To think the word 'underclass' is actually pretty offensive

[ScrambledSmegs]

Since the riots started I've been seeing and hearing a lot of comments about a so-called 'underclass', both in the national press and from people I know. I've honestly not seen that word since my days doing history at school, and I remember back then thinking that it was unpleasant. As far as my aged brain can recall, it's another word for 'undeserving poor', one of the phrases the Victorian sociologists came up with to justify their dismissal of an entire swathe of society. Why is it suddenly back in vogue again?

As far as I'm concerned it's inaccurate. I live in London, reasonably close to the riots in Hackney, and I've seen the riots and after-effects first hand. I don't want to get into everything I saw and my own interpretations, but honestly, lumping the rioters into one homogeneous mass is simplisitic in the extreme.

Is it just me? Am I over-thinking it?

manic - but some people ARE like that.

unpa1dcar3r - sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder, that is not most people's interpretation of 'underclass.'

Criminals might be a start, but it does need something else.

Tough one, depends how it is used. If it used by sneery little snobs then it is a horrible word. However it is also a very apt word for a layer of society that has been stamped on again and again, as per the dictionary definiton someone already posted. So it depends on context whether you are BU or not IMO

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh having not studied sociology its a fairly new one on me.

Ah, but in sociology it's used correctly, I expect?

TBH, my initial understanding of the word came from Victorian history, and the origins are, I think, a bit on the judgy side. Yes, it referred to criminals etc, fair enough, but also to casual workers. I think it also has similarities with Karl Marx's 'lumpenproletariat'? I've not actually seen it used up till now, so I just wanted to see if it was just me being over-sensitive. Yes, seems I was!

its not about behaviour. Its about income and opportunity. The chronically disabled (if poor which they are far more likely to be) are part of the underclass. Why are you insisting on putting them in a group with the badly behaved?

What people are saying is that there needs to be a term that covers these people and marks them out as separate from "working class" or "poor" or "unemployed" has everyone knows they fall into a far broader spectrum than this and are not representative of any of these groups. "Underclass" is currently being used by somse, but unfortuantly, it does normally mean the most socially disadvantaged members of society so doesn't work as a term as even though it is being applied with a slightly different definition than ususal it still retains its original meaning for most people and is therefore damging.

A new term would be good.

agree. But we aren't going to find one here.

No. I am sure we won't.

The French had their 'Sans Cullottes' during the revolution but there is a heck of a big difference between rioting for food when you are starving and rioting for electronic goods and trainers.

Chronically disabled people part of the underclass?! Really? That's awful.

Thanks for all the well-written and thought out posts, it's given me an awful lot to think about, and some more reading to do too! I think, on balance, I'm going to come down on the side of I still find it quite offensive. I don't like the word, I didn't as a teenager and I don't now. Sadly I do think it's going to become a word to bash people with, as it's so damn catchy .

the Sans-Cullottes were political radicals though, and weren't the lowest strata, they were labourers, artisans, shopkeepers etc. And they were basically communists.

siam-your definition accords with mine ie underprileged and kept down by society ie victims of society rather than being 'undeserving poor' as some posters are saying.

yep spider, but I'd be careful of saying that too loud around here if I were you, you'll get accused of wanting to "hug a hoodie" and excuse criminal behaviour blah blah blah....

It is an offensive term and I don't like hearing it. There is a section of society where whole families have never worked so the term "working class" cannot be used to describe them. I find it interesting that lots of people think that the "Shameless generation" is a myth. I know lots of people living like this, they must be a figment of overactive imagination.

In which ways are society trying to keep them down? There's free education, free medical care, free school meals, as well as housing and other benefits.

In every way, there are people who are trying to help. Do you think the teachers are trying to keep their own pupils down? The doctors? The dinner ladies?

It's their own parents who are the children's worst enemy in so many cases. Just ask any social worker. Or just ask any teacher, come to that.

And the lumpenproletariat were all working. I'd agree with whoever said the 'underclass' is a group of people who wilfully live outside society's rules.

thestringpeople, my point was that these people have always existed to some extent, it's just that media hysteria has turned them into a 'generation'. It's rubbish. There are plenty of families living like that where I live (one in my road, in fact), and by their own admission their parents and grandparents were the same. Just less well publicised.

In the days of full employment, though, ScrambledSmegs, there were very few living like that.

No, the lumpenproletariat were not all working. Unless you count (in Marx's own words) " swindlers, confidence tricksters, prostitutes, brother keepers, beggars..."etc, as working. In fact it specifically meant those outside the regular wage-labour class (the proletariat).

You can agree with the "outside rules" definition all you like, unfortunately you are wrong. You can't just make up your own definitions to actual words, they already have them.

I think there's a gap in my knowlege, ImperialBlether (seriously, not being facetious). When was the full employment time? I jump from Victorian society to 1960's/70's with a big old nothing in between, so I presume it was sometime then?

Sorry, I also doubt there was ever a time when everyone was working. Just to be clear. But willing to be told I'm wrong!

SiamoFottuti I find your posts really interesting, thank you for taking the time to answer this thread. I'd like to give other shout-outs but I have an over-tired toddler to put down for a nap now! Maybe later...

Delving back into the murky depths of my memory when I studied sociology, I think it is an accepted sociological term and refers to the poorest and most marginalised in society who are either unemployed or subsisting on bits of informal or casual work here and there.

I certainly don't associate it with a value judgement about people's "morals" or the deserving/undeserving poor.

I grew up in a large industrial town in the Midlands in the 60s and 70s and there was full employment there. If you went to the dole office, they gave you an interview with one of the factories. Given that there were plenty of labouring jobs, you could hardly say that you couldn't do it. Students at home over the summer and Easter holidays would get work easily, too.

Now that there are few factories and those that are there are generally automated, there just aren't the same number of jobs.

I didn't know anyone who was out of work, though a couple of kids in my class had dads who were in and out of prison. They worked when they were out, though they were often fired for being drunk. They'd just go to another factory. Very few signed on as a career.

I disagree I think there is an increase in families living in this way. I grew up in an area where there were families that never worked or aspired to work but they were in the minority. They still are the minority but in certain areas that minority is becoming much bigger.

My own nieces (teenagers) have already declared that they have no interest in further education or working and the 14 year old is dating a man in prison. When I was that age my mum would not have allowed me to have a relationship with someone like him but my nieces parents just throw up their hands and say "what can we do?" They wouldn't dare criticise her or her boyfriends choices because thats not what you do these days.

I told the 15 year old she was being irresponsible because she is actively trying for a baby and suggested that she might want a life first and I was told off for being nasty.