Class, fairness and the social entrepreneur

I read a good piece by Will Hutton today in The Observer about class.

I find class a really difficult subject to write about.  That's partly because I can hardly believe that it still matters so much.  It's also a difficult subject to write about because it's so tied up with who I am, and probably with who you are too.  

I had a discussion a few weeks ago on Twitter with someone who suggested that David Cameron can't help the fact that he was born into a privileged background.  I'd seen Cameron on TV (post Gordon Brown's jibes about him being an Old Etonian) and he suggested that your background doesn't matter in 21st Century Britain. He said it's about where you're going, not where you're coming from.   

I suggested that it does matter - and that he's not really in the best position - as someone who by any measure is from a privileged background - to suggest anything else.   

Hutton considers the issue of class from a perspective of fairness and meritocracy, which is where my interest lies too.  He talks about the deserving/undeserving poor narrative - that those who work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps can go on to achieve all they want.  And that the rest are just feckless, happy to sponge off the State for evermore.

As he suggests this fails to take into account the disadvantages that so many children are born into.  The distinct lack of advantages - opportunities - which millions of people take for granted.  This, in my opinion, is why so  many people just don't understand why class still matters so  much.  If such opportunities were the norm when you grew up, you don't necessarily appreciate how much they matter.  

There was an actress on Saturday Kitchen yesterday.  She described how she just fell into acting by mistake, as if it was just one of those things.  I googled her and discovered that her parents are both famous actors. Becoming an actor herself just felt normal.  

Is that about class?  I think it is - but it's far more subtle and nuanced than just about accents, or wealth.  So much of it is about things like expectations, aspirations, and the norms which surround you as you grow up.

I wanted to be a journalist when I was a kid (get the violins out).  The thing was, I didn't know any journalists, and my family didn't know any journalists.  So it didn't really feel like something that I had a realistic chance of doing.  Needless to say the careers adviser (aka the crap Chemistry teacher who had a few spare periods each week) didn't really offer me much encouragement either.  I appreciate there's not a simple cause and effect here, but I didn't become a journalist.

Not all journalists are from the middle and upper classes, but I bet most are.  Of course I don't begrudge anyone their success, but I want to make the point that there are barriers which prevent kids who aren't from more privileged backgrounds (I'd include myself in that) from achieving all that they could.  Things like work experience placements arranged by your dad's friend, internships funded by your wealthy London-based parents etc.  

So, how bitter and twisted do you reckon I am now that you've read all that?  As I said earlier, this is a really difficult topic to write about, but as Hutton suggests it still really matters.   And, I'm afraid, all of us who are relatively privileged (I guess that includes me now - and it'll certainly include my son) can't pretend that this isn't a key issue as we try to create a more just society.  

Comments

[Samantha Caccamo]

I agree and disagree. True that if you are born in a family of actors you are more likely to become an actor. False that where you are born prevents you from becoming what you want to become (journalist, scientist, doctor etc.). Grameen borrowers are a very good example. You have illiterate mothers who have kids with PhDs and Master's degrees. The fact that these kids were born in very poor families did not stop them from getting an education thanks to Grameen loans. If one has the determination and will he or she can achieve his or her goals no matter where they grow up, but they have to have the opportunity to develop their skills. If a seed is planted in a small pot it will grow into a bonsai tree, if the same seed is planted in a big field it will grow into a tall tree. It is not a matter of class, it is a matter of giving opportunity to people to develop their skills and discover their potential.
Thank you.
Samantha

[Nick Temple]

Worth reflecting on Michael Young's Rise of Meritocracy in this context. As the Wikipedia article notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy), the term was "intended to be perjorative" and the book was set in a "dystopian future", not a utopian one. It was meant satirically.

Needless to say, politicians since have adopted it in a positive light. Indeed, Labour have promoted it as a main objective. Worth checking out:
- Michael Young on why he wishes Tony Blair would stop using the word (in 2001): http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
- The Rise + Rise of Meritocracy: essays via the Young Foundation
http://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/books/the-rise-and-rise-meritocracy

Cheers

[JohnHitchin]

I agree and disagree with Samantha!

Opportunity does matter, and there is a lot to be said for trying to better understand the role of opportunity and different kinds of opportunity in outcomes for people. But Rob touches on something much more personal. Class isn't just about economics, it becomes a cultural thing that is dependent on the context and place in which you experience of it. So Rob growing up in a Northern UK city with a class system alongside a welfare state and a history of inequality, is a very different cultural context to the Grameen loans. Although it is a good example and one worth exploring. To me the trouble with class analysis is it so often forgets either the economic or the cultural...and it does that because it's so challenging to understand.

I liked Hutton's piece, and at the time I said it made me think of this piece from the LRB http://bit.ly/7MEMc9 This really got me thinking about my experiences of class, and how people with a similar background understand my position, but often people with a different experience of class don't.

I think this is a good piece, and makes me want to think/write more...I haven't touched on meritocracy because that adds another level of complexity on top of what I've just described. Thanks Rob

[David Floyd]

It's a brilliant article from Hutton but, for reasons Rob alludes to, it won't necessarily make him the toast of The Observer's cous-cous counter.

The privilege that liberal luvvies are passing on to their kids is just as pernicious as the stuff that Cameron and co. picked up at Eton.

There are quite rightly schemes to promote better representation of people from minority ethnic groups in the BBC and national newspapers. As far I know, there's no schemes to help white young people without connections to break down the same barriers.

Inherited (or in built) privilege remains a huge source of fundamental unfairness in UK society. It doesn't necessarily need to be referred to as class - maybe just calling it privilege works better as it doesn't create ideas about flat caps vs. posh accents.

[Laura C.]

"...So much of it (class) is about things like expectations, aspirations, and the norms which surround you as you grow up..."

Very well said, Rob, exactly to the point. If you are raised in a family of middle-class professionals, you cannot possibly even imagine not to have the job, opportunities, friends, life what you are used to when growing up. You are expected to do well, to follow your parents' profession (or a solid profession, in any case), your parents will have contact with people in similar professions, therefore you have those opportunities available.

I don't think that there's anything wrong or unusual about this, as equally, if your father is a carpenter he could provide you with opportunities in the building industry.

The problem is when the middle/upper classes 'clique up' agains anyone who tries to get into their professional circles. I think, it is because of cliquis professionals why the working-class won't have any expectations and aspirations to their children to pass on.

[Rob Greenland]

Thanks for all your comments. I think it's a good point David that perhaps talking about this issue in terms of class isn't always helpful - after all you don't have to be posh to be privileged, as Joanna Lumley once told us. Now there's a woman who knows what it means to be posh.

Of course people can "better themselves" no matter what their starting point in life is. I'd agree with Cameron to a large extent when he talks today about family warmth mattering more than wealth:
http://bit.ly/8kP4CH

No amount of money can beat the good that can come from good, solid, nurturing parenting. But it's naive to think that this is about nurture v wealth, and that good parenting can overcome all. I'm sure we can all point to examples where it has, but should it have to, when we know of all the costs that come from an increasingly unequal society?

As I suggested, and as others have agreed, there are more subtle but powerful factors at play - contacts, expectations, a sense of entitlement - something that you grow up with which tells you that people like you do (or don't do) certain things, or get certain jobs.

Simon Cooke over on his blog http://bit.ly/6guuF0 refers to Hutton's perspective as cuddly fascism, and in another post
http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.com/2010/01/lifes-not-fair.html
reminds us all that life's unfair, some of us are better looking than others, are wealthier, have bigger hair. Of course, on a micro-level, some of us do better than others. Is that completely fair? Of course it isn't, it happens.

But on a macro level I don't think you can ignore that there is institutionalised unfairness in this country. It comes through our schools, through our elite universities, through social norms, through class divisions, and is cemented by the honours system.

With an election coming up we could ask politicians the simple question "Life's unfair. What are you going to do about it?"

[Laura C.]

I think you are fooling yourselves and trying to be politically correct by not calling classes by their name. Unfair or not, but unfortunately in most countries (you say in England more than in others) there are still classes, and the middle class professionals and upper classes have more priviledges that others. If you don't call if you don't call a spade a spade, how do you expect the politicans do anything about it?

Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour by Kate Fox shows in an excellent way how deeply class in embedded in society.

[David Floyd]

"No amount of money can beat the good that can come from good, solid, nurturing parenting. But it's naive to think that this is about nurture v wealth, and that good parenting can overcome all. I'm sure we can all point to examples where it has, but should it have to, when we know of all the costs that come from an increasingly unequal society?"

Well, this is a debate where Cameron and co. conveniently blur some quite separate issues. In terms of your overall personal development and life experience, it's certainly far better to be raised by some really nice relatively poor people who give you lots of love and support, than by some brutal and vicious rich people who mostly ignore you and the rest of the time insult and attack you. But you'd think this is too obvious to need to be stated.

What's less obvious is whether the hypothetical person raised by vicious rich people is more or less likely to achieve what they want to achieve in life - due to the issues already mentioned here - than the hypothetical person raised by the nice poor people.

By that measure the rich person's still has a significant head start because the wealth, status and connections are still there. As has already been mentioned, Cameron's not really best placed to judge whether family warmth matters more than wealth.

In terms of not calling classes by their name. It's not politically correct. I can't find the exact quote but Mrs Thatcher said something along the lines of 'class was invented by Karl Marx in the British Library'.

To an extent she's right. 'Class' is just some labels people use to describe power relationships - is 'working class' everyone who works for a wage or people who work in factories or people who eat mushy peas, is 'middle class' people who own factories, everyone who has a degree or people who eat ciabatta for their lunch.

There's no reason not to use different labels if they're more appropriate to a modern day discussion.

[Laura C.]

As far as I know, the whole concept of social class, as developed by Weber and Marx, involves 'consciousness of social position and sharing of values and outlooks'. Therefore as society changes, we might have to refer to more classes than just to the "posh middle class" and the "proud working class". However, this does not take away from theh fact that those classes who are professional middle class and up have unfair advantages in life due to their connections and expectations. Rob's question ia, what can the politicans do about it? Positive discrimination?

[patrick Butler]

Excellent piece Rob. Though from the headline I was expecting something more specific about class and social enterprise. The Unite union, for example, would seem to regard SE as boss class in sandals, nice - but still oppressing the workers. Is one's background a factor in whether you decide to make your business "social". Or crudely, where did our leading social entrepreneurs go to school, and does this matter?
Patrick Butler
Head of society, health, and education, The Guardian

[David Floyd]

Well, Unite's position - at times crudely expressed but in my view not entirely unreasonable - is that the experience of getting low wages and crap conditions from a social enterprise isn't any more enjoyable than getting low wages and crap conditions from any other employer.

Not sure about all the leading social entrepreneurs.

John Bird obviously didn't go to Eton and his general approach would be different if he had done but he had a bit of help in setting up TBI from public school-educated Gordon Roddick.

There's no reason why privately-educated people should make good social enterpreneurs - and they often do - but I think private schools are slightly over-represented on the wing of social enterprise that spends it's time sitting on beanbags dreaming up ideas to rebuild the entire universe from the bottom up with a new social media application.

[Tim Jones]

Good article. Journalism is an interesting field when looking at the ongoing (increasing?) effects of class. Take this quote from The Sutton Trust (as quoted on the website of Real Fits, an innovative charity attempting to offer journalistic opportunities for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds)...

"Those figures that are so central in shaping public opinion and national debate - are more likely than not to have been to independent schools which educate just 7% of the population. Of the top 100 journalists in 2006, 54% were independently educated an increase from 49% in 1986. Not only does this say something about the state of our education system, but it also raises questions about the nature of the media's relationship with society: is it healthy that those who are most influential in determining and interpreting the news agenda have educational backgrounds that are so different to the vast majority of the population?"

http://www.realfits.org.uk

[Liam Black]

"Labour doesn’t want to look too closely at behaviour and character. The Tories, on the other hand, don’t want to confront the realities of structural privilege." :
Good article this :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6991068.ece

I went to a second rate Christian brothers grammar school (sold off to pay for legal fees to settle child abuse cases in Ireland). The brothers who regularly hit us and shouted at us were explicit about their agenda of knocking us working class kids of immigrants into shape and helping us up the class ladder.

It's probably another sign of me becoming a grumpy old geezer but I do get irritated at so many young social entrepreneurs who have no understanding of class and structural exclusion.

Is it true that there are more old Etonians on the Tory front bench than under Anthony Eden?

[Rob Greenland]

Thanks for all the comments on this, and sorry for not keeping up - I've been out of the office a lot over the last few days. With all the talk of character, social mobility and meritocracy from politicians (the links about meritocracy in Nick's comment are well worth a read) this is clearly an issue that's going to form part of the election campaign. And so it should.

PS Liam I too was educated by Christian Brothers - although they'd stopped hitting people by the time I started there. You're right, they were very explicit about moving young Catholics up the class ladder.