The British Sense of Class

Abstract

The British, we are often told, are a people uniquely obsessed by 'class'. Not class as sociologists generally understand it (i.e. relationship to the means of production or structural inequalities in social capital and power), but 'class' as an all-embracing word for describing (and defining) distinctions based on perceived social differences. It is 'class' in this loose, vernacular sense that has been most prominent, and most influential, in modern British history -a point fully recognized in these three new books on the British sense of class. Indeed, it is a central argument of David Cannadine's stimulating and selfconsciously revisionist book, Class in Britain, that historians must rehabilitate 'class' as a legitimate subject of historical enquiry, but that they must do so without 'rehabilitating old-style class analysis'. 'Class', he insists, 'is one of the most important aspects of modern British history', despite recent tendencies to play down its significance (16-17). Quite so, but the question, of course, is whether this bold attempt at 'defining the subject afresh and envisioning it anew' can be judged a success. In large measure it can. According to Cannadine we must accept that 'class is best understood as being what culture does to inequality and social structure' (188). Cannadine is thus arguing for the inherently constructed nature of class and class identities (so that the distinction between 'class' and 'socio-economic position' would be similar to the distinction many historians now recognize between 'gender' and 'sex'). Not surprisingly, therefore, this is a book concerned primarily with the 'languages of class', or rather with representations of the social order -for Cannadine wishes to uphold a distinction between vocabularies of 'class' and 'models of society' (166). The former, he suggests, have done surprisingly little to shape social identities, because, unlike models of society, they cannot

Thinking generations

“…David Cannadine, in a revealing analysis of how class has been conceived in modern Britain, identifies three main ways Britons have entertained the notion theirs is a class‐based society: by evoking society as a continuous hierarchy from top to bottom, by evoking a tri‐partite division between upper, middle and lower, and by evoking a dichotomous division between the haves and have‐nots (Cannadine ; cf. Lawrence ). While the second and third have periodically found powerful resonance – and while Willetts' comments above seem designed to rebut such images – it is the first which has tended to dominate, not least because it has generally been the most acceptable to those of established advantage (Cannadine : 167, 38).…”

Respectability and race between the suburb and the city: an argument about the making of ‘inner-city’ London

“…The publication of the report afforded newspapers plenty of scope to give further horror stories in this vein. 72 Through such reports, Londoners could follow the shifting topographies of race in the city, and map shifts that might be creeping toward their own neighbourhoods. Local newspapers provided the details on the latest surveys to be published.…”

Are clerical workers proletarian? A case study of the Australian Public Service1

“…As Wahrman (1991) and Joyce (1991) have argued, ideas about class and collective identities are cultural constructs rather than a mirror reflection of social conditions. The dividing line between manual and non‐manual occupations for example is not clear cut and is often arbitrary, as Lawrence (2000) has observed. Parker (1998) likewise notes that the dividing line between the upper and lower classes in Latin America was more imaginary than real, since it was not always clear cut.…”

“…Parker (1998) likewise notes that the dividing line between the upper and lower classes in Latin America was more imaginary than real, since it was not always clear cut. Popular conceptions of class then are as much a product of culture and politics as they are of actual differences in class situation (see Wahrman 1991; Parker 1998; Lawrence 2000; Savage, Bagnall and Longhurst 2001). It is therefore entirely possible to believe that one is middle class even though one's class situation is proletarian.…”