Class, in the Anglo world is what you do, with this caveat, sometimes it's what your ancestors did.
How much money you make in the the US is a measure of how successfully you do things.
Class is the means of social mobility. Sometimes US folk are confused by how class is used in the UK, for instance. A historical note:
Class was the secret weapon of the British Empire and is still the secret weapon of the UK, today. The Rothschild family financed the Peninsular war and the British Crown gave Rothschild a title, Baron Rothschild. A Jew! Furthermore, it was a title which could be inherited. Rutherford did tremendous scientific work and the Crown gave him a title, the Wedgewoods revolutionized 19th middle class English housekeeping, made potsful of money, employed a lot of people and made a significant part of England prosperous and they got a title..
My great Aunt Emmy did some sort of defence work during WW2 and she got to go Buckingham Palace and get something, I forget what, but she got to put letters after her name.... She was very proud of this recognition from the head of state and it gave her some social position.
If Bill Gates were English, he'd be Lord of Hackedtodeath, or something, no measly knighthood for Bill.
There's great fuel for ambition and achievement in this type of class system, and not just to get a title, but to live up to the one you inherited. Outstanding example in the 20th century is Winston Churchill. This type of class system celebrates achievement.
Where I live in Canada was rather interesting in the 19th century. It was a British colony to which some US black folk came in flight from Dred Scott. They were folk who ran hotels, boarding houses, retail businesses, were in the fire brigade and miltia. They got along well with the Brits even though in many social ways they were different and the Brits were sort of racist. They did not get along with the white US Southerners who came along after the Civil War. The difference was this, the Brits saw the black folk as lower middle class business people striving to maintain and improve their position and had no problem staying at their boarding houses, or standing beside them in church (even if their responses were a bit enthusiastic) and they had no problem sitting beside them in a theatre. The Southerners had a lot of trouble standing beside them in church and sitting beside them in a theatre and things became downright nasty.
For the Brtish the class of those black folk was what they did, for the US Southerners it was what they were. These are the two different views of class and they have different outcomes. The modern view, 'you are what you do', is a vehicle of social mobility and change. The archaic view,'you are what you are (what your parents are)', is a vehicle of social stratification and stagnation.
These different views often sit side by side. I know an English fellow whose older brother stopped talking to him when he took up the grammar school scholarship because he'd become "a traitor to his family and class." Sounds familiar, doesn't it? My ex came from the same sort of background, got the scholarship, and family encouraged her, or got out of her way. That sounds familiar also, doesn't it? |
