Showing posts with label class system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class system. Show all posts

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Grammar, Language & Socioeconomic Class by Ian Lang

Here's a recent answer by Ian Lang at Quora. Mr Lang has kindly given me blanket permission to use any of his answers I wish to use, on my blog.

The ticklish question was:


How much does grammar and proper language impact a person’s social and professional image? Is this a mark of socioeconomic class?

Answer by "Ian Lang, Former Oik (still quite oiky from time to time)"

Putting forward the same(ish) answer four ways then:

Ay-up, me duck, not half. You get them snobby gets what won’t even look at owt we’ve wrote down up here in t’ north cos it i’nt wrote like what they speak down in t’ leafy bits of Surrey.

It does, yes, some people look at a piece of prose and if they spot a gramatical error then they dismiss it. Typos are allowed as long as it’s clear it’s a typo (look at the word grammatical previously again).

All communications should be worded and punctuated correctly in order to portray a clear and professional image of the organisation. Please comply with the attached guidelines and templates.

Within the precepts of certain types of individuals who, having had made accesible to them the zeniths, apogees, and pinnacles of the academic world, and who pride themselves on the fact, knowing exactly where to put apostrophes, semi-colons, and all the other apparatus of substantive prose, and understanding the rules of adjectives, adverbs and the sundry paraphernalia of the craft of the wordsmith, will look down upon those who have not had such extensive groundings and will instantly rebut even the most reasoned piece if the i is not correctly dotted in the approved manner.

The first is my northern mode. I do this when I want to put forward a sarcastic rebuttal to anybody who thinks we here are a bunch of illiterate oiks.

The second is my plain English mode. I do this to explain things that may be quite complicated in terms that are clear to somebody who doesn’t know it terribly well.

The third is my corporate drone mode. I almost never do this because frankly it creates prose that grinds my gears. If you’ve ever read Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four you’ll remember Newspeak. They pride themselves that the vocabulary is shrinking every year. I feel the same about corporate drone prose as Winston did about Newspeak.

The fourth is my over-educated-arse mode. I do this when somebody’s grinding my corn and trying to prove that they’re clever-clever and vocabularious. Don’t start with me sunshine, because if you do, I’m going sesquipedalian on your arse. If you carry on, I might even go dodecasyllabic, and then you’ll be sorry.

Everything thereafter (including this bit) is my normal mode. You’ll notice that I use a lot of contractions (you’ll, I’m, don’t) and inject a dollop of patois every now and then, and then slip into a bit of bathos. This is because I can’t bear any prose where the author has clearly taken pains to make his/her grammar, structure, and syntax as clever-looking as possible. It just comes out stilted and reads like the report of a village parish council meeting. Going the other way you get stream of consciousness writing, which is just a posh way to say “bloody mess”.

Now then. Imagine the above were all written by different people. What would you conclude about their standards of education, social class, and means of earning a living?

Oh yes. Grammar, spelling and punctuation can tell you much. But not when it’s in the hands of a wordsmith (which is the written equivalent of a gobshite), it can’t.







Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Revolting?

Chris Hedges' latest piece, Let’s Get This Class War Started is excellent, I thought. I found it less depressing than most of his writings, though in fact, the subject matter ought to depress. It's one of my own hobby horses he's writing about this time - class. Maybe that's why I can relate easily, am so used to the feelings class war can bring about that I no longer find them depressing. I must have antipathy to oligarchs, ruling classes, "the gentry" buried deep in my genes. My ancestors, or most of them, in England would have been under the boot of wealthy land owners and the aristocracy for centuries, they knew no other way of life. Maybe I feel these feelings more deeply than most in the USA, apart from African Americans that is. I'm angry on their behalf too, and on behalf all peasants and serfs who have struggled throughout the ages. Enough!!

What can be done to bring about change in the USA in 2013 and onward is not easy to see though. Online petitions, tweets, Facebook entries and blogging isn't going to cut it. Boycotts of corporations and their output could help if enough people joined in the effort; a re-birth of Occupy Wall Street, or a new movement along similar lines, better and more tightly organised and led would be a big step forward.

Chris Hedges says it's time for pitchforks (metaphorically, I guess). Prodding a few still sleeping citizens with the sharp ends of those pitchforks would be a start.

Some snips from his article at Common Dreams (also at Truthdig).
The inability to grasp the pathology of our oligarchic rulers is one of our gravest faults. We have been blinded to the depravity of our ruling elite by the relentless propaganda of public relations firms that work on behalf of corporations and the rich. Compliant politicians, clueless entertainers and our vapid, corporate-funded popular culture, which holds up the rich as leaders to emulate and assures us that through diligence and hard work we can join them, keep us from seeing the truth...........


Aristotle, Niccolò Machiavelli, Alexis de Tocqueville, Adam Smith and Karl Marx all began from the premise there is a natural antagonism between the rich and the masses. “Those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority,” Aristotle wrote in “Politics.” “The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience.” Oligarchs, these philosophers knew, are schooled in the mechanisms of manipulation, subtle and overt repression and exploitation to protect their wealth and power at our expense. Foremost among their mechanisms of control is the control of ideas. Ruling elites ensure that the established intellectual class is subservient to an ideology—in this case free market capitalism and globalization—that justifies their greed. “The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships,” Marx wrote, “the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”...........


The rise of an oligarchic state offers a nation two routes, according to Aristotle. The impoverished masses either revolt to rectify the imbalance of wealth and power or the oligarchs establish a brutal tyranny to keep the masses forcibly enslaved. We have chosen the second of Aristotle’s options. The slow advances we made in the early 20th century through unions, government regulation, the New Deal, the courts, an alternative press and mass movements have been reversed. The oligarchs are turning us—as they did in the 19th century steel and textile factories—into disposable human beings. They are building the most pervasive security and surveillance apparatus in human history to keep us submissive........

The piece ends:

The seesaw of history has thrust the oligarchs once again into the sky. We sit humiliated and broken on the ground. It is an old battle. It has been fought over and over in human history. We never seem to learn. It is time to grab our pitchforks.


In another piece at Common Dreams yesterday, by staff writer Jon Queally, a current concern, not unconnected with class war is referenced:
Absent Progressive Uproar, Social Security and Medicare Face Axe.

I feel sure that commenter to the article, John Tredrea, would not object to my copying his very good, and eloquently put, observation here:

What happens in a democracy when the political process is dominated by two political parties entrenched in contributions from a small but powerful oligarchy and when neither party is responsive to the expressed will of the electorate?

What happens when elections no longer provide for "redress of grievances" no matter how clearly and loudly the electorate cries out for responsive legislation?

What happens when the party that professes to be on the side of the electoral majority routinely promises reforms and then betrays its promises without the slightest degree of honesty or remorse?

What happens when the "free press", established by the Founding Fathers as a check on political corruption and abuse sells its soul to wealth, power, and oligarchy?

This is not the country that I was born in and it is not the country that I grew up in and it is not the country that I expected to one day die in.

God Bless America?

God Forgive America.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Learning Curve on the Politic

I often get to wondering why some of us feel as intense we do regarding left and right stances in politics. A post: : aux armes? by al loomis (no capitals - ever), at Open Salon the other day reminded me of reasons for my own strongly left-leaning political ideals.

These lines, from al loomis, regarding his family history, shed light on why some things in my own ancestral memory bank are significant:

...... participants in the great depression are nearly all dead now, but my father grew up in a farm destroyed by the dust bowl, and had to leave home at 14, driven by hunger. his story was quite typical. for half of america, conditions then were vastly worse than now, but still the elite kept control of american society. socialism appeared but was subsumed into the democrat party, and strangled.

compared to the events of the 30's, calling ows a revolutionary movement is self-delusionary. yet it is not useless: this generation of unhappy people have to learn transformational politics the hard way, like everyone else.
In Britain, long before the 1930s, in the late 1800s in fact, my paternal grandfather was born in Suffolk, England, amid the beautiful pastoral landscape beloved of painter John Constable. There, in those days, wealthy landowners paid farm labourers such as those from the family background of my Grandfather, pittances to toil long hours on their estates and farms, with womenfolk as maidservants in their sumptuous households, under serf-like working conditions.

Grandad and his sister, both still very young, with their mother somehow found themselves in a workhouse in a neighbouring county: Essex. Details of how this came about remain unknown to me, as does identity of the children's father. As soon as Grandad was old enough he set off to walk northward to find work. Eventually, after many stops on the way, taking months or even years, picking up temporary farm work wherever he could, he reached Yorkshire, England's biggest county - English version of Texas I always think. He got a job as shepherd on a large farm, met my Grandmother who was then a servant to some branch of local landed gentry. They married, lived in the modest cottage provided for the shepherd. Children came in rapid succession, two daughters, then my father and, eventually, seven more assorted siblings.

1914: World War 1 - it changed the scene. Grandad served in the army, suffered injury to his leg, which though often painful didn't seriously restict his walking. On return home he began work as a postman (mailman), a job he carried out for the rest of his working life. His five daughters, when of age, had to take the only option of work available: domestic servants to the local wealthy. His four older sons, including Dad were obliged to leave school around age 14 to help provide for their siblings. My father had had ambitions of working in the local railway offices, or in the post office, but that wasn't possible without longer schooling. He eventually took apprenticeship to a local baker. Dad met and married my mother who was working as a domestic servant to some local dignitary or other. Once wed, they moved to Brighton in the south of England to seek better opportunities. Dad got a decent job as foreman in a big bakery, while Mum became domestic servant to a journalist on a swanky magazine, sadly only a minor improvement for her. In late 1938, before World War 2 began, my maternal Grandmother persuaded my parents-to-be to "come back home" to Yorkshire. They did, and happily my Dad soon got a job as manager of a big bakery in Hull, with Mum managing one of their shops, which had a house, for us, adjoining.

A few years after World War 2, my parents adventurously struck out in business on their own. They rented a property, previously a house and butchery business in a small market town in East Yorkshire. They equipped a bakery as best they could, using their own handiwork and what capital they had (very little) to buy equipment sufficient to transform the place into a bakery and update the shop, improving and modernising as soon as profits allowed. Through years of hard work and long hours, just the two of them, providing excellent bread and confectionery, they eventually made a comfortable living, and gathered experience to move on to other types of small business. For several years, before they retired, they ran sub-post offices in a variety of locations. My Dad's early wish to work behind a post office counter, had at last come to fruition. They had ridden the "spiral of time" through the worst of times and into a more comfortable era - for a while at least.

For a long time the lives of servitude of my earliest forebears didn't strike me as anything unusual or something to question. Unions and workers' rights had then been unknown in our part of the world. The wealthy were in charge, that was a simple fact of life, it had never been different. Bowing and scraping to those seen as "one's betters" was the done thing.

Thoughts on politics for me, as a teenager, were non-existent, in spite of some hints from a distinctly socialistic history mistress, whose habit it was to wear a bright red overall during lessons, I remained "in the dark" about politics in general.

My parents were mainly apolitical, but, as I recall, voted Conservative (until Maggie Thatcher's reign anyway), probably for the same reason people in that part of the world still vote Conservative; and for the same reason people in this part of rural mid-USA still vote Conservative/Republican. They didn't/don't "get it", in spite of family backgrounds, which in many cases include generations of servitude to the wealthy.

The light of understanding, for me, began to penetrate by degrees, with benefit of input from a well-respected first boss, who hailed originally from the cotton mill-towns of Lancashire. There Friedrich Engels, friend of Karl Marx, had long ago conquered hearts and minds with his efforts to raise awareness of injustices, and improve the conditions of mill-workers. My boss, steeped in Labour politics, influenced his young assistant to think more deeply on things political.

Later, Bill, my well-loved late significant other enlightened me further. His background was very different from my own. His mother had been the daughter of a very conservative, rather snobbish family in Northern Ireland. To the family's utmost chagrin, she had married an engineering blacksmith, one of the leaders of his trade union and activist in the local Labour party: Bill's father. Hearing about his father's ideals and good works, the light flooded in, I realised exactly what I felt about it all. The darkness has never descended again.

As al loomis points out in his post (linked above) things now are quite different from the way things were for our parents and grandparents. Similar patterns do remain though. History is rhyming again! Instead of landed gentry and wealthy industrialists we have corporations and oligarchs ruling the roost. The spiral of time and history has brought us to another point, via some helpful periods during which things seemed to improve for ordinary folk, back again to a pattern that is becoming suspiciously recognisable.

When I write on politics, or discuss politics with my husband, I get an instinctive feeling of a supporting, encouraging presence of those gone before, both loved and unknown, who suffered indignities themselves, or who have understood the crux of poliical problems. (Note: I am not normally given to such fanciful ideas!)

If matters are allowed to slip back, as they appear to be doing, into a 21st century version of serfdom or indentured servitude for the masses, to last for decades, we shall be doing ourselves, and those who will follow when we're gone, the greatest possible disservice. Surely a return to an old darkness, albeit a newer version of it - akin to one of those unfortunate Hollywood re-makes, need not be inevitable? Surely we do not need World War 3 to force us to turn a corner into the light again? Surely we have learned some lessons?

And that is why my political views are as they are!

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Classless Society ?

Although a classless society sounds, to an egalitarian like me, to be the ideal - it'll never happen. It has never happened, never could happen, no matter how advanced or enlightened we consider we have, or will become, in the future.

Why?

In my opinion, and I believe this is backed up by some research, humans have a built-in competitive desire for domination (at some level, major or minor) and a natural bent towards controversy, more pronounced in some than others.

The planets and zodiac have stood for centuries as symbols of human nature. All human life is there, including the factors which will forever deny us the ideal of a classless society. Astrologically the desire to dominate connects to the Sun, Mars, and possibly Jupiter. Among the zodiac signs, Leo Aries and Capricorn contain the seeds of domination and/or leadership. Karl Marx had a vision, but his society wouldn't have been completely classless; certain individuals would have risen to positions of power and domination. Human nature always wins.

But, because a classless society is a pipe dream for some of us, that doesn't negate the urge to strain to attain it. There's another aspect of nature, not necessarily human nature but- I dunno - cosmic nature? A desire for balance. Some have been willing to suffer and even to sacrifice their own lives in the cause of attaining a more balanced society.

Uprisings of serfs against masters, slaves against owners, peasants against the aristocracy, women against a patriarchal society, workers against employers, minorities against segregation, are scattered throughout world history. Each effort brought some small movement away from inequality, but none came anywhere near to removing an imprinted hierarchy in human society. Class struggles will continue. Keep watching.


All history has been a history of class struggles between dominated
classes at various stages of social development.

Friedrich Engels.

I'm resigned to the fact that there'll always be a "ruling class", but what I'm not resigned to is that they would allow levels of poverty develop, and continue to to exist, in a fully developed nation. To that I shall never be resigned.

At a more petty level I'll never be resigned to, for instance, class distinction in travel - air travel, rail travel. I haven't used either for six years, so have avoided the frustration this can bring on. An entry at a blog titled A Source of Fascination reminded me of that frustration:

While waiting to board at Manchester International Airport ...... we were treated to the announcement “First and Business Class passengers may now board through the carpeted lane.” Seriously. The “carpeted lane”. They didn’t quite say “Economy scum – crawl over the broken glass and be grateful that we permit you to rest your fetid gaze upon our magical metal flying bird” – but it was definitely implied.
In my mind such experiences are not far removed from segregation.....they are differentiated only by $$$$$$, rather than by colour of skin.

Let him who expects one class of society to prosper in the highest degree, while the other is in distress, try whether one side of the face can smile while the other is pinched.
Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) British clergyman and author.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Downton Abbey ~ Julian Fellowes

A new TV drama, Downton Abbey began a 4-episode run in the USA, on PBS, last weekend. I understand that it is currently being shown in the UK too, albeit in a rather longer version. It was thought that American audiences would balk at the UK version's rather more stately pace and emphasis on the archaic law of entail (estate inheritance), quite foreign to the USA. A foreshortened version of the series is fine by me. I can stand a slow-moving tale if written by an icon such as Charles Dickens or James Michener, this is not one of those, so will probably be better taken at a trot!

The series is in fact written by Julian Fellowes, a rather upper-clahhss actor/ screenwriter/director, soon to be a member of the House of Lords on the Conservative Party benches.


In a nutshell, Downton Abbey, set in the early 1900s in Yorkshire, England, tells the story of an aristocratic family who face future problems linked to inheritance laws, following the death of their only son, a passenger on the Titanic. They have 3 daughters but according to the then laws, women were not allowed to inherit an estate.




We are promised tales of love, betrayal, domestic politics, and the challenge of waves of incoming change bringing in feminism, socialism and other -isms which threaten to shatter a class system solidly in place for many centuries.

There are tales from both above and below stairs - the residents above, their army of servants below. The servants have their very own self-created class system, almost as insidious as that of their masters.



With better choice of TV programmes on Sunday evenings I'd have given this one a very wide berth. My husband usually enjoys anything at all from British TV, but I suspected this particular series might baffle him more than somewhat! It doesn't baffle me, it irritates - a lot. I'll probably continue to watch it all the same, at least it's set in Yorkshire, with a few Yorkshire accents (among the servants, of course) so it can't be all bad!

Why does it irritate me? It depicts everything I despise: the class system of Britain as was, the remnants of which survive to this day.

Before I lapse into soapbox mode, better have a look at the natal chart of Julian Fellowes, the series creator (photograph below). He was born in Cairo, Egypt on 17 August 1949, son of a diplomat.

His Leo Sun with 3 personal planets in Virgo nicely describes this actor-cum-writer.
Leo is traditionally the sign of show-biz; Virgo, ruled by Mercury is a writer's sign. I'd bet, too, that at the time he was born Moon was in Gemini, the other sign ruled by Mercury. At noon on the date of Fellowes' birth the Moon was in the last degrees of Taurus, ready to slip into Gemini at around 2.00 PM. Without a time of birth it's not possible to establish a rising sign or midheaven, which is a pity. I'd not be a bit surprised to find Leo rising....second choice, Taurus.




According to an October 2010 article in The Mail Online, "Julian Fellowes insists he's no snob... but would never dream of wearing jeans to lunch"
As to snobbery, the reader must draw their own conclusions - as I have done (wink).

Excerpt:
Now, the couple’s parties — often including world-famous actors and European aristocracy — are legendary. And it’s all good fun, so long as the rules are obeyed.
‘Julian doesn’t like jeans to be worn at lunch,’ says one guest. ‘His view is that casual clothes are acceptable, but jeans are always a no-no.

‘And if he’s denouncing some politician, or expounding on why the Falklands’ airport should be named after Louis XV’s mistress, you won’t get a word in. You have to hold your hand up and wait for permission to speak. Even his wife does this. Not that Emma is downtrodden — she’s the great-great-niece of Lord Kitchener of Khartoum.

.........‘Julian’s also superstitious. He won’t have 13 round the table. Once, their son Peregrine — now 19, and the godson of Princess Michael and Sir Anthony Hopkins — came home unexpectedly and would’ve been the 13th guest. He was made to eat in his room.’ And Emma is just as careful of social nuances. She reads all her husband’s manuscripts for errors. ‘Julian got a ticking off for a gaffe in one of his books,’ says a friend. ‘He described a marchioness wearing a silk dress at Ascot.

Emma told him, “Everyone knows you go to the designer Tomasz Starzewski

Snobs or not, manners do seem to obsess the couple. Julian once spent an interview demonstrating how socially inept it was to grasp one’s knife like a pencil, while Emma described the signs she uses to spot the nouveau riche. She said that the soup course was an unfailing test, and admitted she and Julian did award black marks afterwards if they spotted someone tipping the soup plate towards them.

And then there’s a right and a wrong way to leave the table. ‘I would hope never to judge somebody because they folded their napkin after dinner,’ Emma says. ‘But I’d never pretend I didn’t notice. Isn’t that awful?’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1322707/Downton-Abbey-creator-Julian-Fellowes-insists-hes-snob.html#ixzz1AgB9VzeJ

It's hard to differentiate between fact and Downton Abbey, is it not?!