick McLoughlin, Sajid Javid and David Jones, who all attend comprehensives or grammar schools.

Fair point. Well, except for some of them who are not senior ministers.

Given the tiny number of people in the UK who go to public school, it is not a trivial matter that most of the main posts in the cabinet are taken by those who did.

All the ones I’ve actually heard of are also millionnaires, which was the second point of my post.

They almost all also went to Oxbridge, but when they went it was in some ways less elitest than it is now, since there were grants, so it doesn’t tell you anything about how posh they were growing up. It is, however, a little weird that nearly all the cabinet are Oxbridge grads though. It’s a bit cliquey.

BTW, I didn’t mean my post to come across as partisan. The shadow cabinet are not much different in their backgrounds.

I mean, John Major only had O levels. I can’t see someone like him doing well in politics in any party now. Obviously, it’s harder than it used to be for someone with only O levels/GCSEs to get a good job at all, but in politics it would be even more difficult.

[SciFiSam]

@dropzone

I think it’s closer to “wigger,” Think Kevin Federline.

No, it’s definitely more like white trash. We use the term wigger over here too.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Bozuit

Perhaps they don’t. Perhaps they just think it’s irrelevant now.

That doesn’t seem to be the case. Labour plays the class card loudly and often, particularly so since the only genuinely posh and privileged tory PM of that last 40 years came to power.

[BigT]

@SciFiSam

No, it’s definitely more like white trash. We use the term wigger over here too.

I don’t know anyone in the states that would describe someone with bling and tracksuits as white trash. “White trash” is about looking poor.

[Red_Wiggler]

@BigT

I don’t know anyone in the states that would describe someone with bling and tracksuits as white trash. “White trash” is about looking poor.

Bling and tracksuits are the domain of “Guidos.” Uh, or so I’ve been told.

[Knowed_Out]

@SciFiSam

And there are constant TV shows set up to attack the poor, like “Benefits Street,” which was set on a street where actually most of the working-age residents were in regular work, but they only filmed the ones who weren’t and acted like they were all there was. The BBC has several shows like this - Saints or Scroungers is one.

In America, we call this “FOX news.”

[Urbanredneck]

@gracer

In the UK, demeaning someone for being working class when you are not would be unspeakably rude. The division exists and is always apparent, but to refer to it explicitly is rare and awkward and possibly grounds for never seeing someone again. You can yourself say you are proud of your working class roots, but you can’t even say you are proud of being middle class, you can only make self-deprecating jokes about what kind of wine you are drinking. Don’t forget that in England, having money is so shameful that we are forced to hide it by patching the elbows of our old jerseys, and by wearing Hunter wellies as the height of fashion. Being upper-middle class or being rich is not something to be proud of.

Your coworker’s explicit attitude is quite odd, but the manager from Oxford doesn’t even sound like he is English at all. No true Englishman…

Attitudes about accent have changed a lot, with all accents now represented on the BBC, for example. While it is almost always very easy to tell someone’s social class, there is little judgement there now. It’s just a fact about them, like what part of the country you come from. It gives you some information about them, like what they might mean when they say “tea”. It’s not gone, but it’s also not embarrassing to be working class.

Now why is that? I’ve noticed English immigrants here in the US are quite proud of say being from royalty or can say their family owns an old castle or such. So they are not afriad to mention they are from wealth.

[Celyn]

@Urbanredneck

Now why is that? I’ve noticed English immigrants here in the US are quite proud of say being from royalty or can say their family owns an old castle or such. So they are not afriad to mention they are from wealth.

Have you considered that they might be lying in many cases? You know, moving to a whole new country and re-inventing themselves in the hope of impressing their new neighbours.

[Shagnasty]

@Celyn

Have you considered that they might be lying in many cases? You know, moving to a whole new country and re-inventing themselves in the hope of impressing their new neighbours.

In all mathematical likelihood, they are telling the truth. Most people of European descent are descended from royalty if you go back far enough across all family lines. Genealogy is one of the most popular hobbies in the U.S. Everyone is looking for those royal lines and few are interested in their great-x grandfather that crippled himself working in a shipyard.

I hear that is much less so in Europe. I think it has to do with the psychological implications of breaking away from your ancestral homeland and starting anew. The need to know where ‘you’ came from is much stronger among Americans than in sustained cultures where heritage goes much deeper. In the U.S., people almost always want to associate themselves with the most wealthy or famous members of their genealogy rather than the poorer ones unless there is some really notorious and juicy story behind it.

I am of mostly British descent myself but I am one of the closest examples you can find of a ‘native’ white American (and I am also 1/8 true Native American). British class distinctions have never made any sense to me at all even though I have tried to understand them. There are some parallels but that just lulls you into a false sense of familiarity. For example, the idea of a financially poor upper class person is apparently a real idea in British society but it isn’t in the U.S.

If you are broke, you’re broke and that knocks you down no matter how good your family, education and accent are. We do have the concept of trashy rich people (lottery winners and flash in the pan celebrities for example) but all it takes to be upper class in the U.S. is to have money (critical) and behave in a way that fits the part no matter who your family is or where you grew up. Inherited class like a caste system does not exist at the individual level in the U.S. I am told that it still does in the British system and I cannot figure out how or why.

[kellner]

@Shagnasty

If you are broke, you’re broke and that knocks you down no matter how good your family, education and accent are. We do have the concept of trashy rich people (lottery winners and flash in the pan celebrities for example) but all it takes to be upper class in the U.S. is to have money (critical) and behave in a way that fits the part no matter who your family is or where you grew up. Inherited class like a caste system does not exist at the individual level in the U.S. I am told that it still does in the British system and I cannot figure out how or why.

To a large extent class is about experiences and those are not easily rewritten either way. What did you know growing up? What did you take for granted? To what did you aspire? What did you fear? Who were your role models? What is a “normal” household? A “normal” career? Which people do you know? If you are really honest, which people do you consider ‘just like you’?

Can you really not imagine a penniless Kennedy or Bush or Kerry scraping by in a respectable but badly paid job? Someone like that could still be related to, have gone to school with and know many upper class people. They may still get invited to the “right” parties and move naturally in the upper class world, even if it is never their yacht or their summer house. The upper class people around them might not care all that much, because while they realize that their social circle is much wealthier than average, they don’t necessarily perceive that as a truly defining characteristic of “people like them”.

[Koxinga]

@kellner

Can you really not imagine a penniless Kennedy or Bush or Kerry scraping by in a respectable but badly paid job? Someone like that could still be related to, have gone to school with and know many upper class people. They may still get invited to the “right” parties and move naturally in the upper class world, even if it is never their yacht or their summer house. The upper class people around them might not care all that much, because while they realize that their social circle is much wealthier than average, they don’t necessarily perceive that as a truly defining characteristic of “people like them”.

Actually, yes, I do find that rather hard to imagine; in fact, in some way I can’t put my finger on, I find it almost appalling.

[Shagnasty]

@Koxinga

Actually, yes, I do find that rather hard to imagine; in fact, in some way I can’t put my finger on, I find it almost appalling.

I can’t either. The concept is quite strange to me. The opposite is not true however. You could have an immigrant just a few years off the boat from basically anywhere that hit it big based on their own ingenuity (that is generally going to be based on their economic worth but there are other ways to do it as well such as wining a prestigious prize) that would be welcomed at any party in America. The idea of a pure inherited class is still the antithesis of what the U.S. is about and does not generally happen. When it does, it is only as a a begrudging favor to the parents and not because of any acknowledgement of worth for the person in question.

[stui_magpie]

@kambuckta

True, but you don’t see too many bogans self-identifying as such. There was a brief stint for the ‘Westies’ (Sydney bogans) reclaiming their righteous heritage, but call a Vic bogan a bogan now and you’ll likely get yourself bashed, slashed, or run over with their V8 Commodore

Oi. I resemble that remark:mad:

Except my son blew up the commodore so now I’ve got a XR6:o:p

[Shagnasty]

I would say that it is a huge negative in American society to be from a notable family and not amount to much. The most charitable terms are going to tend to be ‘black sheep’ and ‘complete fuckup’ and not ‘upper class shabby aristocracy’. People do not want to be associated with that as a general rule and you would be better off if you were just some anonymous person rather than a member of an implied class that the person in question failed out of. It can be be slightly different if the child of a billionaire chooses to become an inner city school teacher and still retains their wealth. That is considered a really good thing but just being born a broke dumbass into a certain type of family gets you nothing in American society other than what your family gives you directly.

[Urbanredneck]

I read a good article a while back in the Atlantic that talked about a small group of people who are born into wealth. These are people who’s families have such large holdings all they have to do is sit back and live off their stock earnings.

BUT, that sometimes causes problems. What to tell a young aspiring person WHY they need to go to college and study hard when they know darn well they are entitled to a certain family income. Their was one amusing story of this young man who was studying accounting and thought he could work for Proctor Gamble, a company his ancestors founded. But then was told that per agreement they couldnt work there. Same with descendants of Henry Ford who cannot work for Ford. Sam Walton’s grandkids dont work for WalMart either yet they earn millions every year off their stocks.