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?

It's just shorthand for people who live on benefits and have no intention of getting a job.

I agree 'underclass' is a rather emotive value-laden term. But when the behaviour that defines the group is so harmful to society, is that such a bad thing?

You're welcome scrambled.

full employment has a few different definitions depending on what analysis you are using, but in modern practice in the UK is actually means an unemployment rate of around 3-4%. As an example Ireland had about a decade of "full employment" between 1997-2007 during the boom.

It's very British I think that people find it so offensive.

I did sociology, but quite a long time ago, and it was very much used to say that these were the "forgotten", "under" the radar.. not "under" in a perjorative sense, but a descriptive one.

Sort of like Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere". Fallen through the cracks... seen as the "other" etc. Not a statement of worth or value.

Well by one Defination I would fit the underclass .single parent on benfits and disabled as well as a carer .

But I do not and would never condone the type of behaviour that saw in the riots and would skelp my teens arses if they was involved in that kind of behaviour and when you look not all the people involved fitted te tradtional underlcass description

Underclass is an unpleasant term IMO. Smacks of "the great unwashed"

The growth of the underclass is a direct consequence of the collapse of industry in this country. For all the blethering about turning the UK into a 'knowledge economy' there are some people who simply aren't wired to do information work, even though they'd be perfectly capable of manual work. Farms are hugely industrialised, with prices and wages depressed by pressure from supermarkets etc - so there's no manual work there. And the factories have all gone overseas, because people there don't expect to be paid as much and we all want cheap goods. Result: not enough manual jobs to go round, either in factories or on farms, for people who don't have the mental furniture to be desk jockeys. We can try and 'raise standards in schools' all we like; it's not going to change this basic fact.

What have we done to paper over the cracks? Ramp up the welfare state, so at least the people who've fallen foul of the situation can be squirrelled away in estates where they mostly only mug each other. Result: a hopeless, alienated parasite class spanning generations whose culture revolves around empty 'respect' posturing and jockeying for an ever-more-thinly-stretched pool of public money, amid the taunts and sneers of people who still have jobs. An underclass whose existence is glossed over - or even tacitly excused - all the while by simpering liberal nostrums about how we shouldn't judge because 'everyone is different'. We roll out the bread and circuses. And this goes on until said underclass decides it's not getting enough bread, and can't watch the circuses unless it's got a 42" plasma TV, and at that point it gets organised . Result: anarchy.

This goes way back. Both right-wing (free market and globalisation sends industry overseas) and left-wing (more benefits! prizes for everyone!) have contributed to the current situation. And it's going to take a lot more than arresting a few thugs in tracksuits to shake it down.

They are an "underclass" I teach kids who are the third generation...having parents and grandparents who have never worked and never want to!!
They are not working class because they dont see that they have to work.
They complain at over crowding as they often have three generations in house.
I taught a girl who has recently become pregnant and openly complains about the £500 grant being stopped...if i got pregnant tomorrow myself and my partner wouldnt get a penny...people should be forced to pay for their own children in my opinion!! (hard hat at ready)
Can i point out I was a child of the 80s whose father was made redundant many times, however we are talking about people who have NEVER paid into the system, but take plenty out....sometimes a whole life time's worth!!

I accept that it will be life on befits for myself due to being ds3 carer and being disabled myself but am pusing my dc to make sure they do have opions

Ds1 is at collage doing catering and works pt
ds2 is wanting to go to uni .

I think crimanals is a better choice of words to describe those that took part in the riots and thats no matter what class they come from

The sixties were probably the last time we had something approaching full employment. But it was propped up with a lot of government subsidy keeping problematic businesses going, powerful unions going for high wage increases and it was an age of low technology and very little automation - so high levels of manpower required. High enough to require a big influx of immigrants to pick up the slack. It ran along quite happily until (rather like today) the global economy hit a bad patch, inflation went through the roof and oil prices rocketed. Then it got nasty.

At that time the work-ethic was very strong, there were very few alternatives to working for a living & 'signing on' was a thing of shame for decent people. However, even then, there were people outside of the system, part of gangs, engaged in crime, dealing stolen goods etc. Just as now, it doesn't matter how successful an economy you're living in, you can still make bad choices.

Hate any 'class' label, why do we have to be classified, we're all people

people find it offensive when it is used offensively. and misapplied, like a lot of people on this thread are doing. They are using it in a way that it should not be used, making up new definitions.

Good point HumanCatapult, so more accurately the word probably means: people who choose to live on benefits rather than getting a job.

Maybe it is unfair to use such a value-laden word to describe them. I mean, if I was better off without a job, I'd quit! The system's broken. I guess we can blame the feckers who take advantage of it. But we can also blame the idiots who designed the system.

Yes, I think that's why I have a problem with it, SiamoFottuti. Many people (I include myself) have limited understanding of what the word means. Clearly from a sociologial perspective it shouldn't be offensive.

However, I think that now it has been appropriated by the media it is in danger of being used as an offensive term and misapplied. Certainly I have heard it used in an derogatory way in the last few days.

Also, my understanding of the word is rooted in school teaching of Victorian history, which focused a great deal on things like workhouses etc. So apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.

SiamoFottuti, I think you'll find that's how language works.

No, not by a few people misunderstanding a word, it doesn't. You don't get to unilaterally change the definition of a word used by scholars and experts. Especially if you are neither.

erm - thats exactly how language evolves siamo. Exactly.

Its called Semantic Change.

I know about semantic change, no definition of which includes "internet ranting changes academic definitions overnight". It's a lot more complex than that, although complexity doesn't seem too welcome around here at the moment.

Well of course it is more complex. No one thinks it happens over night or over an internet forum, but yes people do unilaterally change the definition of words over time by altering the way it is used.

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

No I haven't got a chip Nancy. It makes me laugh is all. I am officially underclass according to various stats and interpretations but of course I know I'm not. Apart form having high standards and good morals and injecting this attitude into my childrens lives, I work harder than most people in paid employment, I pay all my bills, have never been in any debt ever (if I aint got the money we go without), have a degree etc...own my own house blah de blah, so this is why I pointed out that for many the term underclass is misinterpreted to include people that it should not include.
Single parents are another group although of course they're not all underclass.
Same as any one with a disability rendering them incapable of gaining paid employment or consistent paid employment.
It is a generic term used to describe anybody pretty much who is' different' in one negative way or another.

I would not class myself as the same as (some, not all) others who are unemployed but the stats say I am. It is too generic a term.
If you get less than 60% of the median income you're considered poor/poverty stricken. If you're considered poverty stricken you're considered underclass.
Personally I couldn't give a flying poopoo what class I'm termed under 'cos it makes no odds to me, but it can be hurtful for some to be termed this way.

The thing that bothers me about 'underclass' is the way it is used to mean the poor are the root of all society's problems. We don't have such a pejorative term for the wealthy who misbehave - even when their actions are just as harmful to society as a whole.

That was (kind of) my understanding of the word, edam, but I found out from this thread that I'd misinterpreted it.

For the wealthy, how about financial twats?!

I agree with Nancy66, with her definition of underclass and that there are thousands of families like shameless in the UK. Have you seen the programme The Scheme about an estate in Kilmarnock?

Underclass is just nice, polite for chav, surely

IMO people that cannot work, people that want to work and SAHMs are not in the underclass. I think that single mums get a bad press, if I was in that situation I would want to stay at home to give my children stability rather than work to pay a childminder.

Surely underclass is a section of society that are perfectly capable of working but choose not to.