Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 26, 2014 18:47:35 GMT
This thought occurred to me as I read the prattish psuedo proletarian protestations of a a self -described 'working class' person on another board
This particular individual soi-disant working class member worked as a design engineer, lives in a house in a very expensive area, occasionally employs a Financial Adviser and owns a boat
At the same time he protested vehemently that the 'Rochester white van man' was not of the working class.
This presumably because the Rochester white man van did not meet the exacting criteria for the dignity of the working class ( as exemplified, presumably, by our prattish psuedo proletarian with a financial adviser)
His condemnation of the vulgarity of the Rochester man (and hence the exclusion of Rochester White van Man from the highly discriminating 'working class' club) was immediately reinforced by what I can only presume is another soi-disant member of the working class, this one having been a Latin teacher
Now I know that 'working class' is an idealised state that not many of the vulgar tattooed classes that drink in the public bar and drive white vans can attain - (they would more readily be acceptable it seems to the so-called 'upper-classes'), and that it is essential (to some) to maintain the pristine purity of the proletariat
But what exactly are the working classes?
Demographic classifications such as these are most unhelpful:
C2 skilled working class skilled manual workers
D working class semi and unskilled manual workers
As neither of the soi-disant above would meet these absurd atavistic inconsequential criteria
How can working class be defined to include C2 and D yet exclude tattoed vulgarians driving white vans and yet include univerity educated professionals that have an emotional attachment to the unsullied condition of working class?
This particular individual soi-disant working class member worked as a design engineer, lives in a house in a very expensive area, occasionally employs a Financial Adviser and owns a boat
At the same time he protested vehemently that the 'Rochester white van man' was not of the working class.
This presumably because the Rochester white man van did not meet the exacting criteria for the dignity of the working class ( as exemplified, presumably, by our prattish psuedo proletarian with a financial adviser)
His condemnation of the vulgarity of the Rochester man (and hence the exclusion of Rochester White van Man from the highly discriminating 'working class' club) was immediately reinforced by what I can only presume is another soi-disant member of the working class, this one having been a Latin teacher
Now I know that 'working class' is an idealised state that not many of the vulgar tattooed classes that drink in the public bar and drive white vans can attain - (they would more readily be acceptable it seems to the so-called 'upper-classes'), and that it is essential (to some) to maintain the pristine purity of the proletariat
But what exactly are the working classes?
Demographic classifications such as these are most unhelpful:
C2 skilled working class skilled manual workers
D working class semi and unskilled manual workers
As neither of the soi-disant above would meet these absurd atavistic inconsequential criteria
How can working class be defined to include C2 and D yet exclude tattoed vulgarians driving white vans and yet include univerity educated professionals that have an emotional attachment to the unsullied condition of working class?