Recently we have seen a lot about class, and its effects on
empowerment, access, and so on. But is it class or the possession or
not of money we should be looking at. Two reasons why perhaps it
should be money...
a) With the exception of countries like India, where there is a (I
beleive) fairly rigid caste system, which may act as a class system
(hope i dont incur the wrath of too many Hindus here!), class is very
variable over time. in the UK for example there was until the 1970s a
large labouring manual working class - where is this now? Can eg the
new army of call centre workers be said to substitute for this class.
Where is the old British aristocratic upper class, esp now that
institutions like the House of Lords have been radically overhauled?
So how useful is class in estimating, for example, how much social
deprivation or lack of access to good health care there is likely to
be?
b) Take a poor corner shopkeeper, struggling on £8 - 10k per year.
Take a bricklayer, who, I have heard, can earn £200+ a day. The former
is middle class, owns his own shop; the latter is old definiton
working class. Who will send his kids to priovate school, have
private health insurance etc etc all the trappings of middle class.
To conclude, focussing on class may not be such a good guide as to
where our society is failing to equitably distribute its "goodies" as
looking at income - we can get a better picture by going for low
pay/insecure employment/short term contracts/and(I really hate this
one) commission only jobs - the biggest con of the 20th cent (well
nearly!), putting all the business risk on the employee and virtualy
guaranteeing fiascos like the pensions mis-selling of the 1980s.
Anti low pay campaign, anyone (£3.60 an hour is rather derisory isnt
it?)
Hillary Shaw, P/G Geography, University of Leeds
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|