Does the UK still have an 'intellectual class'?

[NormaSnorks]

Not sure if this is politics or society really, but I found myself thinking about this after a couple of social events.

I'm in my 50s and have a group of friends and when we meet I'd say we are are 'intellectually curious' - interested in the news, literature, the arts etc and happy discussing and debating things. We can have very different individual views on things, but we'll be respectful and remain friends at the end of the day. I find our discussions interesting, sometimes challenging and occasionally I change my view about something as a result.

But I don't see this kind of approach around me in other social groups, or in my adult children's friends, or even much in the media? It seems people are either unable or unwilling to discuss anything of substance and become deeply uncomfortable with disagreement?

Is it just a generational thing? Where and who are the young intellectuals?

The UK mainstream is anti intellectual. It always has been, but recently it has added a cultural gutter to what is presented to most.

What I notice is that people who are still well off, educated privately still have access to all this cultural capital. And they use it.

The state has given up on it. Equity is for certain people only, a patronising mush for kids, and those well off kids, they get the good stuff.

Our culture has gone backwards. 40 years ago you could access this stuff without serious money. Now it’s back to “oh you wouldn’t understand that”. And they’d be right by design.

OP here - thanks for all these fascinating responses - I didn't expect this thread to attract so much (positive) attention!
I don't agree with the accusations of snobbery, because I don't think anyone is saying intellectualism is the preserve of only an elite class. However it is true that current state school obsessions with equity over excellence means that children may not be exposed to traditional and classical culture unless their parents introduce elements of it.

For my own part I'm from a solid working class background, with great grandparents who were coal miners. However I was lucky to go to an ex-grammar-turned comprehensive school which placed great emphasis on intellectual curiosity, had regular school debates and visiting speakers, and a strong 'music and drama for all' policy. Although neither of my parents went to university, my dad in particular was highly intelligent and read quality newspapers, dabbled in local politics and took me to the library every Saturday. I grew up in a household with music and Radio 4 always in the background.

I'm not saying I see opera as pointless. It's not pointless to me personally. I love opera! And theatre is my absolute fave genre of music. But what I'm saying is, in the grand scheme of things, football and opera are both forms of entertainment. Both require skill, and both can feel exciting/uplifting to some people. I really don't think you can argue that one holds more value than the other, once you've let go of unconscious class bias.

Libraries are free, but not everyone has the internet. Some people (and often working classes) work shifts when the library would be open. The vast majority of people would not be able to use (or even know of) a database or how to use boolean terms to search a topic without having university level education. And journal articles aren't typically written in a way that is accessible to the general public. Most people have no clue how to appraise an article to judge the quality of it. Some people don't have an academic reading standard or comprehension ability. There are books aimed at the public, but these are often heavily criticised by middle class academics.

So sure, the information may be there, but it's not truly accessible to everyone. It's just fact that people in deprived areas don't do as well in education. No amount of libraries will change that.

@Ladamesansmerci

I'm not saying I see opera as pointless. It's not pointless to me personally. I love opera! And theatre is my absolute fave genre of music.

Are you talking about musicals? I was talking about non musical theatre for example Shakespeare or Pinter or Brecht. Writers who challenge you and question the world.

But what I'm saying is, in the grand scheme of things, football and opera are both forms of entertainment.

In very simplistic terms, yes. One is a sport and the other is art. One is about the body and the other the mind.

Both require skill, and both can feel exciting/uplifting to some people. I really don't think you can argue that one holds more value than the other, once you've let go of unconscious class bias.

The theatre holds more intellectual value than football.

Libraries are free, but not everyone has the internet.

Most people have the internet and it's free in libraries.

Some people (and often working classes) work shifts when the library would be open.

You can order books online and you can read books on your phone or tablet if you have a library card. The internet has countless books for free.

The vast majority of people would not be able to use (or even know of) a database or how to use boolean terms to search a topic without having university level education.

I wasn't talking about academic journals, I was talking about books which can be ordered to your local library or borrowed from the library.

And journal articles aren't typically written in a way that is accessible to the general public. Most people have no clue how to appraise an article to judge the quality of it.

I wasn't talking about academic journals.

Some people don't have an academic reading standard or comprehension ability.

We're talking about the intellectually curious who can access books for free.

There are books aimed at the public, but these are often heavily criticised by middle class academics.

So what? I'm sure people can judge for themselves.

So sure, the information may be there, but it's not truly accessible to everyone.

Libraries are accessible to anyone who can read.

It's just fact that people in deprived areas don't do as well in education. No amount of libraries will change that.

If you're intellectually curious and can read, there's no stopping you. And libraries make an enormous difference that's why people are fighting to keep them open.

It's not me who has the bias.

Excellent read, thank you for posting

(and will def read some Susan Greenfield's books)

what a typical response...

I don't believe there are too many people, even in the most deprived areas, who have no smartphones / internet access. Which means they all can access any classical music / performances / books / virtual museums etc etc for free at any time convenient to them. So really it's down to individual, not circumstances.

ETA - I remember one of the threads here about private schools and uni admissions and someone posted how they were state school educated, got place in Oxbridge and felt "traumatised" when those privately educated students were talking about cultural topics that posted never heard about; what awful elitism it was and how unis should severely restrict admissions of those rich bastards so people like wouldn't feel inferior.

Do you truly believe there aren't barriers, be they educational, class, cultural, and social, to 'intellectual' pursuits? This country has a deeply ingrained class system, which has lingered from centuries gone by. Everything from hobbies, clothes, where we buy our food, and what we eat, is full of unconscious and unspoken social rules relating to our class. It is very difficult to move up through social classes.

Outreach programmes to support children/families in deprived areas to access things like museums exist for a reason. It's hard for children who grow up in a family who aren't interested in culture. Where the attitude has always been that you find a trade to pay your bills, and that things like art is for rich toffs.

University doesn't need to be dumbed down, and admissions shouldn't be restricted, however it is true that 'culture' is more readily available to children in private schools and to the upper/middle classes, for many reasons. I'm from a working class background and was a straight A* pupil. I'm naturally curious and intelligent. BUT when I went to university, and I was surrounded by people who were middle class, and the difference in general knowledge and cultural capital was vast. I was surrounded by people who had all had gap years and travelled across Asia, who had parents who took them to the theatre and found art enriching. I had a post WW2 mining family father who thought art was stupid and travelling to a tourist resort in Lanzarote is culture. I just didn't have expose to the same degree of culture, and played catch up for a long time.

The onus of that is not on a child. There is a societal responsibility to ensure all children have access to culture, and part of access is changing perceptions and removing social barriers. It's not just as simple as having a phone with loads of free information.

@Ladamesansmerci - that is all very well, but as I was just discussing with dd, (ordinary) schools now seem loathe to bestow cultural capital. Perhaps it is because so many teachers, especially humanities teachers, are not that well educated themselves. They are hardly well placed to inspire pupils if they are “dumb-downed” people. Eg dd’s music teacher could not read music (!), and she only liked things like Mamma Mia. She told dd she was a snob because she wasn’t applying to the local (former HE place) uni (sic).

This is what has happened and my mother grew up in a mining family. She still had plenty of understanding of classical music, literature, art, and went to study fine art. The state provided all this to her generation. She was well educated.

This is not about class except it is about a class of people who don’t have these opportunities any more. Firstly they are told they don’t need it by some in their families and secondly the state agrees with that idea because these things are different and challenging to introduce to kids who expect things to be easy (not their fault).

Private schooling is still doing Latin, debate clubs, choral singing, scholastic events, historical visits and you are expected to engage in education outside the core curriculum. Now the state has pretty much given up on that and squeezed teachers so hard that they barely have the time even if they’ve got the education to bring these extra things to kids.

There has to be a bit more to education that being a lawyer, accountant or plumber, but we’ve made our educational system so limited for most kids this situation is built in for them.

"The onus of that is not on a child. There is a societal responsibility to ensure all children have access to culture, and part of access is changing perceptions and removing social barriers. It's not just as simple as having a phone with loads of free information"

As Marx said, every child knows that a social formation which did not reproduce the conditions of production at the same time as it produced would not last a year Marx to Kugelmann, 11 July 1868, Selected Correspondence

And it would be extremely childish, or naive or even damn right outrageously ignorant to ignore the fact that working class children have no time for the culture of the middle class.

Education of the masses has always been about reproduction of labour power. Docile and willing. Except you often find that there are those amongst the working class who rebel, they neither want to be moulded into docile labour or to adopt the interests of middle class. They snigger at clever kids in class. A sort of reverse snobbery. They intuitively know, as Marx asserts, although the second point (Marx often makes two points) is that we must reproduce the social system that makes production possible and that any imbecile should know that.

But to educate children to think critically is not the purpose of education. Never was. And Gove made pretty damn certain that his reforms would put paid to left wing 70s theory, critical thinking and an approach to pedagogy that encouraged curiosity.

Plenty of working class people are very intelligent. And it isn't education they lack either, despite the arguments being made here. It is really much more to do with how we have come to define culture in very narrow terms. "high culture" good, "youth culture" bad and "culture" that arises from below as vulgar, whilst that which is elite and emanating from the "educated classes" virtuous. I love the baroque but I think Oi Pollio has more intellectual capital.

The defunding of the arts in school has been a travesty.

Cost of living has also impacted; I can't afford to take my state school pupils on a coach to the theatre, because the cost of the coach is prohibitive. (Definite advantages to living in London for others)

I also worry about the intellectual abilities of my fellow teachers!

I think large swathes of the UK believe being unintelligent is a good thing.

I'd also like to know where all the philanthropists have gone? We could really do with some...

I think too often the concepts of intelligence and intellectualism are muddled. Intelligence is largely genetic and may be slightly thwarted or enhanced by a person's environment e.g. the bright child unable to excell in a failing school, or an averagely bright child 'lifted' by a supportive, educationally-rich environment.

But intellectualism is a way of thinking: 'the ability to think about or discuss a subject in a detailed and intelligent way, without involving your emotions or feelings' (Cambridge Dictionary)
And I'd argue that an approach to intellectual thought can be taught (although some base level intelligence is needed).

The current education system rewards the regurgitation of facts and 'correct' answers - not the process of analysing and discussing alternatives.
Our social media-rich world is ALL about generating dopamine-fueled emotive reactions, not nuanced debate.

I think it's a real problem, because intellectual thinking is what should drive areas such a policy and diplomacy - analysing all the 'What Ifs?' and alternative outcomes. You only have to look to the US to see where a void of intellectual thought leads...

Well then I think the question answer is yes, there still is, and it is probably much more elite in class structure than it was 30 years ago.

Our media is also very different. 40 years ago there was a lot of harrumphing about Rupert Murdoch and his coarsening on public debate via Sky and his press. Yet social media is Murdoch on steroids. So too is the old media that has to change to compete.

intellectual life does not have to be elitist, but we’ve made it so in the UK

See also how opera is still v popular in Italy in a way it isn't here- though ofc that's partly bc they had the 19th century boom.

Italy also has Roman amphitheatres and reliably hot summer, ideal for open air opera for large audience. The peak of the 19th century boom, with the many operas of Verdi, is interwoven with the unification of Italy. Opera is an intrinsic part of Italy's national identity.