It all comes down to whether or not you want an egalitarian society with equality of opportunity. If you don't then you probably have no problem with class.
Under a class system the upper classes sole rasion d'etre is to maintain their position, usually by the exploitation of the lower classes. If thsat exploitsation can be domne covertlky, with thoise lower classes beign quite happy in their hopeless lot, so muc the better.
But how about considering 'class' as a sociologist might look at class, as someone from outside looking at a system? I don't deny that those who have much to lose will undoubtedly do their damndest to ensure they don't lose it, but the notion of 'class mobility' doesn't seem to be part of your thinking: almost all 'grand families' started out as robber barons, warlords, then later successful merchants who were rewarded by the state which wanted their money etc. With all their money they (who might well themselves have sounded as common as muck) bought a good education for their sons and daughters (i.e. the right 'accent' and the right connections) which they hoped would perpetuate the family fortunes. Yet many 'grand families' well on hard times and their descendants are no longer grand at all and might well be your neighbours.
It seems to me that a great deal of popular anger about class relies very heavily on a myth. The reality is that many people have 'risen' and many have fallen from one class to another.
Our current class system was imposed by force in the 11th Century by the Norman invaders. It has survived more or less intact from that time - some have dropped out, a few have joined the hegemony but it has essentially stayed fixed. I doubt if there has been a more successful invasion in history. The basis of the system is basiclaly hereditary. I suspect it is much the same in the US although the roots might be different.
Why does everybody act snobby when I tell them i watch Jeremy Kyle?
I actually think he's a very intelligent and interesting man he helps lots of people and yells at all the bad people. he likes to let everybody have their say even if they are evil :mad: and even if they have done bad things :mad:
Why does everybody act snobby when I tell them i watch Jeremy Kyle?
I actually think he's a very intelligent and interesting man he helps lots of people and yells at all the bad people. he likes to let everybody have their say even if they are evil :mad: and even if they have done bad things :mad:
You jest, surely. Kyle is a foul individual who preys on the inadequate for the entertainment of similar inadequates who take perverse pride in not having got caught out yet.
You jest, surely. Kyle is a foul individual who preys on the inadequate for the entertainment of similar inadequates who take perverse pride in not having got caught out yet.
No I am being serious.
Have you ever seen the program? He is very supportive of the victims and attacks those who are bad people. But first he gets all side of a story and sometimes the audience get involved they make it very unbiased.
Then they all go back stage to Graham who gives them lots of after support. :cool: Then they get all better.
It's not like he is forcing these people to share their lives they are going their on their own :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Our current class system was imposed by force in the 11th Century by the Norman invaders. It has survived more or less intact from that time - some have dropped out, a few have joined the hegemony but it has essentially stayed fixed. I doubt if there has been a more successful invasion in history. The basis of the system is basiclaly hereditary. I suspect it is much the same in the US although the roots might be different.
Actually, that's something I have often thought myself, or something close to it. I don't think 'class' as such was the result of the Norman invasion in as far as the pre-invasion Anglo-Saxons also had a hierarchy of sorts, although it wasn't anywhere close (as far as we know) as rigid as what came with the feudal system introduced by William. Many other societies have something resembling a 'class' system, but is isn't in the same league as the odd arragnement we have in this country. I think what can most certainly be traced back to 1066 is the outright hatred one side has in the past had for the other, as though there were two races. And most certainly the Norman conquerors treated the conquered Anglo-Saxons as some kind of Untermensch.
What I find quite bizarre about the British class system is that you get 'middle class' folk who haven't a penny to rub together who still regard themselves as 'better' than other 'middle class' people with quite a bit of dosh but who 'class' is less than one generation old. In fact I often think there is not one 'middle class' but five or six, all of whom don't really like each other.
Actually, that's something I have often thought myself, or something close to it. I don't think 'class' as such was the result of the Norman invasion in as far as the pre-invasion Anglo-Saxons also had a hierarchy of sorts, although it wasn't anywhere close (as far as we know) as rigid as what came with the feudal system introduced by William. Many other societies have something resembling a 'class' system, but is isn't in the same league as the odd arragnement we have in this country. I think what can most certainly be traced back to 1066 is the outright hatred one side has in the past had for the other, as though there were two races. And most certainly the Norman conquerors treated the conquered Anglo-Saxons as some kind of Untermensch.
What I find quite bizarre about the British class system is that you get 'middle class' folk who haven't a penny to rub together who still regard themselves as 'better' than other 'middle class' people with quite a bit of dosh but who 'class' is less than one generation old. In fact I often think there is not one 'middle class' but five or six, all of whom don't really like each other.
The 'middle class' are a huge amorphous bunch - and I think there's a lot less friction amongst them than people think.
The middle class, are fine, and they sort of understand each other. (They just pretend not to sometimes).
A raft of studies into unethical behaviour across the social classes has delivered a withering verdict on the upper echelons of society.
Privileged people behaved consistently worse than others in a range of situations, with a greater tendency to lie, cheat, take things meant for others, cut up other road users, not stop for pedestrians on crossings, and endorse unethical behaviour, researchers found.
Psychologists at the University of California in Berkeley drew their unflattering conclusions after covertly observing people's behaviour in the open and in a series of follow-up studies in the laboratory.
Describing their work in the US journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, social psychologist Paul Piff and his colleagues at the Institute of Personality and Social Research claim that self-interest may be a "more fundamental motive among society's elite" that leads to more wrongdoing. They say selfishness may be "a shared cultural norm".
The scientists also found a strong link between social status and greed, a connection they suspect might exacerbate the economic gulf between the rich and poor.
OP, what you overlook is that there are signs that social mobility is going backwards. If you look at the top professions they're all dominated by people who had an elite, expensive schooling. In terms of social mobility we rank behind most OECD countries. Even countries such as Australia and Canada that are culturally fairly similar and have similar levels of income inequality, have higher social mobility. Perhaps this is because the cultural divide between the classes is not as great.
There is however a clear link between high income inequality and low social mobility. The reason for this is probably pretty simple; if the rungs on the ladder are far apart, the ladder is more difficult to climb.
The notion that anyone can make it if they have talent and the right attitude is largely a myth, and a myth often used to justify huge income inequality, and to blame those who don't meet today's narrow definition of 'success' for their own situation.
Basically, anyone who wants the American dream should go to Scandinavia.
Have you ever seen the program? He is very supportive of the victims and attacks those who are bad people. But first he gets all side of a story and sometimes the audience get involved they make it very unbiased.
Then they all go back stage to Graham who gives them lots of after support. :cool: Then they get all better.
It's not like he is forcing these people to share their lives they are going their on their own :rolleyes::rolleyes:
I can't abide him, He has little man syndrome imo...All mouth ,no trousers, & full of Shit, Odious little rat featured Moron,
Putting the above on oneside, Your right he doesn't ask these ppl to go onto the show, But he so loves the chance to belittle anyone he can & the only reason is he has bouncers ready to pounce! He wouldn't dare speak to anyone in real life like he does...Not a chance...But I think your on a wind up:D;)
The lines of class are very blurred in 2012. Many people were working class at one point. Equally the descendents of some considered working class, what class are they if circumstances change. What class would, say, Alan Sugar's off spring be ? His grandchildren too ? As the off-spring of a Lord are they upper class ?
Class has never bothered me and I've always been uncomfortable by the comments of those who use their class to look down on others. That happens in all classes at times.
You jest, surely. Kyle is a foul individual who preys on the inadequate for the entertainment of similar inadequates who take perverse pride in not having got caught out yet.
I agree. Kyle's manipulative, sly and a liar when he's on his show. Quite often he's far worse than the idiotic guests he's talking to/shouting at. A real nasty piece of work at times.
Jeremy Kyle epitomises much of what is wrong with our society. It is akin to human bear-baiting; encouraging us all to point and laugh at people who have had disadvantaged, chaotic, dysfunctional lives. I had to laugh when someone on the show threw an envelope at him once. He's lucky someone hasn't done far worse to him.
Comments
But how about considering 'class' as a sociologist might look at class, as someone from outside looking at a system? I don't deny that those who have much to lose will undoubtedly do their damndest to ensure they don't lose it, but the notion of 'class mobility' doesn't seem to be part of your thinking: almost all 'grand families' started out as robber barons, warlords, then later successful merchants who were rewarded by the state which wanted their money etc. With all their money they (who might well themselves have sounded as common as muck) bought a good education for their sons and daughters (i.e. the right 'accent' and the right connections) which they hoped would perpetuate the family fortunes. Yet many 'grand families' well on hard times and their descendants are no longer grand at all and might well be your neighbours.
It seems to me that a great deal of popular anger about class relies very heavily on a myth. The reality is that many people have 'risen' and many have fallen from one class to another.
I actually think he's a very intelligent and interesting man
No I am being serious.
Have you ever seen the program? He is very supportive of the victims and attacks those who are bad people.
Then they all go back stage to Graham who gives them lots of after support. :cool: Then they get all better.
It's not like he is forcing these people to share their lives they are going their on their own :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Actually, that's something I have often thought myself, or something close to it. I don't think 'class' as such was the result of the Norman invasion in as far as the pre-invasion Anglo-Saxons also had a hierarchy of sorts, although it wasn't anywhere close (as far as we know) as rigid as what came with the feudal system introduced by William. Many other societies have something resembling a 'class' system, but is isn't in the same league as the odd arragnement we have in this country. I think what can most certainly be traced back to 1066 is the outright hatred one side has in the past had for the other, as though there were two races. And most certainly the Norman conquerors treated the conquered Anglo-Saxons as some kind of Untermensch.
What I find quite bizarre about the British class system is that you get 'middle class' folk who haven't a penny to rub together who still regard themselves as 'better' than other 'middle class' people with quite a bit of dosh but who 'class' is less than one generation old. In fact I often think there is not one 'middle class' but five or six, all of whom don't really like each other.
The 'middle class' are a huge amorphous bunch - and I think there's a lot less friction amongst them than people think.
The middle class, are fine, and they sort of understand each other. (They just pretend not to sometimes).
Privileged people behaved consistently worse than others in a range of situations, with a greater tendency to lie, cheat, take things meant for others, cut up other road users, not stop for pedestrians on crossings, and endorse unethical behaviour, researchers found.
Psychologists at the University of California in Berkeley drew their unflattering conclusions after covertly observing people's behaviour in the open and in a series of follow-up studies in the laboratory.
Describing their work in the US journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, social psychologist Paul Piff and his colleagues at the Institute of Personality and Social Research claim that self-interest may be a "more fundamental motive among society's elite" that leads to more wrongdoing. They say selfishness may be "a shared cultural norm".
The scientists also found a strong link between social status and greed, a connection they suspect might exacerbate the economic gulf between the rich and poor.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/27/upper-class-people-behave-selfishly
Selfishness breeds success... more on this revolutionary idea in Professor Dawkins The Selfish Gene.
There is however a clear link between high income inequality and low social mobility. The reason for this is probably pretty simple; if the rungs on the ladder are far apart, the ladder is more difficult to climb.
The notion that anyone can make it if they have talent and the right attitude is largely a myth, and a myth often used to justify huge income inequality, and to blame those who don't meet today's narrow definition of 'success' for their own situation.
Basically, anyone who wants the American dream should go to Scandinavia.
I can't abide him, He has little man syndrome imo...All mouth ,no trousers, & full of Shit, Odious little rat featured Moron,
Putting the above on oneside, Your right he doesn't ask these ppl to go onto the show, But he so loves the chance to belittle anyone he can & the only reason is he has bouncers ready to pounce! He wouldn't dare speak to anyone in real life like he does...Not a chance...But I think your on a wind up:D;)
Class has never bothered me and I've always been uncomfortable by the comments of those who use their class to look down on others. That happens in all classes at times.
I agree. Kyle's manipulative, sly and a liar when he's on his show. Quite often he's far worse than the idiotic guests he's talking to/shouting at. A real nasty piece of work at times.