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?

I would interpret "underclass" as people with a particular attitude. People who choose not to get an education, choose not to get a job, may well be involved in crime (petty or serious).

What other word would you call them?

Those who are interested in the evolution of the underclass (both the lexical term and sociological phenomena), will probably already be aware of this and similar publications: Charles Murray - the Underclass, the Developing Debate published in 1996.

Much pilloried by the liberal left at the time of its publication, I was wondering what posters here think of this work.

Was he right? Is there an underclass?

Words can mean different things in different contexts.

It depends if you are interested in what people actually mean by what they say, or if you are interested in what they would have meant if they had used some completely different definition of a word you've got written down somewhere.

That looks interesting Edith, will have a read.

Capitalism depends on a small pool of people at the bottom who are unemployed and in many cases unemployable, under 5% of the population, which is why an unemployment rate of 3-4% is considered Full Employment. The scramble at the bottom keeps wages and conditions low. This was originally described by Adam Smith in the 18th/19th C as a feature of classic capitalism, but seems to be even more relevant now. Marx used Lumpenproletariat to describe the same strata. So the Underclass is nothing new.

The term might be unpleasant, but so is the situation. And while many good people are unemployable through NO FAULT of their own, many are by choice. ie the Shameless generation as mentioned above. Not everyone is a decent person. Though if you're raised with opportunities you become a not very nice mc person with a job, if not you become/stay underclass.

Thanks, Edith, will definitely read that.

And thanks to everyone on this thread, for educating me and not flaming me! My first AIBU thread and it's been really informative. I really appreciate all your comments.

SinicalSal, surely the scramble at the bottom is between people who want to work fighting over whatever jobs are available to them (if any).

Those who don't work and have no intention of working operate outside of the job market. Capitalism doesn't depend on these people at all. They are just a dead weight for everyone else to carry.

True, MrsBethel, but I did say in my post that the 'classical' underclass is comprised of those who can't and those who won't. It's the scramble between those who are honestly competing for low skilled, low status, low paid jobs that provide 'flexibility in the labour market', (which incidentally is creeping up and up the ladder) .