Julie Burchill on class

I'm not sure this totally gets at the issue.

From a totally functional POV, of course families with fewer economic and social resources will tend to continue to remain in the same social class, while the children of those with more will tend to stay there.

And it's not even just economic, there are social reasons this happens - kids have some tendency to follow the way of life they see around them, and they tend to embrace a lot of the same values as their parents.

I'd go so far as to say, that so long as members of a social class are doing well enough to have economic stability, dignity in their way of living, and some political voice, many members of the group may not care all that much about upward social mobility.

The promise of social mobility is an interesting one, because it's not as clear as we might think who it is for. Most of the time advocates aren't proposing that we lose the jobs and social functions of the working classes. There will continue to be a working class, albeit receiving fair wages.

The possibility of social mobility for working class kids who might be interested in baking, or academia, or the arts, does benefit those individuals who have the talent and interest. But it's not clear to me that it has a lot kind of general benefit for the working class as a whole. (I won't say none - it means there will be some sympathy to and representation of views in certain sectors. As we saw in journalism in the old days.But it won't in itself make the wc positions unnecessary, so everyone will be middle class.)

I think the main benefit of social mobility is humanity - people are able to make the most of their talents, which benefits society. Though, it can mean the best minds are lost to lower prestige sectors - all the best minds become bankers, not farmers or mechanics.

The Grand National isn’t attended - or watched - exclusively by people who aspire to be upper class.

Well obviously, particularly once it was televised.

I was referring to what the media still presents as the important events each year. Most of which came out of an era when the leisured upper class made them part of their social calendar.

Probably only Glastonbury is now treated by the MSM as being one of these.

ie the media hasn't kept up with how much more diverse society is in the UK, and Julie Burchill seems to get her information about current society from the msm.

I would have thought she was more astute and could have written about how being assimilated into that in fact quite narrow reflection of the world is in direct contrast to her early role as a journalist.

There is nothing to stop her, without having to leave her comfy Brighton lifestyle, what in fact are the aspirations of various sections of society.

And she might even find those "bright" working class people who she thinks dont exist any more, do exist but have rejected the route she chose.

KellieJaysLapdog · Yesterday 12:11

I went to see John Cooper Clarke the other night - support acts Toria Garbutt and Mike Garry.

I've seen JCC a number of times, he's great. He played The Crowtree in Sunderland in 1997 and a young local lad - "Johnny Ignorant" had a set and JCC gave him a real "big up."

We had a few decades where the working class were indulged, not just in the arts but in other professions too. It was a way to demonstrate how progressive an organisation was (the equivalent of today's woke I suppose) We all thought it was a changing of the guard, a new era. Turned out to be nothing of the sort, having a working class person or two with a strong regional accent was nothing more than a fad, no doubt entertaining while it lasted but now we're back to the status quo.

In response to a pp talking about schools. I don't know any state schools that don't put on school plays. The issue is that those WC students who are talented actors can't afford the expensive training, poverty wages and lack of work that starting out in acting entails. Especially if they don't have family in or near London to provide free/cheap accommodation.

I think squats, being able to sign on, and YTS etc were all important. Artists and musicians need time to develop before anyone is interested in their art. There are fewer young art and musicians coming through with any uniqueness, and I do not think that is a coincidence.

Oh, and of course the music press - who gave 17 year old Julie Burchill her start.

That's another interesting change. A lot of places won't even hire 17 year olds for fast food now, and their parents worry about leaving them overnight alone.

You need to have some kind of higher education whether or not the employment you are interested in actually benefits from it.

At least they have (belatedly) launched the SGM fund to support grassroots venues that are being absolutely decimated by greedy developers.

@Echobelly you are bang on about cheap/free living (the squat scene was huge in the 70s and 80s) and 'free' government funding for working class creatives via the dole, YTS, EAS etc. And of course the art schools that allowed school leavers to avoid the workplace for a couple of years and gave us pretty much every major pop/rock act of the 60s and 70s, there's a great article on their influence here: https://aarkangel.wordpress.com/2020/04/13/art-school-was-rock-school/

Oh, and of course the music press - who gave 17 year old Julie Burchill her start.

You could live on benefits in a cheap council house much easier in the 80s-00s than now.

If you were a single mum you didn't need to look for a job or even visit a job centre until your youngest was 16. You could get budgeting loans of up to £500 to help you into work eg art equipment/ music instruments.

Now it's all about pushing everyone into low hours low paid McJobs with no security, and no hope of ever owning your home.

(Buying a flat being a rout to having equity to spend on an art/ getting a lodger so you have no housing costs.)

The thing that strikes me particularly about the arts/performing arts is the absolute loss of affordability and 'off grid' living in London. 40 years ago, aspirant arty types could still afford to rent a dive in Soho with some mates, or find a squat to live in (a setting many performers, fashion designers etc made their start in). Even Thatcher was better for them in some ways because the YTS scheme I have often heard quoted as a source of funding and support for working class youth starting up then - for example I think it was YTS that provided funding to Alexander McQueen to buy fabric for his first collection. But now nothing like that exists, or not on a large scale.

I think grammar schools can have a role to play but only if they are actually good - and sadly those that exist now (like the one I went to) tend to be so few they get dominated by middle class students, like my sister and I, with only about 10% WC students.

Someone Oxbridge type who worked on a film with John Lennon said ' Imagine what he could have achieved with a proper education '. Hmm. He might have ended up hosting some review programne on Radio 4. Or been a senior executive on a local authority. He'd have had to tone down the accent , mind.

Even when I was about to leave school (some decades ago) we sniggered about silly it was that people aspired to get to got to old fashioned events that had grown out of upper class life style. The idea that people's social calendar focused on these centuries old "events" (the boat race!!!! grand national???) we found unbelievable.

Don't most people have calendar events with the groups they identify with ie Pride, Notting Hill Carnival whatever. And enjoy doing events even if it's not aimed at them It's quite "cool" to go to the Wickham Horse Fair for example even if you aren't a gypsy/traveller.

we sniggered about silly it was that people aspired to get to got to old fashioned events that had grown out of upper class life style. The idea that people's social calendar focused on these centuries old "events" (the boat race!!!! grand national???) we found unbelievable.

The Grand National isn’t attended - or watched - exclusively by people who aspire to be upper class.

Just snatching a moment while my internet connection is temporarily working to add a futher comment.

One of the big differences now compared to the era JB is so nostalgic about is that at that time given that the BBC and the establishment sort of set what aspirations are, it was inevitiable that people who were not part of the establishment tried to get noticed by it, get invited to be part of it etc..

Nowadays there are many people who probably only have the vaguest idea of what the BBC is, and have aspirations and interests that the BBC probably has no idea about.Let alone the arts events the broadsheets focus on, etc..

Not only has their been a growth in the number of tv and radio stations but of course the internet has given people the opportunity to happily live without any concerns about white middle class values..

Even when I was about to leave school (some decades ago) we sniggered about silly it was that people aspired to get to got to old fashioned events that had grown out of upper class life style. The idea that people's social calendar focused on these centuries old "events" (the boat race!!!! grand national???) we found unbelievable.

Because of the growth in music festivals, alternative art exhibitions and sub culture trends, we no longer have a society that aspires to the in fact very narrow social sphere of the chattering classes.

So maybe the problem is JB has stranded herself in what is now a minority culture (which still has power within decision making groups) and it is just possible that the working class and other minority groups no longer think it is their dutiful role to aspire to the so called heights of achievement of mingling with becoming part of middle class culture.

So in asking what happened to the working class maybe JB needs to ask herself why she has marooned herself in a rather narrow sub culture of those who think 21st century UK still functions under the concept of society that was challenged by the "angry young men" (1950s incels), then 60s hippies, then feminists, and so on. And for man people no longer exists.

In a way it is the older established sports that still cling to an age old class division where working class can achieve recognition etc.. But maybe JB doesn't think sport counts.

@RandySavage many of those had rich patrons. They did not live by selling their art.

And Leonardo da Vinci was effectively supported by his brother’s patronage.

Great art will get made, money or not.

“Art should not simply be commercial. Otherwise we end up with little great art”

Hmmm … Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael were commercial artists, and they were pretty good.
Mozart and Beethoven worked on commissions. Shakespeare wrote what he thought would sell. Dickens sold his stories chapter by chapter.

I do understand what you mean, but much of the greatest art has been created because somebody paid for it to be made.

Same for attractive young female actresses, and it's not because they've had elocution lessons...the blokes all seem to be regional though!

There's some interesting research about the gendered difference of class in the civil service, with men playing to the stereotypes, but women feeling they have to hide their class.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gwao.12776

I've noticed when I'm watching chat show type programmes with upcoming new singers they're nearly all a bit posh sounding - or nepo babies.
Same for attractive young female actresses, and it's not because they've had elocution lessons...the blokes all seem to be regional though!
You need money behind you to indulge in a career in the arts these days.

It's also arguably a historical anomaly.

In one sentence you have said what my long post was trying to say.

It's also arguably a historical anomaly. WWI and WWII created a huge capacity for social mobility, and I think it's probably not a situation that can be recreated without a similar loss of life and destruction of the material fabric of the nation.

We tend to assume that level of social movement is and should be the norm but I don't see any evidence that it is.

I've come to the view that art is a craft as much as anything.

Very great art is more than that, but maybe that's true of the greatest crafts of all kinds?

Tbh I feel that the arts have in many cases been harmed by insufficient attention to craft - inspiration isn't enough.

But to the subject of the OP - yes, right now we do seem to have moved the working classes out of cultural creation. Maybe it doesn't matter if some art forms move to being more favoured by elites or the other way round. But I do think the transformation of journalism, for example, into a sector dominated almost entirely by middle class, university educated people, has been very negative.

Sorry my internet connection is playing up, so above has bits missing.

But of course the real example of what happened, is Julie Burchill writing this in the Spectator.

ie she reflects what happened to (some of) the working class!