Sorry, it’s a Middle Class one; but with A levels and possible teacher bashing thrown in for good measure.

[AmySosa]

DD is doing Sociology A level.

Several occasions now she has come down scratching her head over stuff her tutor has said.

Tutor has defined Middle Class as wealthy and doesn’t have to work. She’s doubled down on this several times. Today she asked them to guess at class based on accent, and the plummy cut glass accent was MC. She has said anyone who needs to work for a living is Working Class, Middle Class is wealthy and doesn’t need to work and Upper Class is Titles and Royalty.

Now, I really only have DDs word for this so far. But this is wrong, right?

I know class is a shifting concept but surely WC is (broadly) manual jobs, MC is professionals and UC is inherited wealth? Tutor seems to be conflating MC and UC.

DD wants to bring this up but I thought we’d get opinions first. Is the Tutor WRONG or is this a Sociology A level grouping of modern classes?

@NVision

The only thing that matters to your daughter's a level result is what the syllabus/textbook says so refer to that. Might be the same as what the tutor is saying, or it might not. Otherwise who cares....

Depends what you think education is. I don't think it's this.

I imagine shes not teaching that by rote and maybe inviting discussion?

My dp is aristocratic in that he's titled but also needs to work to keep afloat. We do not have piles of cash.

Is she describing the way class was defined by key theorists (several decades ago)? Or is she saying that’s how it is now?

Not sure why you need to sit in on a class tbh, you wouldn’t be able to do that in normal circumstances after all. If DD is old enough to be doing a-levels then surely she can ask the teacher about it herself?

The reason I said I’d listen in is because DD does have form for misunderstanding.

We’ve had a big conversation and honestly I think that’s the case. She hears something ‘wrong’ from the teacher and stops listening.

I’m going to speak to her tutor, DD is clearly not learning what the tutor is teaching 🤷‍♀️

Perhaps she could use the latest A Level Course guide or revision notes to look up the definitions and then revert to the teacher for clarification if they are different?

Strange.

There are a few ways to define class, and you can make reasonable arguments for all of them and sometimes it just depends on context.

But middle class has never in any of them been "doesn't have to work for a living."

I also disagree with this idea that it's marxist to say the middle classes own the means of production. They don't, capitalists are the ones who own the MOP. The middle classes would be more like the petty bourgeoisie, who certainly do work.

Do they not learn the different types of work, such as manual/ blue collar, professional and so on? In modern day UK the middle class largely do work but will be less likely to do manual work, so perhaps don't work as hard, or don't get as much renumeration for the work they do, is that what the tutor means? Or perhaps it's based on an older model. I can't help but expect there's something specific about the definitions we are missing here.

That last post was supposed to be get more renumeration for the work they do*

Not what we were taught in sociology. I seem to remember 5 class brackets. Upper class gentry - independent income, middle class white collar workers- skilled professionals , upper working class- skilled blue collar workers, lower working classes - unskilled workers and under class- not working.

Do A level students still use Giddens or haralambos or has that all stopped? I finished my sociology degree 25 years ago and my A level Sociology 33 years ago.

Id assume your dd had got it wrong. Not that the teacher is teaching incorrectly.

Classical Marxism would class professionals as actually more working class than you might imagine. This group share economic interests with the proper working class as they are dependent on others for employment. But they are more independent as they don’t require a means of production to make a living.
As for petite bourgeois that would describe lower middle class. Self-employed business people who don’t necessarily exploit others’ labour but also are not exploited.
In this theory the definition of class is based on an individual’s relationship to the means of production.

The thing with middle class employed people, these days, that separates them somewhat from the traditional working classes or many service workers in particular, is that many have pensions and also other investments. So there is a sense in which they benefit from some of the capitalist super-structure.

But in terms of actually not working, as if they have some kind of independent income or rent coming in to them - I just can't think of any paradigm where you'd say that was typical of the middle classes.

Just let the tutor know class is not money or even jobs. It's to so with your education, whether you bought or inherited your furniture and whether you have ever used the word 'toilet'. That should clear it up for her.

@MissConductUS

A bit off-topic, but the level of obsession with interest in class in the UK never ceases to amaze me.

I'd say that Americans are just as interested, the classes just have different signals and markers. I've not long finished watching Succession on HBO and there is a fascinating episode where the main family (first generation billionaires) go visit another wealthy family who have a compound in New England and are obviously made out to be properly WASPy "old money" - the class distinctions become a big part of the drama (throughout the whole series, actually).

I feel like recently, possibly exacerbated by the phenomenon of Trump voters, I read article after article and book after book exploring American social class identity and consciousness, from Hillbilly Elegy by JD Vance to the Goldfinch by Donna Tartt. Of course in the US it's complicated by racial politics as well but there is no question that there are class markers and boundaries that transcend race and vice versa.