# American and British "middle class"



## GreenWhiteBlue

*Moderator note: this thread has been split from a discussion on the word "fancy," in the English Only forum.*



timpeac said:


> I see that since I was posting lots of American speakers have posted. Whilst agreeing with me that "fancy" isn't synonymous with "expensive" they all seem to view "fancy" as a compliment. To me "fancy" means more like "ostentatious". I wonder if this is a British - American English difference or if it's just me.
> 
> US speakers, even if a "fancy" hotel might be nice, would you not think that someone who would think to describe a hotel as "fancy" probably doesn't feel very comfortable there at least?


 
Not in the least; if one did not have to pay the cost, I think most Americans would be delighted at the idea of staying at a "fancy" hotel.

I think we clearly have the shadow of the British class system and its accompanying resentments that seem to be so common and pervasive in the UK, but which are not part of the American consciousness at all.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> I think we clearly have the shadow of the British class system and its accompanying resentments that seem to be so common and pervasive in the UK, but which are not part of the American consciousness at all.


 
With the caveat that this is nothing more than my impression, I'm inclined to agree with your observation. It's probably not a conscious thing, but rather a result of some cultural stigma that developed over the years.

As a curiousity, both "fancy" (in its American, non-derogative sense) and "fancy-schmancy" are now finding their ways into the colloquial form of my native language (Slovenian): as "fensi" and "fensi šmensi".


----------



## timpeac

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Not in the least; if one did not have to pay the cost, I think most Americans would be delighted at the idea of staying at a "fancy" hotel.
> 
> I think we clearly have the shadow of the British class system and its accompanying resentments that seem to be so common and pervasive in the UK, but which are not part of the American consciousness at all.


I'm in danger of taking this off-topic but I think you're looking at it back to front. It's not so much resentment within the British class system but rather than every stratum is happy to be where they are and look down on the others (or at least consider themselves and their ethos superior) above and below equally (as opposed to, say, the Indian caste system, where everyone agrees that the higher caste is exactly that). If you think something is "fancy" then I think that can only be overly, unnecessarily, ornate (or insert the adjective of choice) from the point of view of the speaker (compare "common" which is the precise opposite, and literally only means "often accepted"). It's the only thing that held us back from killing the "upper" classes as did the rest of Europe and left us time on our hands to invent the industrial revolution!


----------



## Nymeria

It may be true that the _British _class system is not present in the American consciousness, but America certainly has its own very pervasive class system that deeply affects its American consciousness.

That said, I do not find that "fancy" has a negative connotation at all. The speaker would have to roll his/her eyes or make a similarly disgusted face for me to assume that they were displeased with the "fanciness". "Fancy hotels" and "fancy restaurants" are lovely places, with tasty menus and excellent service, in my book.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Nymeria said:


> It may be true that the _British _class system is not present in the American consciousness, but America certainly has its own very pervasive class system that deeply affects its American consciousness.


No, I don't think we do, at least in the way that is being considered here. As timepeac noted, Britons look down upon members of other classes, but in the US, practically everyone considers himself "middle class", with the only alternatives being "very wealthy" and "extremely poor". I doubt that in the UK many garbagemen (dustmen), construction workers, or waitresses would call themselves "middle class", but in the US that is probably the term all of the above would use if asked to describe what "class" they were in. It thus becomes meaningless to look down on people in other "classes", since there are none. There is also no idea that one is born into a particular class, and that one will stay in that "class" for life in the estimation of others no matter how his economic circumstances change.

This difference in mindset, which is reflected in language (ssee, this is not entirely unrelated to the topic!!) is similar to the threads that have been created here about such things as use of the word "sir", which Americans find a polite way of addressing a man whose name one does not know, while some UK users here protest that they would never think of using such a term to adress a stranger because it would be an indicator of class superiority and inferiority. For Americans, the use of language is simply not freighted with such baggage; perhaps the fact that we never had a legislative body whose membership depended on inheritance may have something to do with it.


----------



## timpeac

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> No, I don't think we do, at least in the way that is being considered here. As timepeac noted, Britons look down upon members of other classes, but in the US, practically everyone considers himself "middle class", with the only alternatives being "very wealthy" and "extremely poor". I doubt that in the UK many garbagemen (dustmen), construction workers, or waitresses would call themselves "middle class", but in the US that is probably the term all of the above would use if asked to describe what "class" they were in. It thus becomes meaningless to look down on people in other "classes", since there are none. There is also no idea that one is born into a particular class, and that one will stay in that "class" for life in the estimation of others no matter how his economic circumstances change.


Exactly. I obviously can't speak for him, but I imagine Alan Sugar (who is a Sir by the way) - the English version of Donald Trump - would describe himself as working class and the hotels he stays in as "fancy" (see how I've linked this to the thread question there) eventhough I equally imagine he wouldn't consider staying in a hotel that wasn't "fancy". Oh what a wicked web we weave!


----------



## Nymeria

Well I vehemently disagree and I am extremely unlikely to change that position, so we shall just have to agree to disagree. *I did not say that the class system was identical, I said that America had its own that existed and pervades*.

As a person who has worked extensively with organisations that deal directly with the nasty consequences that arise from consistent disempowerment of the lower classes in American society, I strongly object to the idea that it becomes "meaningless to look down on people in other "classes" since they are none." There are classes and very much so, and I think a denial of this fact is a sound cuff in the face of all those who suffer at the hands of a _very _powerful American class system.

Just because the classes are not as clear cut, with Lords and Ladies and the openly-labelled blue-bloods vs. the commoner, does not mean that classes do not exist and I take considerable exception to any such implication. Also, do not assume that because Americans do not typically carry titles, that the idea of being "well-born" or from "proper-stock" does not have far reaching consequences or that "new-money" from "poor stock" is immediately elevated to the upper class because of a change in financial situation!

Americans have done, do and are likely to continue to do their own fair share of looking down. Dustmen can call themselves "middle class" all they want, this does not mean that everyone (or even the majority agrees) with this or will treat them to suit! 

Again, let me make it clear that I am not saying that the class system in America is as rigid as the one in Britain, nor is it as clear-cut or difficult to transcend. However, it seems like America is painted with a much too charitable, class-free brush in the preceding posts.

*end of rant*


----------



## sdgraham

We do, indeed, have a stratification here in the U.S., but my observation is that it's meritorious rather than hereditary and the "old money" associated with "high society" is becoming less and less important in daily life.

Generally, we pretty much all have the concept that any man or woman can rise to the limits of his or her ability.

In the mid '80s, I had the privilege of working in the U.K. (London) and was amazed at the number of times I heard the comment that someone "had airs above their station." We do not pre-assign stations in life here in this former colony.

Likewise, I get the impression that pastimes are class-oriented in the U.K. It always seemed to me that the outcry against fox hunting was at least equally aimed at limiting the fun of the leisure class as much as any concern for the pesky little predators.


----------



## ewie

(It's generally either _give oneself airs_ or _have ideas above one's station_, SDG)

Carry on

I agree with you about the fox-hunting thing, though: I'm sure that, like me, a _lot_ of people's objection to it was equally divided between the (erm) _practice_ and the (erm ... ) _perpetrators._


----------



## Loob

Nymeria's impartial but knowledgeable post 7 seems extremely convincing to me.


----------



## Porteño

What a fascinating subject! Being a former public schoolboy to whom it was made abundantly clear belonged to a 'superior' or 'elite' class, the 'natural' class division then prevailing seemed to be quite acceptable. One remembers the two-class pubs with the sawdust on the floor of the 'Public Bar' compared to the slightly more refined atmosphere of the 'Saloon' or even 'Private Bar'. Of course, the prices were different, too. In the Public Bar you smoked Woodbines rather than Player's or Piccadilly, but both had their ubiquitous dart boards. The accents were rather different also, in the SE, BBC English ruled in the 'Saloon' whereas some form of 'Cockney' prevailed in the 'Public'. Everyone knew their 'rightful' place in society. Nowadays, it's all mixed up. The pubs have only one bar and it seems that eveyone speaks 'Estuary English' like Princess Diana and her sons.

When I first went to the States one had the impression, and only a first impression, of a 'classless' society and it seemed rather strange. Later one began to see the difference between the New England 'old money' and the brash Texan 'new money' and realise that even there, snobbery was rampant.


----------



## sound shift

I've never studied or lived in the USA, so I don't feel competent to talk about its middle class. I'll confine my comments to the UK.

I don't come across all that many snobs in the UK, but centuries of aristocracy are bound to leave traces. In a recent survey, 51 percent nevertheless defined themselves as working class (a term eschewed by the government for sitting awkwardly with its "aspirational" rhetoric).

I keep reading that there is less social mobility in the USA and the UK than in other "developed" countries. Whether or not we describe this in class terms, there is clearly a problem.


----------



## Trisia

*Mod note: this post has been moved from an older CD thread on "middle class" (the rest of the thread is in Spanish): *CLASE MEDIA, alta/baja/media



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> The easiest way to define "middle class" in the United States for me is to compare it against the upper and lower classes. The lower classes are diverse, but being there often entails living in a bad neighborhood, such as in inner-city housing projects or a trailer park, having at most a high-school degree, often less, sometimes receiving government welfare, and either being unemployed or under-employed in a low-wage job. As you said with the middle class, the lower class is easily divisible into distinct sub-classes - there are those at the lowest of throngs, probably the homeless street people, and those who are approaching middle class, e.g. those who have stable but low-paying employment.
> 
> The upper class is a bit mystical to me because I have had little contact with its members. But I think the basic hallmarks of it are wealth and power. If you're in the upper class, you probably have the means to live without working, although most upper class folk work in very high-paying and high-power jobs. There also seems to be a pedigree component to the upper class that one does not find in the wealthier parts of the middle class; you may well have been born with what we call a "silver spoon in your mouth" - you come from a family that has been wealthy for several generations, as has the prestige and power that comes with it.
> 
> The middle class, then, belongs somewhere in between these two: usually not rich by American standards but wealthy enough to be comfortable - to own one's own home, usually in a suburb or small town, or maybe an apartment or condominium in the city, to send one's children to college, albeit most likely with government financial aid, certainly to afford the necessities of life, to have good healthcare, to take a good vacation (if one has enough time off the job to do so!). I would say the majority of Americans are middle class...I would guess two-thirds or more. Within that middle class there is a lot of diversity, from those in the working class, what I consider the lower and middle middle class, perhaps working as journeyman carpenters, plumbers, or electricians, all jobs that aren't really prestigious nor require years of non-vocational higher education, but pay well, to the middle middle class, to wealthier but often self-made members of the upper middle class - lawyers, doctors, dentists, and other professionals.


----------



## Meeracat

Nymeria said:


> Well I vehemently disagree and I am extremely unlikely to change that position, so we shall just have to agree to disagree. *I did not say that the class system was identical, I said that America had its own that existed and pervades*.
> 
> As a person who has worked extensively with organisations that deal directly with the nasty consequences that arise from consistent disempowerment of the lower classes in American society, I strongly object to the idea that it becomes "meaningless to look down on people in other "classes" since they are none." There are classes and very much so, and I think a denial of this fact is a sound cuff in the face of all those who suffer at the hands of a _very _powerful American class system...
> 
> 
> ...Again, let me make it clear that I am not saying that the class system in America is as rigid as the one in Britain, nor is it as clear-cut or difficult to transcend. However, it seems like America is painted with a much too charitable, class-free brush in the preceding posts.
> 
> *end of rant*


 In the good old days when some of us were hopeful Marxists (we are all Keynsians now) Class-consciousness was about recognizing the reality of class exploitatin and oppression as opposed to those who denied that they were being exploited, which we uncharitably called 'false consciousness'. I think that the nature of class has changed and there is more possibility of class mobility but the problems have not disappeared.

It is interesting that the UK Newspapers today are reporting on a United Nations on the urban environment, which is interesting in the context of the present discussion. 
Surveying 120 major cities it finds that New York is the ninth most unequal city in the world. Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington and Miami have inequality levels to Nairobi, Kenya, Abidjan and Ivory Coast.
"High levels of inequality can lead to negative social, economic and political consequences that have a destabilising effect on societies," said the report. "[They] create social and political fractures that can develop into social unrest and insecurity."
It goes on to point out that 40% of the black, Hispanic and mixed-race households earned less than $15,000 compared with 15% of white household.
 
Here we have an indication of a new 'class system' where ethnicty emerges as  a factor


----------



## sdgraham

Meeracat said:


> Surveying 120 major cities it finds that New York is the ninth most unequal city in the world. Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington and Miami have inequality levels to Nairobi, Kenya, Abidjan and Ivory Coast.


 
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - _Autobiography of Mark Twain._

I see no mention that the U.S. cities so named are destination cities for the flood of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who often are poorly educated and not only don't speak English, but are illiterate in their native languages as well.

On the other hand, let's look at Silicon Valley, California, which is filled with well-paid multicultural workers who have the tools required to succeed.


----------



## Meeracat

Well that's the 'flood of immigrants' put in their place then. I wonder what jobs they are doing and who benefits? 

The United Nations report also says:

"In western New York state nearly 40% of the black, Hispanic and mixed-race households earned less than $15,000 compared with 15% of white households. The life expectancy of African-Americans in the US is about the same as that of people living in Chinaand some states of India, despite the fact that the US is far richer than the other two countries,"

These do not sound like the immigrants you have indicated.


----------



## sdgraham

Meeracat said:


> Well that's the 'flood of immigrants' put in their place then. I wonder what jobs they are doing and who benefits?


 
I presume the immigrants benefit since they show no desire to return to whence they came, presumably where everybody is "equally" worse off.


----------



## JamesM

Meeracat said:


> 40% of the black, Hispanic and mixed-race households earned less than $15,000 compared with 15% of white household.
> 
> Here we have an indication of a new 'class system' where ethnicty emerges as a factor


 
This is not a problem exclusively for the U.S. From a report on poverty in the UK:

_Among those in working families, around 55% of Bangladeshis, 45% of Pakistanis and 30% of Black Africans are in low income. These rates are much higher than the 10-15% for White British, White other and Indians._ 

The statistics for people living in low income households in the UK, working or not, show an even wider disparity, with Bangladeshi at 65% and Black Africans at 47% in 2006/2007 compared to 20% for whites.


This might be interesting (from the Wikipedia article on poverty in the U.S. ):

The reason why relative poverty measurement causes high poverty levels in the US, as demonstrated by Förster[18], is caused by distributional effects rather than real differences in wellbeing among EU-countries and the USA. The median household income is much higher in the US than in Europe due to the wealth of the middle classes in the US, from which the poverty line is derived. Although the paradigm of relative poverty is most valuable, this comparison of poverty lines show that the higher prevalence of relative poverty levels in the US are not an indicator of a more severe poverty problem but an indicator of larger inequalities between rich middle classes and the low-income households. It is therefore not correct to state that the US income distribution is characterised by a large proportion of households in poverty; it is characterized by relatively large income inequality but also high levels of prosperity of the middle classes. 


If we are discussing middle classes here, I think it's a valid point that the disparity is partially caused by the relative wealth of the middle class in the U.S. 

(As a side note, I wonder who prepared this article - a "mid-Atlanticer"? I see "characterised" followed by "characterized" in the same sentence.  )


----------



## Meeracat

JamesM said:


> This is not a problem exclusively for the U.S. From a report on poverty in the UK:
> 
> _Among those in working families, around 55% of Bangladeshis, 45% of Pakistanis and 30% of Black Africans are in low income. These rates are much higher than the 10-15% for White British, White other and Indians._
> 
> The statistics for people living in low income households in the UK, working or not, show an even wider disparity, with Bangladeshi at 65% and Black Africans at 47% in 2006/2007 compared to 20% for whites.


 
Absolutely. It was not my intention to set up a 'we are better than you' agument between the USA & UK (I lived for many years in the USA and received an important part of my education there). The point I was trying to make was that the issue of "class" in the way the term has been used historically is in fact changing from the Marxist rooting in the ownershp and control of the means of production towards other categories such as race (ethnicity). We need to find new ways of looking at stratification and social inequality.

Fortunately, here in the UK, we have found the perfect method of social mobility. It is called "The X-Factor" (which has given birth to its USA equivalent "American Pop Idol"). This has proved, without shadow of doubt, that social insight, political commitment, economic development and social conscience are of no consequence when faced with the real challenge of becoming a celebrity. All that is required is the overwhelming desire to be famous. Superficialty is the new Revolution. 

Workers of the world unite, form a boy/girl-band, you could be the next pop-idol


----------



## ewie

Meeracat said:


> Workers of the world unite, form a boy/girl-band, you could be the next pop-idol


Funny you should mention that, Meera ~ I've been thinking about this and trying to find some way of introducing my theory that there now exist two classes in the UK: 'Celebrities' and Non-Celebrities.  And the only aspiration that anyone has any more is to be a 'Celebrity'.


----------



## Meeracat

ewie said:


> Funny you should mention that, Meera ~ I've been thinking about this and trying to find some way of introducing my theory that there now exist two classes in the UK: 'Celebrities' and Non-Celebrities. And the only aspiration that anyone has any more is to be a 'Celebrity'.


 
Which is why I post so frantically in these forums. Surely someone will recognise my genius and make me famous.

That aside, the search for celebrity really is a disease which rots the mind of so many (dare I say it) young people. The really sad thing about it is that it grows from a belief that all is required is an absolute faith in the power of the will. If I wish for it strongly enough it will happen, no matter that I have never trained, studied, or done any kind of apprenticeship, I will be recognized for my 'natural' talent. Andy Warhol is God.

The problems of inequality and social stratification are more than matters of 'can do', 'pull your socks up', 'anyone can realise the (American? there I go again) dream'. These differences are, in large measure, social constructs, they are products of social, political and economic structures. It is these structures that we need to address and stop pushing the 'false consciousness' that all we really need to do is reach for the dream.

*end of rant* _pace_ Nymeria


----------



## katie_here

Loob said:


> Nymeria's impartial but knowledgeable post 7 seems extremely convincing to me.


 
I agree wholeheartedly with it.  America does have a social hierarchy.  It's not quite the same as the English class system, but it's there nonetheless.   I can't imagine some rich wealthy aflluent American happy that his socialite daughter wants to marry some "trailer trash redneck" and live in the mountains.


----------



## JamesM

katie_here said:
			
		

> I agree wholeheartedly with it. America does have a social hierarchy


 
I agree that there is a social hierarchy but I'm not sure how that directly compares to a class system. I guess one of the problems in discussing this is the description of a class. It may be my American upbringing and indoctrination, but to me a simple definition of a class is something you cannot move into or out of in a lifetime. It is closer to a caste system than a current social, political, or economic situation. 

Is that what is being discussed here as "class"? 

Taking Los Angeles as an example, there are poor neighborhoods and communities and some people who have lived in these communities for more than a generation. On the other hand, there are many (including many that I have personally met) that have started in such a community and ended up in the posh, upper crust communities before they are 40. There are "circles within circles" and I'm sure some of them are inaccessible to the newly rich, but many (I would say "most") are open. This is not what I call a class system. To me a class system would not allow someone in based on accomplishment or accumulation of wealth, position, or power; their background and circumstances of birth would bar them from "switching classes". I may just be looking at it from a particular point of view.

I'd like to hear what others think about this.


----------



## LouisaB

I think James M has (as so often) hit the nail on the head - and wonder how much of our disagreements here are simply down to use of language and labels. James' description of the atttitues in L.A. sound identical to those to be found in the UK - only we _would_ tend to call that a 'class system'. A system where people can't switch class would (likewise) be as abhorrent here as in the U.S. - and is manifestly NOT the general situation in Britain.

I'm sure there are exceptions (some 'public schools', gentlemen's clubs etc) but basically we have a meritocracy, which if anything now favours those from _less_ privileged backgrounds - eg Oxford and Cambridge are under continual pressure to take as many students from financially pressured backgrounds and inner-city schools as they do from more traditional backgrounds, _even if their academic achievements are lower. _Birth is certainly not a bar to success in any field that I know of, and our social welfare system works to ensure money isn't either. Education to university level is 'free' to all (ie everyone has the same loan). I imagine it's the same in the US?

In terms of prevailing attitudes (as opposed to legislation) the same one-sided situation seems to apply. It is totally unacceptable (at least in public) to degrade anybody by using language implying social inferiority - you will not hear the words 'oik' or 'common' used at all in the UK, except perhaps behind closed doors at the infamous Bullingdon Club or in the locker rooms of Eton - ie among about .0001% of the population. However, it _is_ allowed to make derogatory comments about someone's supposed 'high class' - for example in our two most recent by-elections, one party has repeatedly referred to the rival candidate openly as a 'toff'. The 'class system' in the UK is such that this marvellously antiquated word still evokes mass loathing towards the person so described.

I'm not sure this is the same in the US - as katie_here reminds us, phrases like 'redneck' and 'trailer-trash' (which I have seen used recently by a forero on these boards) _seem_ to be quite acceptable. Similarly, sdgraham's comments about immigrants aren't ones most people would make openly in the UK, where they would be considered 'elitist', 'snobby', and even 'racist'. Brits certainly_ do _say such things - I'm afraid I've heard them - but they would need to be very careful who they were speaking to.

However, I've never lived in the States and am in no position to generalize - it may well be these kind of statements and phrases aren't common there either. My own knowledge is regrettably based on literature, television etc - and I know how misleading these can be. For instance, I learnt from 'Love Story' the word 'preppie', which to us would sound like a 'classist' word, but probably means something else entirely? Again, in the novels and autobiographical writing of Stephen King there's a vehement streak of hatred towards the 'snobby' teachers and students he considered made his childhood hell - those from privileged backgrounds who sneered at the clothes and manners of the less fortunate. Is this complete bunkum? Is it just 'out-of-date', like people making judgements about the UK based on Charles Dickens? These aren't rhetorical questions - I'd really like to know. I'm quite sure the ultra-snobby picture of the US presented in the books of Scott Fitzgerald is as out of date as its UK counterpart 'Brideshead Revisited', but what the present situation is I honestly don't know.


----------



## ewie

JamesM said:


> a class system would not allow someone in based on accomplishment or accumulation of wealth, position, or power; their background and circumstances of birth would bar them from "switching classes"


 
The type of class system described by James perfectly captures the typical (perhaps _stereo_typical) state-of-affairs prevalent in the UK up to ~ approximately ~ the 1950s. It was all to do with *birth*: what you were _born_ was what you _remained._ It _was_ possible to move from one socio-economic stratum to another, but you could not transcend your birth.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Is this the place to mention the growing phenomenon of *reverse snobbery* in the UK?

It is the contempt displayed by those who might be seen as "working class", particularly the less well-educated ones, for anybody with a "better" education, a larger vocabulary or a quite, confident manner.

Is there anything like that in the USA?


----------



## JamesM

Kevin Beach said:


> Is this the place to mention the growing phenomenon of *reverse snobbery* in the UK?
> 
> It is the contempt displayed by those who might be seen as "working class", particularly the less well-educated ones, for anybody with a "better" education, a larger vocabulary or a quite, confident manner.
> 
> Is there anything like that in the USA?


 
Oh yes. In fact it's become a campaign issue for the Republicans against Obama. He is often accused of being elitist, in part because of his excellent education, larger vocabulary and quiet, confident manner, in my opinion. I don't think this is a new issue for Americans, though. I can remember hearing disparaging remarks about "long-hairs" and "ivory tower folks" from newsreels, papers, and novels from the 1930s and 40s.


----------



## sokol

JamesM said:


> I agree that there is a social hierarchy but I'm not sure how that directly compares to a class system. I guess one of the problems in discussing this is the description of a class. It may be my American upbringing and indoctrination, but to me a simple definition of a class is something you cannot move into or out of in a lifetime. It is closer to a caste system than a current social, political, or economic situation.
> 
> Is that what is being discussed here as "class"? (...)


I think this is the crucial point indeed: what is "class"?

In sociology a much broader definition of class is used (that is, much broader than that of a caste system).

There exist class systems where mobility is possible to a huge degree but where this mobility depends on certain factors like neighbourhood you grow up, language (dialect/accent) you speak, money you have - and so on.
I would consider the US class system as rather open in theory but with certain restrictions: you need to speak (or to learn) an educated accent, you need money to afford the education system, and race (what is defined as 'race' in the US) also plays a role.

In the UK the class system probably is much stricter and probably much more traditional (and this is not only about nobility; there's such a thing as a working class in the UK, right?), nevertheless UK class system allows for plenty of mobility (as do those of most western societies).

And I don't think that it would be adequate to say that in the US there wouldn't be a class system. I mean, think of the Ivy League - I don't think that those elite schools are equally open to _all _Americans, or are they?
And this is what _makes _class - social frontieres which are not so easy to penetrate, even if it is possible to do so.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, Ivy League schools are equally open to all Americans. That doesn't mean that the selection process is entirely above board or without outside influences, but I have known academically qualified students from families of modest means that have attended Ivy League schools. There are social circles within those schools that might be hard to break into, but the schools themselves are open to everyone. As LouisaB said, we have the same situation here; it is probably easier to get into an Ivy League school from a low-income family than a middle-income family.

I think the degree of mobility from class to class in some part is determined by the willingness of the individual to be assimilated by/adopt the culture of a different class. I think that part of what holds anyone in a particular class is an identification with key symbols of that class and a fear of "betraying" that group by adopting a different group's standards and mannerisms. I think this is just as true for a middle class person moving into upper class as it is for a lower class person moving into middle class, or even for the downwardly mobile (and I've met a few). It can be a painful move outside of a comfort zone, for the individual and for the individual's former community.

An educated accent is not a requirement in the U.S. In fact, a highly educated accent might be a disadvantage in many situations, in my opinion. To have an erudite accent such as William F. Buckley's or an elegant, sonorous accent like James Earl Jones' would create a lot of distance in the average business environment. If you look at financial success as a measure of upward mobility you only have to look at any of our financial "celebrities" - Bill Gates, T. Boone Pickens, Warren Buffett, or Donald Trump - to see that an educated accent is no requirement for financial success here.  The same is true for our entertainment icons, whether it is in music, television, or film. I would say that an educated accent would have little to do with success or class mobility in the U.S., if anything at all.


----------



## sokol

JamesM said:


> Yes, Ivy League schools are equally open to all Americans. (...) it is probably easier to get into an Ivy League school from a low-income family than a middle-income family.


Now this is interesting;  I guess because a student from a low-income family would get a scholarship while one from middle-income background wouldn't?
But it would nevertheless be much more difficult for low-income family students to get into Ivy League than those from upper-class families, right?

We have the same thing in Austria, UK has the same there: elite schools are for some reason (be it money, be it help by friends and friends of friends or any other form of connection) not equally accessible for all citizens even though _in theory_ they are.
This is something which alone, I'd say, constitutes class; but then of course this depends on how we define social class in the first place.



JamesM said:


> I think the degree of mobility from class to class in some part is determined by the willingness of the individual to be assimilated by/adopt the culture of a different class.


Yes, I agree here: willingness to assimilate to a different class many times is what makes mobility between classes difficult.



JamesM said:


> An educated accent is not a requirement in the U.S. In fact, a highly educated accent might be a disadvantage in many situations, in my opinion.


This is also very interesting, I didn't realise that.
I guess in UK accent is much more important, or at least was half a century ago (times may have changed) if I look at the findings of Basil Bernstein who noticed that in England there is a very sharp division between middle and upper class on the one hand and working class on the other hand, concerning accent (this was in the 1960ies and 70ies).


----------



## LouisaB

This is a really helpful discussion - I'm certainly learning how outmoded my perception of other countries is, and I'd guess the same is true of others' perception of the UK. For instance:



sokol said:


> I guess in UK accent is much more important, or at least was half a century ago (times may have changed) if I look at the findings of Basil Bernstein who noticed that in England there is a very sharp division between middle and upper class on the one hand and working class on the other hand, concerning accent (this was in the 1960ies and 70ies).


 
You're right, sokol - things have changed a lot here. I think there _is_ still a perception of difference, but generally (as James says for the US) the more educated the accent, the more _disadvantaged_ one generally is. In the BBC, for instance (where I've worked a lot), presenters _have_ to have accents that will be perceived as at least 'regional' (ie with a noticeable twang of Birmingham, Newcastle, or better still non-English, eg Wales) and ideally 'working class'. The old idea of 'BBC English' or 'Queen's English' as an accepted standard is long, long, long dead.

The 'working class' exists here strongly as an 'ethos', but not as a real entity, except in specific political movements (eg Trades Unions). We are _all_ working class here now - or if we're not, we have to pretend to be. Even as long ago as the 1980's, there was a classic comedy sketch on 'The Secret Policeman's Ball', in which the characters all argued that their own background was humbler and less privileged than everyone else's (eg lines to the effect of: 'I was born in a slum' - 'A slum? _Luxury! _I was born in a _cardboard box...') _This is the reverse snobbery Kevin was mentioning, and it is now so commonplace it's no longer even noticed. Certainly, even in the 1970's, children were bullied at school for 'speaking posh' - I, as a relatively impoverished child of a teacher, was one of them.

We do, however, still have 'elite layers' which are down to a 'class system' based on money (if that counts as class?). As sokol says, we do have 'public schools' (which are sensibly called 'private schools' in most cultures!) where the two main criteria for entry are 1) ability, and 2) ability to pay the fees, ie MONEY. Yes, there are scholarships, but not many - money is still the best mode of entry to Eton and Harrow etc. We also have a health service where one can 'go private' by choosing to pay oneself rather than let the State pay for you - and the service is almost always better.

But are these things _really_ unique to the UK?


----------

