Owell and the class system

[kev67]

In Vol 2 Chap 9, Goldstein's book explains that throughout history there have always been three classes. In 1984 these are the proletariat, the party members and the inner party members. In the English speaking world, they are usually referred to as the upper class, middle class and working class. I am a bit vague who constitutes the upper class. In the UK they included the aristocracy, but I am not sure how far down the social scale they went. Did they include the gentry for instance? Presumably Mr Darcy and Mr Bingham from Pride and Prejudice were upper class despite not having titles. Miss Haversham in Great Expectations must have been close to upper class. Anyway, they were a small but very powerful minority due to their wealth. At the time that Orwell was writing, Britain was very concerned about class. I seem to remember it being said on the TV and radio that Britain was still too class-ridden in the 70s and 80s. This was often contrasted to the US which seemed to be regarded as a classless society. George Orwell described himself as lower-upper-middle class. Orwell confessed his discomfort about mixing with working class people in his non-fiction books. Still, I am not sure whether Orwell was correct in saying society can always grouped into three classes. There were more than three castes in the Indian caste system, for example. In the UK, the middle class seemed to comprise everyone from policemen and shopkeepers to those just below the aristocracy. Working class people seemed to include skilled workers who had traditionally undergone a long apprenticeship, to semi-skilled and unskilled factory workers, farm workers and servants, to the criminal and mostly unemployed underclass. In Great Expectations, Joe was working class even though he'd spent a long apprenticeship learning to be a skilled blacksmith, while his Uncle Pumblechook would have been middle class because he owned a seed shop. Magwitch would be considered working class for most of his life, although in reality he would have been in an under-class. I suppose a defining feature of the middle class is that their jobs involve processing information and therefore require an extensive education. A defining characteristic of the working classes is that their jobs require muscle power or manual skill. These jobs may require training but not so much education.The working class make, move or maintain things, not information.

[Emil Miller]

In Vol 2 Chap 9, Goldstein's book explains that throughout history there have always been three classes. In 1984 these are the proletariat, the party members and the inner party members. In the English speaking world, they are usually referred to as the upper class, middle class and working class. I am a bit vague who constitutes the upper class. In the UK they included the aristocracy, but I am not sure how far down the social scale they went. Did they include the gentry for instance? Presumably Mr Darcy and Mr Bingham from Pride and Prejudice were upper class despite not having titles. Miss Haversham in Great Expectations must have been close to upper class. Anyway, they were a small but very powerful minority due to their wealth. At the time that Orwell was writing, Britain was very concerned about class. I seem to remember it being said on the TV and radio that Britain was still too class-ridden in the 70s and 80s. This was often contrasted to the US which seemed to be regarded as a classless society. George Orwell described himself as lower-upper-middle class. Orwell confessed his discomfort about mixing with working class people in his non-fiction books. Still, I am not sure whether Orwell was correct in saying society can always grouped into three classes. There were more than three castes in the Indian caste system, for example. In the UK, the middle class seemed to comprise everyone from policemen and shopkeepers to those just below the aristocracy. Working class people seemed to include skilled workers who had traditionally undergone a long apprenticeship, to semi-skilled and unskilled factory workers, farm workers and servants, to the criminal and mostly unemployed underclass. In Great Expectations, Joe was working class even though he'd spent a long apprenticeship learning to be a skilled blacksmith, while his Uncle Pumblechook would have been middle class because he owned a seed shop. Magwitch would be considered working class for most of his life, although in reality he would have been in an under-class. I suppose a defining feature of the middle class is that their jobs involve processing information and therefore require an extensive education. A defining characteristic of the working classes is that their jobs require muscle power or manual skill. These jobs may require training but not so much education.The working class make, move or maintain things, not information.

George Orwell was being tongue in cheek when he described his own class but the three class system still exists albeit in a loose form as there are obviously sub-divisions within it. Various attempts have been made to eradicate it, most notably by the Liberal Party's enforcing and increasing death duties at the beginning of the 20th century, and other forms of wealth taxation levied by the Labour party, but class is still relevant even though it operates below the liberal/socialist radar.
One reason for this is that all societies undergo stratification of some kind or another which also applies to non-humans in which a 'pecking order' is a natural function of the group. This may enrage socialists and liberals but the class system has been around since the dawn of civilisation whereas the parties they support are of relatively recent provenance.

[kev67]

I am trying to think of other social systems. Usually there is a ruling elite, who are small in number but own a high proportion of the wealth and are very powerful. These would be Kings, earls, warlords and more recently, wealthy industrialists and financiers. I read a book about the Spartans and Athenians recently. The Spartans had quite a complex governing arrangement, which included two kings and a sort of senate of elders. The majority of Spartan men dedicated themselves to learning warfare, so obviously needed other men to do the actual work. This problem they solved by enslaving a neighbouring city state. Their slaves were known as helots and they appeared to act as squires and light infantry as well as general servants and labourers. Like the Spartans, I learnt from Horrible Histories on children's television, the Vikings had a slave class who they called Thralls. Viking men sailed out to sea to go raping and pillaging, while the Thralls stayed at home to help the Viking women with whatever else needed doing. Fighting, raping and pillaging do not seem very middle-class activities though, and very little to do with information processing. The Romans had their leading families, but also a large slave population. I was under the impression that slaves were foreigners that they'd captured. I suppose any Roman who was not a member of a leading family would equate to the middle class, whatever they did for a living. The Celts presumably had their ruling elite, warriors, farmers, and so on, but they also had their bards and their druids. Both of those roles took many years of learning, so would they be middle class? Would you term a dedicated warrior class, such as knights, Vikings and Spartans as middle class? Would you actually term slaves as working class?

[Emil Miller]

I am trying to think of other social systems. Usually there is a ruling elite, who are small in number but own a high proportion of the wealth and are very powerful. These would be Kings, earls, warlords and more recently, wealthy industrialists and financiers. I read a book about the Spartans and Athenians recently. The Spartans had quite a complex governing arrangement, which included two kings and a sort of senate of elders. The majority of Spartan men dedicated themselves to learning warfare, so obviously needed other men to do the actual work. This problem they solved by enslaving a neighbouring city state. Their slaves were known as helots and they appeared to act as squires and light infantry as well as general servants and labourers. Like the Spartans, I learnt from Horrible Histories on children's television, the Vikings had a slave class who they called Thralls. Viking men sailed out to sea to go raping and pillaging, while the Thralls stayed at home to help the Viking women with whatever else needed doing. Fighting, raping and pillaging do not seem very middle-class activities though, and very little to do with information processing. The Romans had their leading families, but also a large slave population. I was under the impression that slaves were foreigners that they'd captured. I suppose any Roman who was not a member of a leading family would equate to the middle class, whatever they did for a living. The Celts presumably had their ruling elite, warriors, farmers, and so on, but they also had their bards and their druids. Both of those roles took many years of learning, so would they be middle class? Would you term a dedicated warrior class, such as knights, Vikings and Spartans as middle class? Would you actually term slaves as working class?

It isn't easy to extricate the different strands of a society and place them exactly within their respective class. There are many variables but broadly they fall into 1. A ruling elite; 2. The managing class that executes the affairs of the society as prescribed by the elite, be they sacerdotal or secular, and 3. Those who work to support their superiors and themselves, be it on the land or in the production of goods and services beyond that of agriculture.
In the past, slaves were used to fulfil the manual work requirement but even here there were those who acted as task masters and occupied a position that was neither slave nor executive. Similarly, there was a sub-division of workers who were more skilled than the norm who were classed as artisans who were also not a part of the managing class. This pattern of sub-division must have occurred throughout history in societies around the world but the main class structure remained.

[Alexander III]

I am trying to think of other social systems. Usually there is a ruling elite, who are small in number but own a high proportion of the wealth and are very powerful. These would be Kings, earls, warlords and more recently, wealthy industrialists and financiers. I read a book about the Spartans and Athenians recently. The Spartans had quite a complex governing arrangement, which included two kings and a sort of senate of elders. The majority of Spartan men dedicated themselves to learning warfare, so obviously needed other men to do the actual work. This problem they solved by enslaving a neighbouring city state. Their slaves were known as helots and they appeared to act as squires and light infantry as well as general servants and labourers. Like the Spartans, I learnt from Horrible Histories on children's television, the Vikings had a slave class who they called Thralls. Viking men sailed out to sea to go raping and pillaging, while the Thralls stayed at home to help the Viking women with whatever else needed doing. Fighting, raping and pillaging do not seem very middle-class activities though, and very little to do with information processing. The Romans had their leading families, but also a large slave population. I was under the impression that slaves were foreigners that they'd captured. I suppose any Roman who was not a member of a leading family would equate to the middle class, whatever they did for a living. The Celts presumably had their ruling elite, warriors, farmers, and so on, but they also had their bards and their druids. Both of those roles took many years of learning, so would they be middle class? Would you term a dedicated warrior class, such as knights, Vikings and Spartans as middle class? Would you actually term slaves as working class?

But ancient slavery was a really varied and hard to classify thing. You had one one hand the slave sent to work 12 hours a day in a field, the slave who would serve as a house servant, the slave whose job was solely to satisfy the masters sexual appetite (it was common for any noble male or son of a wealthy businessman to have one or more sex slaves, this was done to ensure that these young men with much idle time and money did not deflower girls from good families) often the sex slaves would be kept after marriage and sometimes would be passed down from father to son, the learned slave who would teach the masters children, The gladiatorial slave who could become rich and famous beyond belief - and naturally there were a myriad of owners. There were those who tyrannized their slaves and made them work like beast and there were those who were too kind to their slaves and thus let their slaves slip into idleness and indulgence and cheat and steal from their owner. And offcourse a slave had a fair amount of social mobility, Terence and Trimalchio being slaves, and plenty of famous writers and politicians and business men would boast of their grandfather or father having been a slave, I say boast because it emphasized their genius that they could build everything from nothing.

[kev67]

Apart from upper, middle and working class, another system of categorization is bourgeois, petit-bourgeois and proletarian. I came across a Marxist website that described all these categories, but unfortunately I can't find it now. The bourgeois were the financially powerful, including not only aristocracy but factory owners and financiers. The proletariat were people who sold their labour for money. The petit-bourgeois were interesting because they shared some interests with both the other groups. They were small business owners. They generally lived and worked among the proletariat, but because they had businesses to run and often employees to manage, they sympathised with some of the policies of the bourgeoisie, especially those that helped maximize their income, possibly at the expense of their employees. Apart from small business owners, managers and foremen were considered petit-bourgeois because they worked on the behalf of their bosses to control their workers.

That was quite interesting to me. I have always considered myself middle class because my parents were middle class, I worked in an office and I was interested in learning. However, I was never a manager and always sold my labour for money. That means I am a prole. One of my best friends used to work as a salesman for hi-tech company. He was made redundant, and eventually started up his own business as a pest controller. I thought sociologically speaking he had gone down in the world, but I suppose he is now petit-bourgeois.

[Emil Miller]

Apart from upper, middle and working class, another system of categorization is bourgeois, petit-bourgeois and proletarian. I came across a Marxist website that described all these categories, but unfortunately I can't find it now. The bourgeois were the financially powerful, including not only aristocracy but factory owners and financiers. The proletariat were people who sold their labour for money. The petit-bourgeois were interesting because they shared some interests with both the other groups. They were small business owners. They generally lived and worked among the proletariat, but because they had businesses to run and often employees to manage, they sympathised with some of the policies of the bourgeoisie, especially those that helped maximize their income, possibly at the expense of their employees. Apart from small business owners, managers and foremen were considered petit-bourgeois because they worked on the behalf of their bosses to control their workers.

That was quite interesting to me. I have always considered myself middle class because my parents were middle class, I worked in an office and I was interested in learning. However, I was never a manager and always sold my labour for money. That means I am a prole. One of my best friends used to work as a salesman for hi-tech company. He was made redundant, and eventually started up his own business as a pest controller. I thought sociologically speaking he had gone down in the world, but I suppose he is now petit-bourgeois.

The bourgeoisie referred to the middle classes, upper and lower, it did not include the aristocracy, who represented the top stratum of society. Ironically, even the aristocracy were divided into upper and lower strata in 17th century France. A small business man would be classed as lower middle class in England but whether he was referred to as bourgeois or petit-bourgeois would be according to how successful his business was. The German word for bourgeois is burgher but Adolph Hitler's father, who was a customs officer, would not be considered as member of that class and so Hitler was lower middle class by definition.

[kev67]

One thing I wonder about 1984's division of society into proles, party members and inner party members is whether there is any social mobility. Are the members of each class born into their class or are they selected on merit? There did not seem to be much social mobility, but the proles often seemed to be rather stupid, while Mr Charrington and O'Brien were both very intelligent. It could be that intelligent candidates are selected for the party at a young age, while particularly gifted children are groomed for the inner party. However, it is difficult to imagine inner party members allowing their children to slip into another class. No doubt inner party members could provide much better education for their children; pull a few strings, or call in some favours to make sure their children stayed in the inner party.

[Emil Miller]

One thing I wonder about 1984's division of society into proles, party members and inner party members is whether there is any social mobility. Are the members of each class born into their class or are they selected on merit? There did not seem to be much social mobility, but the proles often seemed to be rather stupid, while Mr Charrington and O'Brien were both very intelligent. It could be that intelligent candidates are selected for the party at a young age, while particularly gifted children are groomed for the inner party. However, it is difficult to imagine inner party members allowing their children to slip into another class. No doubt inner party members could provide much better education for their children; pull a few strings, or call in some favours to make sure their children stayed in the inner party.

I don't think Orwell was concerned to portray the inner workings of his 1984 society; his major concern was to warn of the danger inherent in left-wing socialism which could pave the way for a communist takeover. 1984 isn't a novel of ideas like Brave New World or The Shape of Things to Come but a stark reminder that although the USSR had been largely instrumental in defeating Germany, its intentions were not as altruistic as some on the left of Britain's Labour party imagined. What makes Orwell a great writer is not the quality of his writing but the massive counterweight that it made to the communist threat to the UK and elsewhere.