View Full Version : Social classes still matter in Britain
The Economist has published an enlightening article on how social classes are perceived today in the UK compared to 60 years ago. 71% of Brits think it is very or failry easy to to figure out which class others belong to. Over 2/3 of the peolpe believe that they will remain in the same social class as the one they were born into.
A Gallup survey showed that the proportion of each social class indeed hasn't changed much since the survey of 1949 (only 1 to 10% of change for each class). The 2006 survey showed that about 5% of Brits thought of themselves as upper-middle class, 37% as middle class, 20% as lower-middle class, 33% as lower class and 5% didnt know (probably immigrants). None of the respondants replied "upper class", but that is probably because they are not people easily met in the street for a poll.
Read the article => Class : But did they buy their own furniture? (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7289005)
As I had read before, class in Britain is more determined by one's occupation, accent, address or even way of dressing, than by income. British people still agree with that.
Interestingly, they said that "British social strata are a bit more flexible than America's but more rigid than in many European countries". Who would have thought of the USA as a class-rigid country ? Yet it seems to be.
there is also class in china
and maybe class exists in every part of the world
it cann't be eliminated though it bothers the society
I was wondering about the social class in Britian, isn't the royal family the highest class?
I find it interesting that in the 21st century people still believe that once they're are born into a certian social class, they're going to remain in that same social class, even in the West. What are the issues of social mobility? Is it easier to move to a higher social class in other European countries? :?
I do know that the attitude of social class is changing in the US. The belief that once you're born into a certian social class, you're going to stay within that class, or better yet it'll be much more difficult for upward mobility. Of course, this wasn't the same attitude ten years ago. I believe this may have to do with the sudden increase of poverty.
Britain is definitely a class society,it's deeply ingrained in the culture.There is a class-structure in placed,I can't remember exact words said in one BBC program I've seen several years ago.
I think the Royal Family is part of so-called " aristocracy " class.
there is also class in china
and maybe class exists in every part of the world
it cann't be eliminated though it bothers the society
It is obvious that classes exist in evry society. The message of this article is that people in the UK still care about social classes, and can recognise them easily in others. Most Japanese and American people, for instance, do not really understand how the class system works or do not exactly know where they are compared to others. I found Japanese people to be "class-blind", i.e. that they all think to be middle class when I personally can see big differences of class between them.
The People's Republic of China officially doesn't have classes (because of the communist ideology), but they of course exist.
I agree with British people that social classes is much more than how much one earns, and is better reflected in the person's character, accent, way of dressing, family background, etc. than in the paycheck.
I was wondering about the social class in Britian, isn't the royal family the highest class?
No, merely upper class, like the high nobility (the "Lords") and people who have the political power.
I find it interesting that in the 21st century people still believe that once they're are born into a certian social class, they're going to remain in that same social class, even in the West.
Nevertheless it is generally true. Class defines how you are, what you believe and how you behave, not how rich you are (although there is often a correlation). This highly depends on your education (at home).
What are the issues of social mobility? Is it easier to move to a higher social class in other European countries?
Social mobility depends more on the will of individuals to educate themselves beyond the family/school education, or start behaving differently from one's family. This is mostly against human nature, or just a display of strong individualism (of which British people have more than most people on Earth).
Economic mobility is completely different, as it depends a lot on the whole country's economy, job opportunities, improvement in the national education system, individual greed, etc.
Contrarily to what some think, not every aspire to move upward, socially speaking (although most people wish to be richer). Not everybody wishes to wear suits, listen to classical music, speak with a posh accent, live in a historic house and go to vernissage at art galleries. If someone prefers to hang with their pals at the pub to drink beer while watching football or TV and share some "blond jokes" or gossip about Hollywood stars, it means that their personality fits better in the "working class" stereotype. Social class is all about image, clusters of stereotypes within society that people associate with. It is about being and belonging, not about money.
Wow - I read the article and I can't believe there are people earning over £100,000 a year who consider themselves working class!!!!?!!!?! :shock:
I know class isn't so strongly linked to income - as you mention above and is in the article - but all the same - *chokes a little* ... XD
I agree that it is relatively easy to tell what class people are from - roughly (I don't think I'd ever be able to make super-precise sub-divided class judgements about people as there are so many factors... :mad: ). I think it's easier for English people to roughly tell what class another person is in, than it is for them to judge their own.
For example, 'middle-class' and especially 'upper-middle-class' are often terms that have negative connotations here. Obviously there are people who are m-c and u-m-c; some of these know it and are proud of it (not necessarily in the 'smug' sense of the word, but sometimes), others know it and aren't comfortable with being thought of that way, and others who are upper-middle-class trying to be posher than they really are (these are very annoying! :okashii: ).
That relates to 'inverted snobbery' - middle-class people not wanting to be thought of as middle-class because of certain stereotypes associated with that class.
Nyahh, I think I'm going off at a tangent here. :sorry:
From a personal point of view, it doesn't usually occur to me to think about my class. Maybe it's easier for me in a way because my class background is rather mixed and not entirely 'typical English', so I can be a bit more of a chameleon. But there are certainly times when I feel in the company of someone(s) from an entirely different class in such a way that I sense a 'barrier' between us. It's hard to explain because not all different-class people are like that. Sometimes I can keep company with someone of a much higher class than myself and we will feel totally at ease together, because of what we have in common, our class does not matter a bit. ^^ But at other times... I can only describe it as like having cultural differences between us, that are quite great. People who have their life's 'philosophy' and 'outlook' built on such entirely different foundations from mine that I can't find my way to them. :souka: Having said that, there are some such people in the same class with me, though... =P
Oh, and btw I am quite a low class; not at the very 'bottom' of the scale but near it.
Sometimes, I find people's attitude towards me will change when they discover a certain fact about me - for example, my address or my qualifications. I really dislike this. :okashii: It's like "Oh, you have a university degree, you are really not so stupid as you look?" There is even a kind of inverted snobbery taking place, like, "You have worked with [xxxxx people]? Wow, you really know what life is like at the sharp end!"
There is also the very English (or so it seems to me!) way that often (not in all cases!!!) the genuine aristocracy/real upper class are easier for working class people to relate to and get on with than middle-class people are. My theory is that it's because genuine 'big-wigs' don't feel the need to put on a massively superior 'act' towards those who are so obviously beneath them (XD), whereas the more insecure middle ranks tend to feel the need to pull rank. A real aristocrat would be ashamed to act like a snob (I generalise here, of course; I'm sure there are some upper class people who are truly horrible personalities! But there are different individuals within all classes! ^^).
Wow - I read the article and I can't believe there are people earning over 100,000 a year who consider themselves working class!!!!?!!!?! :shock:
Likewise there are broke people who consider themselves as upper class because of their aristocratic lineage and education.
There is also the very English (or so it seems to me!) way that often (not in all cases!!!) the genuine aristocracy/real upper class are easier for working class people to relate to and get on with than middle-class people are.
Extreme opposites sometimes have more in common that it would seem. I was told that there are only two kinds of people in England who would go out in their dressing gown and slippers to buy a newspaper around the corner : either the top upper-class or bottom working class people.
My theory is that it's because genuine 'big-wigs' don't feel the need to put on a massively superior 'act' towards those who are so obviously beneath them (XD), whereas the more insecure middle ranks tend to feel the need to pull rank. A real aristocrat would be ashamed to act like a snob (I generalise here, of course; I'm sure there are some upper class people who are truly horrible personalities! But there are different individuals within all classes! ^^).
I agree with that. As you said it also depends on personality, but it it true that real upper class people have "nothing to prove" and feel less insecure about their position in society.
Likewise there are broke people who consider themselves as upper class because of their aristocratic lineage and education.
I think it is the same in France, if a person has debt problem, if his job or degree is high and person's character, accent, way of dressing, family background, etc is still better educated than the middle class, he still considers himself as the upper class.
In France, even on the surface it looks egalitarian, there are better class suburbs with expensive apartments and there are the flats for poor people. The distinction is so clear. The obvious lower classes here are the North African Muslims, the Asian boat people refugees and some Latinos from Spain or Portugal. No wonder people think I am Japanese...
As you said it also depends on personality, but it is true that real upper class people have "nothing to prove" and feel less insecure about their position in society.
I think the new rich, those who become wealthy less than one generation ago tries harder to prove they have money, degrees...etc than the ones who have been in the upper class for generations.
The lower class in France like the North Africans like to dress up on the weekends because they don't get to due to their labour jobs in the weekdays, they feel they need to show off when they can. The upper class don't bother to dress up in the weekends because they do that in their classy jobs already on weekdays.
Where I come from East Malaysia used to be called Borneo, there is definitely a class division. I definitely come from the upper end of the scale but I won't classify myself as aristocrat or elite, but definitely better than average Sino Malaysians you see on the streets. People treat you differently if your dad has a good or powerful job, there is a big difference. Above than average families get to go to western countries to study, and absorb the higher western culture, while the middle class people pick only very good graded children to be sent overseas to study and it is their life savings. The lower class don't get to go at all; they just operate small businesses and remain in their circles.
I think the new rich, those who become wealthy less than one generation ago tries harder to prove they have money, degrees...etc than the ones who have been in the upper class for generations.
I personally think that most of the new rich remain the the class in which they were born (or just slightly higher), as money rarely changes their mentality or attitude. New rich that were already upper-middle class could become upper class, but not necessarily (depends on their personality and how old they were when they became "rich").
The lower class in France like the North Africans like to dress up on the weekends because they don't get to due to their labour jobs in the weekdays, they feel they need to show off when they can. The upper class don't bother to dress up in the weekends because they do that in their classy jobs already on weekdays.
Many European farmers also dress up on Sunday for the same reason (although they are not lower class). Upper class people tend to dress very conservatively (traditional "English-style" suit, even in the Benelux), so they are rarely the ones to wear designer clothes. Designer clothes are more for the upper-middle class (e.g. cadres, managers) and nouveau riches.
Here is an interesting article from the Economist (that is almost a tautology to say "interesting" when referring to the Economist) about the working class and the underclass by ethnicity in Britain :
The Economist : Poor whites; The forgotten underclass (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8089315)
It explains how poor white Britons perform worse than any other ethnic group in GCSE's (final highschool exam), how and why their unemployement rate is higher, and how they commit more crimes (although less serious ones) than Black Britons.
gaijinalways
29-10-06, 15:18
Interestingly, they said that "British social strata are a bit more flexible than America's but more rigid than in many European countries". Who would have thought of the USA as a class-rigid country ? Yet it seems to be.
I missed where this was stated in the original Economist article. Hardly seems likely, as many Americans couldn't give two figs about class. I work, so I guess I am 'working class' too!
I missed where this was stated in the original Economist article.
Third paragraph from the bottom :
Recent international studies indicate that British social strata are a bit more flexible than America's but more rigid than in many European countries.
Hardly seems likely, as many Americans couldn't give two figs about class. I work, so I guess I am 'working class' too!
It is not because some people do not care that class division doesn't exist. We could even imagine a society that has no word for class and no such cultural concept, but classes would still exist if there are major differences in education, manners, values, etc. linked to socio-economic factors.
"Working class" refers to manual work (e.g. factory worker, construction worker). Is it what you do ? The English language is rather confusing in this regard, as "worker" can either mean someone who works (travailleur in French, ¢Äél in Japanese) or someone who does manual work (ouvrier in French, JÒ in Japanese). The term "working class" only refers to the latter.
I missed where this was stated in the original Economist article. Hardly seems likely, as many Americans couldn't give two figs about class. I work, so I guess I am 'working class' too!
I think the reason why many Americans don't think about social class is because our society has this is ideal that there aren't issues of social class. As well as being brought up to believe that just about anyone can become rich in the future if they work hard. In reality, this isn't the case, at least most of the time it isn't.
What makes you believe that you're apart of the working class dear? :?
Maciamo, that was a very interesting article you posted. :) (I even emailed it to some of my co-workers as it has a relevance to our work. :-) -- and my city also gets a lot of mention! XDD)
Hmmmm. I don't know whether this is just a stereotype that I have acquired, through English upbringing :bluush:, but I had the impression of the US as being a type of society where there is a great emphasis on being able to 'make good' through hard work. I.e., less of welfare, and a respect for those who have made money through their work (whatever that may be). Whereas in the UK (not 100% sure on other European countries), there is ingrained respect for 'aristocracy' - even if the 'upper class' person in question isn't actually even particularly rich. :blush: and a tendency to even look down a bit on people who are well-off but who have made their money through a relatively menial job.
Whereas in the UK (not 100% sure on other European countries), there is ingrained respect for 'aristocracy' - even if the 'upper class' person in question isn't actually even particularly rich. :blush: and a tendency to even look down a bit on people who are well-off but who have made their money through a relatively menial job.
It is exactly like that here. If you are nobility, you are automatically upper-middle or upper class (depending on the title). Even a poor duke or prince is still upper class.
but I had the impression of the US as being a type of society where there is a great emphasis on being able to 'make good' through hard work....and a respect for those who have made money through their work (whatever that may be).
It is the same in France..., the French in this sense is the same as the Americans.
Whereas in the UK (not 100% sure on other European countries), there is ingrained respect for 'aristocracy' - even if the 'upper class' person in question isn't actually even particularly rich. :blush: and a tendency to even look down a bit on people who are well-off but who have made their money
through a relatively menial job.
It is the same in Chinese societies, including the ones outside of China, by that I mean Singapore, Malaysia, Thailandcetc. You get respected if you have a highly respectable job like entrepreneurs, CEOs, doctors (yes, Chinese love doctors), lawyers, dentists...engineers....etc...
As for the Chinese elite, even though their titles have been striped away from them, they still think the same, and brush aside those who are not able to achieve high degrees or those who fail to remain in the standard.
Yes, in Asia it is a very materialistic world, and it is not just the Chinese.
EDIT: I need to add when I was talking about China I was talking about China now.
Mainland China today is no longer a communist country but an extreme socialist country. The Mainland Chinese today are very materialistic, much more than the ones who are born overseas or the ones from HK or Taiwan.
My mother has a friend who has a son who is in Shanghai working and he says everything is about money. He is very turn off by this and is looking for a HK woman to marry as the women there are only after money.
During the communist era I am not sure whether the mainland Chinese then were less materialistic or not, as they blocked themselves practically from the world. Not many people were allowed to visit mainland China; and not many mainland Chinese were allowed to go out.
gaijinalways
31-10-06, 07:32
What makes you believe that you're apart of the working class dear?
Understated humor strikes again:relief: . I just sometimes think that I work, hence I am working class. I hardly am independently wealthy (though my wife still buys lottery tickets), yet I am well aware that the British meaning of 'working class' (which we don't use in America, by the way), refers to manual labor types (who sometimes make a sight more than I do:blush: ).
Believe it or not, many millionaires in the US run service businesses involving manual labor (pest control, carpet cleaning, etc.). Of course, I am not referring to mega-millionaires or billionaires, just people who have assets of at least 1 million (and usually not with a house worth 900,000 dollars).
Whereas in the UK (not 100% sure on other European countries), there is ingrained respect for 'aristocracy' - even if the 'upper class' person in question isn't actually even particularly rich. and a tendency to even look down a bit on people who are well-off but who have made their money through a relatively menial job.
The old rich versus the nouveau rich arguement. In the US, certainly people who seem crass might not be well received, yet with people like Donald Trump around, one can't help wondering. As to people with titles only, there would be some respect given if people respect the heritage of the title or the history that the person lived through, but not just for the title itself, which may only reflect on someone who never worked to enjoy what benefits they have.
And thanks Maciamo, I need to read the article again, missed that when I skimmed it.
It is the same in France..., the French in this sense is the same as the Americans.
I believe I know French culture better than you, being a native speaker of French, having watched French TV (and debates) since my childhood, having had an education very close to the one in France, having been all around France, having had French friends (and girlfriends) and being confused for a French in Paris and for a Parisian (or at least Northerner) outside Paris... How long have you lived in France ? There is virtually no difference between the way people see the class system in French-speaking Belgium and France - maybe less than between French- and Dutch-speaking Belgium.
Believe it or not, many millionaires in the US run service businesses involving manual labor (pest control, carpet cleaning, etc.). Of course, I am not referring to mega-millionaires or billionaires, just people who have assets of at least 1 million (and usually not with a house worth 900,000 dollars).
Not very difficult. If you have a 1-million $ house (or a not-so-big flat in London for that price), and you don't have a cleaning lady, you automatically have to do "manual" work for the cleaning. Add to that the garden if you have one. But "manual work" refers to once occupation in life, not daily household tasks. Maybe we should say "manual employment" to avoid all confusion.
gaijinalways
31-10-06, 15:18
No, I was saying these people don't have expensive property (usually in my book, overevaluated property), so more of their wealth is in cash, bonds, stock, etc. And they are usually are small business owners/workers, so they often do a lot of the manual work in their business, hence they are 'working class' millionaires.
Ah, I see, you are referring to someone who is (for example) a carpet-cleaner by profession and owns/manages a carpet-cleaning business - rather than simply someone who cleans their own carpet at home. In England, someone who was a millionnaire from having built up a successful carpet-cleaning business would be looked at differently from someone who was a millionnaire on inheritance and had a title to go with it. Although I can't exactly say what the difference is. :bluush: And of course, there are a lot of people who turn up their noses at people with inherited wealth and say "they never had to work for it", too. But I think the carpet-cleaner would get more respect for their profession and their success in America. My feeling is that they would be admired in America for having made a success. In England they might also be admired for being successful and rich, but certainly in some circles there would be a distinct lingering feeling of "s/he's only a carpet-cleaner, after all..." :bluush:
Ah, I see, you are referring to someone who is (for example) a carpet-cleaner by profession and owns/manages a carpet-cleaning business - rather than simply someone who cleans their own carpet at home. In England, someone who was a millionnaire from having built up a successful carpet-cleaning business would be looked at differently from someone who was a millionnaire on inheritance and had a title to go with it.
And this is exactly why I was trying to explain that classes do not depend on money. You are born into a class, and you will remain in it, even if you win the lottery. In fact, if someone wins the lottery, the way they will use the money is often a good reflection of their class values.
I believe I know French culture better than you, being a native speaker of French, having watched French TV (and debates) since my childhood, having had an education very close to the one in France, having been all around France, having had French friends (and girlfriends) and being confused for a French in Paris and for a Parisian (or at least Northerner) outside Paris... How long have you lived in France ? There is virtually no difference between the way people see the class system in French-speaking Belgium and France - maybe less than between French- and Dutch-speaking Belgium.
And I believe my husband knows French better than you. He is born in France and has lived in France almost all of his life. As for his parents one is Northern Italian the other is Belge (French side).
No offence but he says in France it is a very egalitarian society, people don't look down at you because of your jobs unlike in Chinese societies for example. It's true in France you need to hide your wealth if you do have money.
That's why when he showed up in his carpenters and laborer friends' houses with a luxurious watch, their wives were very jealous.
French don't really care about royalties and they are not very religious, even though there are tones of church left from their past constructions.
EDIT: If I am not mistaken from memory, in the Chinese forum somewhere you have mentioned before the Belgium people do put organs on sale on glass windows and you don't think there is any difference in France but my husband says no, they don't do that in France. That's why he was very upset to have seen that in Taiwan. I think you seem to think the French side of Belgium is more similar to France than what my husband thinks.
And I believe my husband knows French better than you. He is born in France and has lived in France all his life. As for his parents one is Northern Italian the other is Belge (French side). No offence but he says in France it is a very egalitarian society, people don't look down at you because of your jobs unlike in Chinese societies for example. It's true in France you need to hide your wealth if you do have money.
I don't think that your husband's ancestry proves that he understands French society better than me (and even less you). Understanding requires an interest in the matter (sociology) at first, as well as knowledge and analytical skills. It is a myth that France is an egalitarian society just because the national motto is "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". France is one of the most unequal societies in Europe, certainly the most hierarchical and elitist, and the one with the strongest power distance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance). You can only understand that through cross-cultural studies (and this requires an international experience). It is true that people don't look down at you because of your jobs or respect you because you have money, and this is exactly what I have been trying to tell you about the meaning of social classes in Europe. European social classes are about the mind (values, tastes, manners, education...), not a person's job or wealth.
Believe me, French speakers are not egalitarian when it comes to classes. They may not care about money and display of material wealth (clothes, cars), but the way you speak and what you believe in is a major factor of division in France and Belgium. Someone who has graduated from ENA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_nationale_d%27administration) does not socialise with ordinary folk. Middle class French people see Arabic immigrants who speak with a strong "rap-like" accent, wearing a cap back-front and have no respect for anything, as an underclass to avoid. But classes in Europe are not so numerous, and the main types of mindset can be divided in only 4 categories, like in my classification in #1 here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24191). 80-90% of French people of European descent being middle class in this classification, it is fairly normal that some French people might think of their society as pretty egalitarian - but only as long as they remain in their class !
They are not very religious, even though there are tones of church left from their past constructions.
Same in Belgium, and most of Europe. What's your point ? What does this have to do with social classes ?
I don't think that your husband's ancestry proves that he understands French society better than me (and even less you). Understanding requires an interest in the matter (sociology) at first, as well as knowledge and analytical skills. It is a myth that France is an egalitarian society just because the national motto is "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". France is one of the most unequal societies in Europe, certainly the most hierarchical and elitist, and the one with the strongest power distance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance). You can only understand that through cross-cultural studies (and this requires an international experience).
You don't have to get so excited, I did say no offence, and I am stating my opinion on what I think.
What do you mean by international experiences? Are you talking about your experiences of living overseas?
It is true that people don't look down at you because of your jobs or respect you because you have money, and this is exactly what I have been trying to tell you about the meaning of social classes in Europe. European social classes are about the mind (values, tastes, manners, education...), not a person's job or wealth.
I do understand what you have been saying it just that I don't fully agree that's how social class works in the world.
Believe me, French speakers are not egalitarian when it comes to classes. They may not care about money and display of material wealth (clothes, cars), but the way you speak and what you believe in is a major factor of division in France and Belgium. Someone who has graduated from ENA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_nationale_d%27administration) does not socialise with ordinary folk.
Yes in most cases, just like the example I have given about how often do you see a Harvard graduate socialize with a high school drop out?
Middle class French people see Arabic immigrants who speak with a strong "rap-like" accent, wearing a cap back-front and have no respect for anything, as an underclass to avoid. But classes in Europe are not so numerous, and the main types of mindset can be divided in only 4 categories, like in my classification in #1 here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24191). 80-90% of French people of European descent being middle class in this classification, it is fairly normal that some French people might think of their society as pretty egalitarian - but only as long as they remain in their class !
Same in Belgium, and most of Europe.
Hmmm middle class French see Arabs as the underrace rather than underclass. Yes many middle class French are racists, but racism are everywhere.
Yes there are also the manners, how you think, and your education hence the way you behave, your intelligence hence the way you interact with people which betoken what kind of person you are inside. These behaviors can be used as a yardstick to indicate your social class.
If French think they are an egalitarian society that's because France is a republic and not a kingdom.
What's your point ? What does this have to do with social classes ?
Sorry I got this thread mix up with the other one where you are talking about what divides people more? Religion, social class, intelligence, or gender?
gaijinalways
01-11-06, 07:01
Kinsao postedAh, I see, you are referring to someone who is (for example) a carpet-cleaner by profession and owns/manages a carpet-cleaning business - rather than simply someone who cleans their own carpet at home.
Exactly, thought that was pretty clear, my apologies if it wasn't.
Maciamo posted And this is exactly why I was trying to explain that classes do not depend on money. You are born into a class, and you will remain in it, even if you win the lottery. In fact, if someone wins the lottery, the way they will use the money is often a good reflection of their class values.
But my point was different. Very few in America would look down on these self-made millionaires who have made the money themselves. Hence, this seems to go aganist what the Economist article states (or aganist the findings of the studies mentioned), that
Originally Posted by The Economist
Recent international studies indicate that British social strata are a bit more flexible than America's but more rigid than in many European countries.
As kinsao was stating earlier, some British people would look down on them, whereas an American would only look down on them if they thought the people were crooks, something the legions in the law occupation seems to suffer from in the US.
You don't have to get so excited, I did say no offence, and I am stating my opinion on what I think.
What annoys me is not that you state your opinion but :
1) that you assume that you or your husband necessarily know better French culture, society or mentality because you live in France (well in a region that used to be German until recently).
2) that I explained before that the meaning of "social class" was different in Europe from North America, Australian and East Asia, but you keep using your Asian definition to talk about France.
What do you mean by international experiences? Are you talking about your experiences of living overseas?
You never understand your country's culture as well as when you go abroad and compare it with other countries. Naturally, reading authoritative cultural studies also help.
Hmmm middle class French see Arabs as the underrace rather than underclass.
I wouldn't go that far. There are many North African (esp. Algerian) scholars, journalists or other intellectuals in France that are well respected. Those who are seen as an underclass are the economic migrants with little education and rough manners that already belonged to the lower class in their country before moving to France. Naturally a lower class in a developing country (and their offspring) ranks even lower than a lower class in a developed country where education is free and compulsory for everyone. That is what I was trying to say. Educated Muslims tend to be much more moderate and do not pose problems to society. But the majority of the Maghreban immigrants are very definitely bottom lower class by Western European standards.
If French think they are an egalitarian society that's because France is a republic and not a kingdom.
That's one of the most non-sensical thing you have said about social classes. The most egalitarian countries in Europe tend to be monarchies : Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. Spain is also more egalitarian than France or Italy.
What annoys me is not that you state your opinion but :
1) that you assume that you or your husband necessarily know better French culture, society or mentality because you live in France (well in a region that used to be German until recently).
2) that I explained before that the meaning of "social class" was different in Europe from North America, Australian and East Asia, but you keep using your Asian definition to talk about France.
Well, if that's what I gave you the impression of what I am doing, that's not my intention at all.
I think my husband understands his own society well is because he is not an uneducated man.
I know social class defers from country to country region to region, you say I keep on using my Asian definition to talk about France.
You did the same you assumed the Malays and the Indonesians are the same as the Middle Eastern because they are all Muslims and you are generalizing them because of their religion coming from a Western perspective. You acted as if though you understand the country I am born into better than I do, but I didn't get upset over it; I simply just explain to you they are not the same as the Middle Eastern.
You never understand your country's culture as well as when you go abroad and compare it with other countries. Naturally, reading authoritative cultural studies also help.
Well, although my husband never formally lived abroad, he has been sent as an expatriate to Thailand and HK before. He used to fly back and forth many times then. They even gave him an apartment each there. He has had girlfriends from different Asian countries as well. It is not as if though he never socialized outside of his French that is a German influenced society.
I, on the other hand have lived in many different countries, and I think I do have international experiences. I have not read too many cross cultural study though.
I wouldn't go that far. There are many North African (esp. Algerian) scholars, journalists or other intellectuals in France that are well respected. Those who are seen as an underclass are the economic migrants with little education and rough manners that already belonged to the lower class in their country before moving to France. Naturally a lower class in a developing country (and their offspring) ranks even lower than a lower class in a developed country where education is free and compulsory for everyone. That is what I was trying to say. Educated Muslims tend to be much more moderate and do not pose problems to society. But the majority of the Maghreban immigrants are very definitely bottom lower class by Western European standards.
Yes, I supposed when I made that comment, I don't mean all of the Arabs, even in very impoverished societies there are intelligent high respectable people. But there are a lot of Arabs here who are trouble makers. I agree there is social class in France and it is not as egalitarian as they imagine. But I know there are certain numbers of Middle class French who see the majority of Maghreban immigrants as the lower race.
You cannot denied racism exists, I am sure there are people in the world who see the Chinese as the underrace ( very offensive but I know but they exist), or the blacks as the under race...etc.
That's one of the most non-sensical thing you have said about social classes. The most egalitarian countries in Europe tend to be monarchies : Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. Spain is also more egalitarian than France or Italy.
I don't know about all those countries you have mentioned. In Australia we are not require to study about them, some of them I have visited but just one or two days in those countries I obviously wouldnft know much about them from just visiting.
However I do believe the average French are not very class conscious, sort of like the average Australian. However Australian and French are quite different.
Kinsao posted
Maciamo posted
But my point was different. Very few in America would look down on these self-made millionaires who have made the money themselves. Hence, this seems to go aganist what the Economist article states (or aganist the findings of the studies mentioned), that
As kinsao was stating earlier, some British people would look down on them, whereas an American would only look down on them if they thought the people were crooks, something the legions in the law occupation seems to suffer from in the US.
I actually find this contradictory. Besides royalty, you cannot be born into your father's medicine degree or your father's lawyer degree. If you want to be a doctor or a lawyer and other professionals you need to graduate from the degree it cannot be inherited unlike royal blood. Conversely, a farmer's son can possibly become a doctor if he graduates from Medicine degree.
You know my husband agrees with your American view that people here would only look down at you if they thought you were crooks.
However I do believe the average French are not very class conscious, sort of like the average Australian. However Australian and French are quite different.
I agree to say that the French, like most continental Europeans, are not very class conscious. But that doesn't mean that classes don't exist just because people don't care much about them. Let's say that the French probably don't talk much about class differences (not as much as the Brits), but their behaviour (e.g. way of socialising, choice of school, choice of neighbourhood) is nonetheless directed by class distinction.
I know from TV debates, political decisions and personal experience that French speakers both in France and Belgium have been trying to discourage class discrimination, and this has resulted to a sort of taboo for all discussions about social classes.
This was part of a general trend of liberalism and even laissez-faire towar younger generations from the 1970's onwards. Parents have been encouraging their children to marry anybody they love regardless of their class (resulting in more divorces), to study anything they like at school/university regardless of market opportunities (that's why there are so many unemployed university graduates in France and Belgium)...
Parents say that they want their children's happiness by letting them do whatever they want, but the truth is that it is easier for them not to take responsibility in telling them what to do, and let the children learn from their own experiences and failures. This is also why society has become more individualistic, but also why so many young people have lost their landmarks and waste so much time trying to figure what they want to do with their lives. This is the result of a too liberal society, where values inherited from the past and from religion have disappeared for new personalised values. But there are things that do not change, even in a religion-free and liberal society : social classes.
I understand the political will to "reconciliate" classes, but this can only be done by improving education for everyone at home and at school. Because there will always be big disparities in education, class differences will continue to exist, whether people wish it or not. It is not by refraining to talk about class differences and allowing one's children to marry "anyboby" that society will be better off. Understand class differences is, on the contrary, the key to prevent class conflicts, in the same way that learning about other religions may help understand the way others think.
I actually find this contradictory. Besides royalty, you cannot be born into your father's medicine degree or your father's lawyer degree. If you want to be a doctor or a lawyer and other professionals you need to graduate from the degree it cannot be inherited unlike royal blood.
In general, if the parents are wealthy and well educated, the children will be raised with a good education and will be used to a more refined way of life, with better manners than average, speaking with a posher accent, and having tastes and values that reflect these higher standards. This is all the truer if the children went to a school with people from the same social level as theirs, so as not to corrupt their manners, language and tastes.
The parents, however, may not have such bourgeois way of speaking or manners, even if they are doctors or lawyers, if they were born into a lower social class. I have personally noticed that very, very few people jump more than 1 level of the 4 main social classes (upper, upper-middle, middle, lower) in their lifetime. If you are born in a middle class milieu, you could raise yourself to upper-middle class or fall to lower class, but rarely I have seen a person from a lower class milieu becoming upper-middle class, or someone from a middle class milieu becoming upper class (the other way round is easier though). In the most extreme cases, such a change normally takes place over 2 generations.
Conversely, a farmer's son can possibly become a doctor if he graduates from Medicine degree.
Do you mean farmer (landowner) or peasant (just working the land) ? Farmers are a special cases in social classes; I know some that are typically lower class, others that are middle class, and a few that are nearly upper-middle class.
I agree to say that the French, like most continental Europeans, are not very class conscious. But that doesn't mean that classes don't exist just because people don't care much about them. Let's say that the French probably don't talk much about class differences (not as much as the Brits), but their behaviour (e.g. way of socialising, choice of school, choice of neighbourhood) is nonetheless directed by class distinction.
I didn't say they don't exist, I say the French don't think they exist and they don't pay a lot of attention to social class, like the Americans. That's why you don't get people looking down at another person if he does manual work for a living in France. However, if they think you are some kind of crook who conducts criminal activities they do look down at you, thatfs why the Arabs here are not liked by the French.
I know from TV debates, political decisions and personal experience that French speakers both in France and Belgium have been trying to discourage class discrimination, and this has resulted to a sort of taboo for all discussions about social classes.
This was part of a general trend of liberalism and even laissez-faire towar younger generations from the 1970's onwards. Parents have been encouraging their children to marry anybody they love regardless of their class (resulting in more divorces), to study anything they like at school/university regardless of market opportunities (that's why there are so many unemployed university graduates in France and Belgium)...
Parents say that they want their children's happiness by letting them do whatever they want, but the truth is that it is easier for them not to take responsibility in telling them what to do, and let the children learn from their own experiences and failures. This is also why society has become more individualistic, but also why so many young people have lost their landmarks and waste so much time trying to figure what they want to do with their lives. This is the result of a too liberal society, where values inherited from the past and from religion have disappeared for new personalised values. But there are things that do not change, even in a religion-free and liberal society : social classes.
I understand the political will to "reconciliate" classes, but this can only be done by improving education for everyone at home and at school. Because there will always be big disparities in education, class differences will continue to exist, whether people wish it or not. It is not by refraining to talk about class differences and allowing one's children to marry "anyboby" that society will be better off. Understand class differences is, on the contrary, the key to prevent class conflicts, in the same way that learning about other religions may help understand the way others think.
Thanks for pointing this out, this helps me understand French society more. Yes I have heard numerous real stories of French people's marital problems.
Chinese societies have far less divorces; maybe it is because the Chinese stick to their own social class for marriages.
In general, if the parents are wealthy and well educated, the children will be raised with a good education and will be used to a more refined way of life, with better manners than average, speaking with a posher accent, and having tastes and values that reflect these higher standards. This is all the truer if the children went to a school with people from the same social level as theirs, so as not to corrupt their manners, language and tastes.
Yes that is true; my mother doesn't like me talking or making friends with people that come from social classes lower than mine. She thinks it is bad influence.
She is not satisfied with the school that we first went to and she swoop us into expensive private schools when she could afford it.
The Australian immigration cost us a great deal of money hence we couldn't afford to live in high class suburbs in Australia in the commencement. My mother changed my first high school the second year after she met my friend and had visited my first high school.
The parents, however, may not have such bourgeois way of speaking or manners, even if they are doctors or lawyers, if they were born into a lower social class. I have personally noticed that very, very few people jump more than 1 level of the 4 main social classes (upper, upper-middle, middle, lower) in their lifetime. If you are born in a middle class milieu, you could raise yourself to upper-middle class or fall to lower class, but rarely I have seen a person from a lower class milieu becoming upper-middle class, or someone from a middle class milieu becoming upper class (the other way round is easier though). In the most extreme cases, such a change normally takes place over 2 generations.
Yes for the lower class to rise to upper is very hard, it is much easier to fall down.
My great grand father was an official in the end of the Qing dynasty, when the dynasty fell, and later the Japanese invasion, the family lost land, status and tones of wealth. My grandfather had a hard time growing up in the Second World War.
To have lost so many things that was once his, he still growls and complains about it today.
During the era of the Cultural Revolution, the communists sent people to spy and to blackmail and to threaten the literate and the people who once hold power due to their inheritance (in China and in Taiwan). Mao hated the people in the upper class as he was born in the lower class; he blamed the upper-class for the miseries of the lower class Chinese during the Japanese invasion.
Do you mean farmer (landowner) or peasant (just working the land) ? Farmers are a special cases in social classes; I know some that are typically lower class, others that are middle class, and a few that are nearly upper-middle class.
My father's father was a peasant; he was very, very poor. At a young age my father understood that if he wanted a better life in the future he had to study hard in order to become a professional. He did, he got a scholarship to study medicine and he graduated from medicine school.
He is a doctor and its true his children, us have a much better life than him. This has to do with social class and family backgrounds.
I didn't say they don't exist, I say the French don't think they exist and they don't pay a lot of attention to social class, like the Americans.
But don't you ever hear the term bourgeois (the only French term for upper-middle class) or class moyenne (middle class), classe ouvrière (working class) or even élite or artistocartie (both part of the upper class) in France ? French language doesn't have words like "upper" or "lower" to describe classes, but other terms that correspond to the exact same thing. We could go further and say that words like délinquent, or even people from the banlieues sensibles (sensitive suburbs, referring to poor immigrant suburbs) are near synonymous for lower class in French. People don't speak much of "proletariat" anymore, because industrial times have past, and it doesn't make much sense nowadays. But if you are careful about the language (given that you are fluent in French), you will notice that there are in fact many words charged with class insinuations, although the word "class" is not as common as in English.
French people will prefer to a school, neighbourhood or dressing style as "bourgeois" or "populaire" (another understament for "lower class") than call them upper-middle or lower class (anyway there is no such word in French, as I said).
gaijinalways
02-11-06, 19:22
Originally Posted by Minty
I didn't say they don't exist, I say the French don't think they exist and they don't pay a lot of attention to social class, like the Americans.
Hmm, sounds odd. Most of my friends don't, though I am not very class conscious. I see it a lot here in Japan, even though some still believe in the myth of 'one class' (though how class is expressed here is sometimes more likley to be through luxary brand and name dropping, not family history). But than again how many people are related to a real samurai?
But than again how many people are related to a real samurai?
The samurai were not a social class, they were a caste. The difference is that one can never change caste, and most often cannot marry outside their caste. There were 5 castes in the Edo period (1600-1867) in Japan, just like in India but in a different order :
- Samurai (warriors)
- Farmers
- Artisans
- Merchants
- Untouchables (eta)
The eta were renamed burakumin, and people with eta ancestry are still discriminated against in Japan (although it is illegal).
Hmm, sounds odd. Most of my firends don't, though I am not very class conscious.
Why does it sound odd? Who are most of your friends? Americans? Japanese?
But don't you ever hear the term bourgeois (the only French term for upper-middle class) or class moyenne (middle class), classe ouvrière (working class) or even élite or artistocartie (both part of the upper class) in France ? French language doesn't have words like "upper" or "lower" to describe classes, but other terms that correspond to the exact same thing. We could go further and say that words like délinquent, or even people from the banlieues sensibles (sensitive suburbs, referring to poor immigrant suburbs) are near synonymous for lower class in French. People don't speak much of "proletariat" anymore, because industrial times have past, and it doesn't make much sense nowadays. But if you are careful about the language (given that you are fluent in French), you will notice that there are in fact many words charged with class insinuations, although the word "class" is not as common as in English.
French people will prefer to a school, neighbourhood or dressing style as "bourgeois" or "populaire" (another understament for "lower class") than call them upper-middle or lower class (anyway there is no such word in French, as I said).
Well I have heard of terms like bourgeois, proletariat...
This is my general impression of the French, they tend to think their society is not very stratified, they often say France is a republic; everybody has right to free education, free healthcare.
Well I have heard of terms like bourgeois, proletariat...
This is my general impression of the French, they tend to think their society is not very stratified, they often say France is a republic; everybody has right to free education, free healthcare.
You still don't get it, do you ? Republic has nothing to do with social classes. As I explained earlier, the least stratified countries in the world are monarchies (Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, Japan...), while some of the most startified countries are republics (India, USA, France, Russia, most African and South American countries...).
If you go back to the power distance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance) concept (lined above), we can get an idea of which countries accept the most big gaps between the bottom and top of society. It doesn't mean that such societies are the most stratified. Conversely, a country with low power distance could be very stratified, but would risk a revolution. If you check the statitics by country (http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index/), you will see that Malaysia is ranked as the country with the highest power distance in the world, so the one where people at the bottom of society accept and expect the most that power is distributed unequally. Germanic countries and Israel are those that expect the most egalitarian systems. We know that it works well in high-taxes high-distribution countries like in Scandinavia, but poorly in ultra-liberal English-speaking countries (USA and Australia on top). We see that India has a high score (77), which mean that it is part of the culture to accept social inequalities, which is true. But France also ranks quite high (68, the highest in Europe), which means that the French accept and expect society to be unequal, despite all the egalitarian values of the French Revolution (let us not forget that France got 2 monarchies and 2 empires after the French Revolution, with restoration of the aristocracy and priviledges).
You still don't get it, do you ? Republic has nothing to do with social classes. As I explained earlier, the least stratified countries in the world are monarchies (Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, Japan...), while some of the most startified countries are republics (India, USA, France, Russia, most African and South American countries...).
If you go back to the power distance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance) concept (lined above), we can get an idea of which countries accept the most big gaps between the bottom and top of society. It doesn't mean that such societies are the most stratified. Conversely, a country with low power distance could be very stratified, but would risk a revolution. If you check the statitics by country (http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index/), you will see that Malaysia is ranked as the country with the highest power distance in the world, so the one where people at the bottom of society accept and expect the most that power is distributed unequally.
You say that "the least stratified countries in the world are monarchies (Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, Japan...); while some of the most stratified countries are republics (India, USA, France, Russia, most African and South American countries...)."
Malaysia has monarchy! And the country is very stratified.
Thailand also has monarchy and so does Brunei!
Saudi Arabia that ranked 80 also has monarchies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...f_Saudi_Arabia
Ghana also has royalty. It is ranked 77.
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=11236
So does Kuwait. 80.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_A...Jaber_Al-Sabah
Germanic countries and Israel are those that expect the most egalitarian systems. We know that it works well in high-taxes high-distribution countries like in Scandinavia, but poorly in ultra-liberal English-speaking countries (USA and Australia on top). We see that India has a high score (77), which mean that it is part of the culture to accept social inequalities, which is true. But France also ranks quite high (68, the highest in Europe), which means that the French accept and expect society to be unequal, despite all the egalitarian values of the French Revolution (let us not forget that France got 2 monarchies and 2 empires after the French Revolution, with restoration of the aristocracy and priviledges).
I can see that the countries that have less power distance that have monarchies are all moneyed countries.
Finally you seem to understand that there is no link between social class and monarchies or republics ! :relief: I was wondering how long it would take. It is so obvious that it is unrelated because many countries have passed from monarchies to republic. All European countries were monarchies until 1918. Cultures doesn't change so quickly. In fact it can takes centuries, if not millenia for basic cultural traits to change. The Scandinavians were already very egalitarian over 1000 years ago. They were the ones with the first true democracies in Europe (the ancient Greeks had slaves), and the first parliamentary system (in Iceland and the Isle of Man, both Viking colonies). France passed from monarchy to republic to empire to monarchy to republic to empire to republic in less than 100 years ! But French culture hasn't changed during that time. It is the best proof that political system and stratification of society are unrelated. So please stop arguing that French people are egalitarian and don't care about social classes because they are a Republic. That is absurd.
Finally you seem to understand that there is no link between social class and monarchies or republics ! :relief: I was wondering how long it would take. It is so obvious that it is unrelated because many countries have passed from monarchies to republic. All European countries were monarchies until 1918. Cultures doesn't change so quickly. In fact it can takes centuries, if not millenia for basic cultural traits to change. The Scandinavians were already very egalitarian over 1000 years ago. They were the ones with the first true democracies in Europe (the ancient Greeks had slaves), and the first parliamentary system (in Iceland and the Isle of Man, both Viking colonies). France passed from monarchy to republic to empire to monarchy to republic to empire to republic in less than 100 years ! But French culture hasn't changed during that time. It is the best proof that political system and stratification of society are unrelated. So please stop arguing that French people are egalitarian and don't care about social classes because they are a Republic. That is absurd.
You are saying France is like countries like Taiwan or China who have had a revolution and hence their aristocrats axed. However tho' the country has turned into a republic, the ideology of class is still very present in the society.
The Index shows which countries bear the biggest breaches betwixt the lowermost and upper side of the societies. Regardless of whether the society is a republic or a kingdom egalitarian exists in both types of countries.
Withal you shouldnft have used examples that have monarchies that just so happened to be more equal to France (especially I donft know much about almost all of those countries). There are countries out there that still have monarchies and their societies are not egalitarian. Like Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand. You have confused me therec
Next time just point me directly to studies done by scholars of why you come up with that conclusion. It is a lot clearer to me that way.
gaijinalways
04-11-06, 18:52
The samurai were not a social class, they were a caste. The difference is that one can never change caste, and most often cannot marry outside their caste.
Good point, that was more in jest my comment than anything else. Yet the samurai lineage is viewed by many Japanese like titles in England. They in other words, believe it bestows some form of 'class'.
Quote:Originally Posted by Minty
I didn't say they don't exist, I say the French don't think they exist and they don't pay a lot of attention to social class, like the Americans. Hmm, sounds odd. Most of my friends don't, though I am not very class conscious.
My point was that I don't think Americans spend a lot of time talking about class and many are not that concerned with it.
Why does it sound odd? Who are most of your friends? Americans? Japanese?
Not sure why that would be important. Obviously since I was talking about French and Americans, I was referring more to my American and French friends. In other words, the Japanese that I know aren't mentioned in this part of the discussion.
My point was that I don't think Americans spend a lot of time talking about class and many are not that concerned with it.
It is not the second part of the sentence that I find strange it is the part where you said it sounds odd. I find this weird because I made the comment that French don't pay a lot of attention to social class, like the Americans.h And you think that is odd and I want to know why. I perfectly understand your sentence that follows.
Not sure why that would be important. Obviously since I was talking about French and Americans, I was referring more to my American and French friends. In other words, the Japanese that I know aren't mentioned in this part of the discussion.
No it is not at all obvious to me. I donft know anything about you except that you are a Gaijin from America in Japan. How would I know that you have French friends? Not all Americans have French friends, in fact from the net I get the impression that Americans and French donft get along. It is very possible Japanese friends of yours have commented about French. It would be important because Japanese, French and Americans donft think the same.
Americans really don't care about social class. That's probably why it's based mostly on income and what kind of car you have and general appearances. What social class you belong to is just simply a label and nothing more.
gaijinalways
07-11-06, 07:53
Sorry Minty,
Your original statement
Quote:Originally Posted by Minty
I didn't say they don't exist, I say the French don't think they exist and they don't pay a lot of attention to social class, like the Americans.
has two meanings, and I unfortunately took it to mean that the French don't pay a lot of attention to social class, but the Americans do. My apologies for any confusion caused.
How would I know that you have French friends? Not all Americans have French friends, in fact from the net I get the impression that Americans and French donft get along. It is very possible Japanese friends of yours have commented about French. It would be important because Japanese, French and Americans donft think the same.
You wouldn't know that, except that I have told you now (about the French friends). Also of course, it would include any French colleagues (possibly not 'real' friends) I have and their opinions about this same subject matter.
As to my Japanese friends commenting about the French, I thought it was fairly clear I wasn't telling you about their opinions as they weren't mentioned when I made my intial statement (i.e. My Japanese friends think....).
Yes, different cultures definately don't think the same, though I would be more likely to say the English and the French don't get along (rather than the Americans and the French).
gaijinalways
07-11-06, 08:01
Americans really don't care about social class. That's probably why it's based mostly on income and what kind of car you have and general appearances. What social class you belong to is just simply a label and nothing more.
For some it is, but income is not an end all, for all. If you have income but are preceived as a crook (as noted earlier), most Americans will look down on you. Also if you are perceived as being in an occupation that is not seen as being honest, i.e. a used car salesperson or a lawyer, than you may also be looked down upon. Personally, I judge people by their actions and statements than how much money they make. In my case, clothes don't make the man (or person).
For some it is, but income is not an end all, for all. If you have income but are preceived as a crook (as noted earlier), most Americans will look down on you. Also if you are perceived as being in an occupation that is not seen as being honest, i.e. a used car salesperson or a lawyer, than you may also be looked down upon. Personally, I judge people by their actions and statements than how much money they make. In my case, clothes don't make the man (or person).
Bingo! :-)
Personally, I judge people by their actions and statements than how much money they make. In my case, clothes don't make the man (or person).
Then you are almost what fits my definition of a class-conscious person in Europe; money and clothes don't matter, what makes someone's class is in their mind, it is the way they talk, their opinions, their tastes, their values... Believe it or not, in old societies like Europe, where culture isn't the result of a melting pot but of a long evolution to adapt to people's sensitivities by region, you are much more likely to agree and become friend with someone of the same social class than someone else. Naturally there are other things that divide people even within the same social class, and in my experience I have found that religious beliefs was the most divisive of them. Fortunately in most of Europe religion is very homogenous (most countries are traditionally either Catholic OR one particular type of Protestantism, except the UK and Germany that are mixed), unlike in the USA. I therefore understand that Americans are more divided by religious affiliation (hundreds of them) than by social class (only a few of them). In Europe, rather than religious affiliation (usually only one by region), it is the degree of religiousness that divides.
gaijinalways
07-11-06, 16:02
I'm not sure if it would be the same, but I will try to clarify more what I stated earlier. I enjoy people who are at least some what upfront. Of course you don't need to tell me all your secrets, or you will share some depending on the closeness of your relationship with me. But I enjoy talking with people who can at least embrace different opinions. People who run from discussions because there are differing views don't impress me very much. often differing views come from different value systems, which influence perceptions.
I have friends who work in blue collar industries, who enjoy simplier lives than I would be happy with, but I don't question why it makes them happy. Hey, it's their lives, who am I tell them how to live them?
As to religion, its influence in my life is minimal. I am happy to enjoy nature, that is why sometimes the artificialness of the city depresses me at times. People arguing over 'god' is like argueing over whose language's word is better or more correct for an object. They are all labels for the same thing, so of course none of them are 'better' or more correct than one from another language.
Sorry Minty,
Your original statement
has two meanings, and I unfortunately took it to mean that the French don't pay a lot of attention to social class, but the Americans do. My apologies for any confusion caused.
That's ok, as long as we come to an understanding, after all this is an international forum.
You wouldn't know that, except that I have told you now (about the French friends). Also of course, it would include any French colleagues (possibly not 'real' friends) I have and their opinions about this same subject matter.
As to my Japanese friends commenting about the French, I thought it was fairly clear I wasn't telling you about their opinions as they weren't mentioned when I made my intial statement (i.e. My Japanese friends think....).
Hmm, sounds odd. Most of my friends don't, though I am not very class conscious. I see it a lot here in Japan, even though some still believe in the myth of 'one class' (though how class is expressed here is sometimes more likley to be through luxary brand and name dropping, not family history). But than again how many people are related to a real samurai?
You just said most of your friends don't and that you are not very class conscious, you didn't say most of your American and French friends don't.
You friends can be of any nationalities, but I have guessed Americans and Japanese because of where you come from and where you are living right now.
Yes, different cultures definately don't think the same, though I would be more likely to say the English and the French don't get along (rather than the Americans and the French).
I see, is this your personal experience? It is just that I have seen numerous hostilities toward French from Americans in their message boards.
gaijinalways
08-11-06, 09:46
Yes, but historically the French and the British have not gotten along for years, the Concorde service and the Eurotunnel being exceptions (that of course doesn't stop many British tourists from going to France, and vice versa, though I do think the French are getting the worse end of the deal).
Minty posted You just said most of your friends don't and that you are not very class conscious, you didn't say most of your American and French friends don't.
But I was talking about Americans within the context of my posts, please look at my original posts to confirm that (related to the thread title and Maciamo's first post and subsequent link to the Economist article). I was questioning why you (mistakenly on my part) and Maciamo thought that Americans were more socially class conscious than British people (more so than the French, though I would opine the French are more class conscious than Americans, but I can not speak on that matter with as much authority as you or Maciamo can).
I was questioning why you (mistakenly) and Maciamo thought that Americans were more socially class conscious than British people (more so than the French, though I would opine the French are more class conscious than Americans, but I can not speak on that matter with as much authority as you or Maciamo can).
I never said that American were class conscious, on the contrary. The Economist never said that either. You are confusing two fundamental, yet completely different concepts :
1) the actual division of society in classes, and real gaps between classes
2) class consciousness (they way people perceive and care about the above division)
The USA has big gaps between its social classes, as much for money as for education or behaviour, but for some cultural reason the American people do not like admitting those divisions, or they are just bad at recognising which social class they belong to. The same is true of the French to a lesser extent. France is probably as divided, if not more, than Britain, but French people aren't as class conscious as the Brits, or at least in a less direct manner. I think that many French people do socialise within their class, but more unconsciously than the Brits.
gaijinalways
08-11-06, 18:20
Maciamo posted ) the actual division of society in classes, and real gaps between classes
2) class consciousness (they way people perceive and care about the above division)
The USA has big gaps between its social classes, as much for money as for education or behaviour, but for some cultural reason the American people do not like admitting those divisions, or they are just bad at recognising which social class they belong to.
No, I am talking about the consciousness of the class differences, and I am saying that the Americans I know and associate with are not that concerned with them. Yes, I am very aware that there are major class differences in the US, but to state it bluntly, I have found there are assholes in all classes. The only differences might be that the richer assholes can perhaps bullshit more eloquently and can afford things that perhaps we may only dream about, but that we probably really don't need. But than again, I sleep comfortably at night because I know I didn't screw anyone over to get to where I am and I also don't have to fret and worry over what I don't have.
So I would have to ask, how much experience do you have dealing with Americans, especially in the states? I really have to wonder about this international survey also, did they interview all people who live in cities? Were the surveys really truly representative of the populations of each country?
Maciamo posted
No, I am talking about the consciousness of the class differences, and I am saying that the Americans I know and associate with are not that concerned with them.
Yes, that is exactly what I mean in point 2. The USA has clear social classes (1), but most Americans don't care much about them in their daly life (2).
Yes, but historically the French and the British have not gotten along for years, the Concorde service and the Eurotunnel being exceptions (that of course doesn't stop many British tourists from going to France, and vice versa, though I do think the French are getting the worse end of the deal).
I know about the reasons why British and French don't get along, but from my experiences participating in the American message boards I get the feeling that Americans too don't get along with the French. I believe this has something do to with politics.
Minty posted
But I was talking about Americans within the context of my posts, please look at my original posts to confirm that (related to the thread title and Maciamo's first post and subsequent link to the Economist article). I was questioning why you (mistakenly on my part) and Maciamo thought that Americans were more socially class conscious than British people (more so than the French, though I would opine the French are more class conscious than Americans, but I can not speak on that matter with as much authority as you or Maciamo can).
Hmmm, this is strange I didn't say that Americans were more socially class conscious than British people or more so than French. I actually think British is the most class conscious out of the 3 and I used to think Americans and French are about the same until I saw the studies Maciamo directed to me earlier on.
As I am originally from a country where people are very class conscious and not egalitarian, when I have the opportunity to live in western countries and have been studying many western ideologies I find Australians, Americans (I never lived in US but dozens of my mum's Taiwanese relatives live there and still in close contacts with my mum), and French much more egalitarian than where I come from originally.
gaijinalways
09-11-06, 08:00
Posted by gaijinalways
Sorry Minty,
Your original statement
has two meanings, and I unfortunately took it to mean that the French don't pay a lot of attention to social class, but the Americans do. My apologies for any confusion caused.
Yes, I know Minty, as I said I mistakenly thought that you thought Americans were very class conscious. I know differently now, as I stated earlier.
Maciamo, stating that Americans know about the differences and aren't concerned about them and that they are unaware of them are two different opinions. You stated earlier that Americans didn't seem to be truly aware of them (bad at recognizing them) or that they didn't like admitting to their existance. I find neither of those statments to be true.
Maciamo posted....but for some cultural reason the American people do not like admitting those divisions, or they are just bad at recognising which social class they belong to.
I also apologize for using some stronger langauge in my last post. I don't really want to spar over semantics, but your earlier post doesn't have the same meaning as your latest.
Americans really don't care about social class.
Typical ordinary Americans are not class conscious,commonly see themselves as " middle-class " whatever that means.
However,there is a closet " aristocracy " class in America's high society,a world of it's own.
Typical ordinary Americans are not class conscious,commonly see themselves as " middle-class " whatever that means.
Using my definition of class for Europe, over half of the American people are lower class or lower-middle class, with maybe 30% of middle class, 10-15% of upper middle class, and less than 1% of upper class (no country to my knowledge has more than 1% of upper class anyway - except Monaco ;-)).
Typical ordinary Americans are not class conscious,commonly see themselves as " middle-class " whatever that means.
However,there is a closet " aristocracy " class in America's high society,a world of it's own.
The middle-class is a vague, but the reason why alot of Americans consider themselves middle-class is because a large population of Americans are middle-class. And it's subdivided.
Some new (derogatory) slang words have emerged to describe some varieties of lower class people. For instance chav (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav) in England, or beauf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauf) in France.
In the French-speaking part of Belgium the word barakî, from Walloon for "travelling showman" who live in a baraque (fairground booth/stall, shanty), has long been used to refer to any neglected and vulgar lower class person.
The Walloons also use the term "Ronny" for lower-class young men who like to show off by driving loudly or dangerously on a moped/scooter or a car, typically with the music playing very loud. This is usually done in small group, and their dressing style reminds of the chavs in England. A close French equivalent is Jacky (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacky_%28argot%29).
I agree with British people that social classes is much more than how much one earns, and is better reflected in the person's character, accent, way of dressing, family background, etc. than in the paycheck.
Exactly ! I do like the way British people assess social classes, it has nothing to do with how big is your bank account, as you can't buy "Education" and by personal experience, lived 9 years in UK, never felt such a huge gap between social classes, encountered people from different backgrounds with no problem, can't say the same about French social classes, yes ! wondering sometimes if they really had a revolution ?
Invictus_88
26-12-09, 01:37
Maciamo,
What's your background? You have an almost English sort of class-awareness, though you speak about it all a bit more methodically than any sensible Englishman would.
Maciamo,
What's your background? You have an almost English sort of class-awareness, though you speak about it all a bit more methodically than any sensible Englishman would.
I am Belgian, but have lived in England and Australia, among other countries. British people may be more class-aware than most other nationalities, but in every country I have lived social classes do exist; it's just that people do not necessarily think about it consciously.
The class gap isn't as big in all societies. I found it less extreme in Scandinavia and Japan. Belgium and France are similar to the UK, although not always as obvious from one's accent. The two countries (where I have been) were the disparity between social classes is the most extreme are India and the USA. The contrast between the two is that Indians are perfectly aware of these discrepancies, while Americans usually have a tendency to refute the idea of social class, or just like to think of themselves as middle class, even if they are not. In my experience I noticed that American, Japanese and French people aren't very sensitive to the difference between lower-middle, middle and upper-middle class. Yet these three categories encompass the biggest part of the population.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.