‘Class becomes internalized as an intimate form of subjectivity, experienced as knowledge of always not being “right”.’ Critically discuss this statement.
Class is a complex concept. Experienced and interpreted differently by all, there is much controversy surrounding its exact meaning. Some regard it is a measure of economic capital, defined by earnings, property ownership, investments, savings; some view it as predominantly cultural capital, including non-economic factors such as education and interests, while for others it is a combination of the two. An awareness of the potential distinctions within this term is central in assessing the statement that ‘class…is experienced as knowledge of always not being “right”.’ (Skeggs, 1997: 90) and in discussing this distinction, we can determine whether Skeggs’ assertion that ‘class becomes internalized as an intimate form of subjectivity’ is valid.
While each individual has a unique experience and interpretation of class, generalisations remain, undoubtedly guiding our judgements. In such, it is important to ascertain exactly who defines class, and what is “right”. It could be assumed that class is defined by top-down classification: it is the upper class whose tastes and prejudices define the middle class, whose values and prejudices then define the working class. Surely, however, there is also a case for bottom-up classification, where working class dissatisfaction leads to a desire for a middle class lifestyle, and henceforth a condemnation of their own.
This defined understanding is integral to the internalization of class, the recognition of class within oneself. It is almost impossible to ignore how our habitat and lifestyle relates to class - we know where we have come from, much like the The Class Sketch (The Frost Report: 1996) in which three men have a satirical, tongue-in-cheek discussion about class. In a less humorous context, in Skeggs’ Formations of Class and Gender, Jane speaks of not wanting to embarrass her husband at his work functions (Skeggs: 1997, 77), while Frank Rissarro in Sennett’s The Hidden Injuries of Class states ‘my wife didn’t know that I had no background to speak of, or else she would never have married me’ (Sennett and Cobb: 1972, 20). Both Jane and Frank have a deeply internalized sense of the subjectivity of class – they do not feel ‘right’, and this sense of inadequacy permeates even the most intimate aspects of their lives.
An important element in this ‘knowledge of always not being “right”’ (Skeggs: 1997, 90), is summarised in Durkheim’s The Rules of Sociological Method, where he states that ‘Not conforming to ordinary conventions provokes amusement, shame and embarrassment.’ (Durkheim: 1982, 50) Arguably, it is not only knowledge of ‘always not being “right”’ that is problematic for Jane and Frank, but also an awareness that they are not quite comfortable with what is classed as ‘ordinary convention’. However, it is only ‘ordinary’ because society has deemed it such, a collective opinion, promoted by people such as Frank and Jane, who, in viewing themselves as not being “right”, they encourage this concept of the ‘ordinary’ and what is “right”. Durkheim argues that notions of “rightness” are shaped by the subjectivity of society, and his assertion in The Rules that ‘In a public gathering we can be victims of an illusion which leads us to believe that we have ourselves produced what has been imposed upon us externally.’ (Durkheim: 1982, 53) is most evident here. Class may appear to be intimate and internalized, but Durkheim’s assertion suggests that our internal subjectivity is shaped by society.
This ‘social’ subjectivity corresponds with Spinoza’s comment in Durkheim’s The Division of Labour (Durkheim: 1984, 40) that ‘Things are good because we like them, rather than we like them because they are good’ reinforcing the concept that a certain class, attitude or culture is not in itself ‘bad’, but it is bad because we deem it as such. Indeed, Durkheim argues in The Division of Labour that ‘there exists no moral force superior to that of the collectivity.’ (Durkheim: 1984, 43) Social solidarity exists because a certain number of states of consciousness are common to all members in society, and if we are to use Durkheim’s assertion in The Division of Labour that ‘two consciousnesses exist within us – the one comprises only states that are personal to each one of us (individuals) – the other comprises states common to the whole of society.’ (Durkheim: 1984, 61) we can begin to understand how class becomes internalised as an intimate form of subjectivity. An individual is influenced by the ideas of the collective subjectivity, and internalises them - but, contrary to Durkheim’s thought, they use these ideas with their own experiences.
The psychological impact of the internalisation of class, experienced as knowledge of always not being “right” is evident in Giddens’ Beyond Left and Right, ‘Even by 6/7 children have absorbed the basic values and attitudes of their subculture and are not psychologically geared to take full advantage of changing conditions of increased opportunities that may occur in their lifetime.’ (Giddens: 1994, 148) a sentiment frequently repeated in The Hidden Injuries of Class. There is a conflict in the personalities of men like Frank, where ‘the fear of being found inadequate infects the lives of people who are coping perfectly well from day to day’ (Sennett and Cobb: 1972, 31) something Sennett and Cobb class as ‘a hidden anxiety in the quality of experience.’ (Sennett and Cobb: 1972, 31) In Sennett and Cobb, working class interviewees felt that class and self were joined, and though many see class and self as linked, those of the working class view it as a more dominating factor in their lives. Indeed, often, those who change class feel ambivalent about their successes, and treat it as a sign of vulnerability in themselves – they feel they fit into neither group – they have shunned the class they have left, but are not quite able to fully assimilate themselves into the class they should now be a part of. They feel that they are not “right”.
It is essential that we question exactly how subjective class actually is. As Durkheim states in The Division of Labour and The Rules of Sociological Method, class is internalised, but is it only ‘an intimate form of subjectivity’? Many would say that their awareness of class is intuitive, and to an extent, an understanding of class is shaped by ‘individual’ experiences. However, the influence of societal subjectivity cannot be ignored. As a society, we decide what is “right”, which arguably means how we feel individuals should behave and think. Of course, within societies, there are various sub-groups, that each have varying thoughts on what is “right”, but in general, common notions influence individual ideas and experiences. An individual’s sense of class and “rightness” is, undoubtedly, in part, intimate subjectivity: based on experience, with each person having a slightly different interpretation. However, ultimately, class cannot be a wholly intimate form of subjectivity as it is extremely influenced by society.
The importance of knowledge within an understanding of class is not to be ignored and can be seen in a variety of instances. It is arguably most obvious in the form of knowledge as power, evident in the accounts of Frank Rissarro and James in The Hidden Injustices of Class, in the value that these men put on knowledge. Sennett and Cobb discuss how both have been reared in a class where men have severe limits imposed on their individual freedom to choose, are struggling to establish more freedom in order to gain dignity, men whose struggle, while successful on the surface, is eroding their confidence. They see knowledge through formal education as giving a man the tools for achieving freedom, by permitting him to control situations and by furnishing him with access to a greater set of roles in life. (Sennett and Cobb: 1972, 30). Knowledge gives an individual more power over life prospects, day-to-day activity, and even social interactions, and men such as Frank and James are aware that they their lack of formal knowledge subjects them to a position of disadvantage in society.
In The Hidden Injuries of Class, Sennett and Cobb argue that the word ‘educated’ is what psychologists call a ‘cover term’ (Sennett and Cobb: 1972, 24) standing for a whole range of experiences and feelings that may have little to do with formal schooling and covers the development of capabilities within a human being. They develop this theory, stating that cultured people acquire a certain right to act as judges of others because society has put them in a position to develop their insides, something that is reflected in Rissarro’s insecurities. He feels people of a higher class have a power to judge him because they seem to be more developed human beings and he is afraid that they will not respect him. This fear of not being respected links directly to having confidence in one’s abilities, and believing in your right to be heard, along with an understanding of social situations, is a focus of David Brooks’ The Social Animal, in which he talks of a school in a poor American neighbourhood, called The Academy, where a counter-culture was created for the working class adolescents (Brooks: 2011, 108) - an attainment ethos that is prevalent in most middle and upper class households, and arguably ensures a continuation of the classical class structure.
If ‘class…is experienced as knowledge of always not being “right”’, then it is vital that we question who decides what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Sennett and Cobb suggest in The Hidden Injuries of Class that people might be happier if they don’t try to push themselves (Sennett and Cobb: 1972, 31). Though a valid point, they ignore the fact that it is probably unhappiness with their current status that makes people push themselves. Essentially, it could be questioned whether this notion of being ‘right’ is intertwined with happiness. Some are proud of their working class background and identity. Rather than seeing themselves as ‘not right’, they see the other classes as such, deeming them lazy, immoral, corrupt, greedy and arrogant. Indeed, in the 2013 British Social Attitudes survey, 60% say they are working class, even though since 1983, the proportion in a middle-class job has risen from 47% to 59%. Their income places them as middle class, as what is regarded as ‘right’, but they do not choose to define themselves as such.
Due to the fact that everyone has different experiences from which they can interpret class, it is easy to simply assume that the subjectivity of class is intimate. But, it is important to question how this subjectivity becomes internalised and intimate – it is based on attitudes common to society, which comes from a subjective common conscience. This related back to the statement that ‘Things are good because we like them, we do not like them because they are good’. (Durkheim: 1984, 40) Once the common subjective attitudes about class become internalised, we establish an intimate understanding of what constitutes not being “right” and the knowledge of always not being “right” is now intimate and internal.
A statement such as ‘class becomes internalized as an intimate form of subjectivity, experienced as knowledge of always not being “right”’ is not enough to truly explain the many complexities within class. Indeed, though many live their lives anxious about their perceived class inadequacies, others do not, viewing others as ‘not being “right”’. Arguably, such an individualistic approach contrasts with the Durkheimian concept that there is no human occurrence that is not social, and that the collective conscience dominates all areas of human activity. This awareness of individual attitudes towards ‘rightness’ within class accounts for the thoughts and feelings of individuals, and though not purely intimate, as it is influenced by the subjectivity of society, it is, to some degree at least, personal to the individual. Consequently, ultimately, class always becomes internalized as an intimate form of subjectivity, but it is not necessarily experienced as knowledge of always not being ‘right’.
Bibliography
Giddens, A (1994) Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics (Cambridge: Stanford University Press)
Sennett, R, Cobb, J (1993) The hidden injuries of class (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Skeggs, B (1997) Formations of class and gender: becoming respectable (London: Sage Publications)
Durkheim, É (1982), The Rules of Sociological Method (London: Macmillan)
Durkheim, É (1985) The Division of Labour in Society (Basingstoke: Macmillan),
Brooks, D (2011) The Social Animal (United States: Random House)