BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

'Pikey' 'Council' 'townie' - derogatory class rhetoric

  
  

Page: 1(2)3456

 
 
.
11:54 / 18.02.03
Flyboy, you've confused me too now. Let's see what I can do.

You were initially arguing that "townie" had nothing to do with class, but referred to a certain 'demographic',

True.

the members of which could be identified by signifiers such as clothing and accent. Now you are saying that these are not in fact reliable signifiers.

OK, my fault here. First I said that they were "Rather good" signifiers, later I said they were "Inaccurate" signifiers. I think the best way to express the sentiment I was looking for was "inaccurate, but more reliable than not". In other words, I accept that it's a flawed system, and I wouldn't base an ideology on it, but it does come in useful in everyday life.

So... are you just here to tell us that you don't like people with bad attitudes, whoever they may be - in which case I retract the "bigot" comment, but what has your admirable dislike for bad people in general, whatever their class or subculture, got to do with this thread?

That, as stated originally, certain sub-cultures are (replacing "rather good" here) inaccurate but more reliable than not indicators of a certain (bad) attitudes.

Or is your point that the phrase "townie" not only has nothing to do with class, but also has nothing to do with the subculture you tried to identify earlier, and in fact is used mostly to refer to people with a bad attitude?

"Townie" as a word has nothing to do with class. It does have a relationship with a subculture, which in turn has a relationship with a certain attitude. I have problems with this attitude. While the relationships between the word, the signifiers, the subculture, and the attitude may be arbitrary, and are probably not causal, there is a corelation. Hence I would argue that signifiers of a certain subculture are, in the right circumstances (given my original example of the dangerous environment around closing time in a pub) enough to make necessary snap judgements (ie. avoiding these people lessens my chance of being in a fight).

My fault for not making my line of thinking explicit earlier and playing up the controversy a bit. ii.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:25 / 18.02.03
You know, I'm just the same with hip hop logos, sportswear, and black curly hair.

What? No. Don't be so rude.
 
 
Hattie's Kitchen
12:28 / 18.02.03
Risking more threadrot, but I couldn't let this slip by...

creation: I live in an area which is predominantly classed as working class. I think that clasism works both ways. I think that the working class can make prejudicial statements agaisnt those with a better social standing than themselves.

Well, obviously so, but it's not surprising they should do so when someone who so obviously isn't working class (i.e. you) comes out with statements such as "The academia is the most lacking in the w/c group, non of them did any reading of any sort after school, when i vistied their houses, many hours were spent playing on games or watching cartoons on televison."

Hardly representative, surely? Are you suggesting middle class kids don't play computer games or watch cartoons? I come from a working class background, my father is a "digger", an occupation which you seem to find very amusing...he is a bright man, and had he had the same resources that you had, no doubt he could have taken his pick from the options such access could have afforded...but he didn't, and besides he's happy being a "digger"...frankly it's insulting to suggest that our lack of wealth corresponds to lack of intellect or self-improvement (whatever the hell that is...)

This brings to mind that quote from a Conservative education minister, when asked about the introduction of the national curriculum: "How will the working class children cope with all that extra homework, with their fathers coming in drunk and spilling beer over it?"... I kid you not.
 
 
creation
12:32 / 18.02.03
Flyboy:

I am not saying that the 'highbrow' culture dont participate in consumption, as they most definately do. And as someone said there are the ignorant class in that catogry to, giving readership to the mail etc. Culture is defined by the people who create it. But can we really call modern media as 'cultural'? most of the programmes are rehashed ideas, which seem to vary on one level or another. It is my personal aesthetic regarding my feelings toward such programmes. But what can be learned or gained from reality TV? Can you really call it entertainment? I am not such an argument belongs here. But too stay within the 'abstract' of this topic. I would say that it isn't the programmes that are the issue its the concepts of the programmes. For example big-brother, What is it really doing? you are litteraly watching someone elses lives. The same with all soaps they are only forms of escapism, and dont provide the vices for personal thought, and makes the potential watcher feel better for themselves at the misery they see on TV, from incest to rape its all on soaps.

I am not binding this argument to just this era, but i am asking for an alternative.

And to your state ment of questionning whether there is a class conflict, yes ofcourse, both sides don not share similar values. As mentioned in my earlier post. The needs and attainment are set forth by real time evidence, most of the working class children see footballers and pop-stars, as their role models. But non of 'them' want a career in which to study hard for or work hard for. This is a massive generalisation, but is based on the friends i have. Most of them want to be like eminem or beckham. The values shared are completely disporportional, you ask an educated person about war and they will give you a more 'elaborated' answer with abstract logic, compared to a uneducated person who is likely to recite what he/she saw on television.

Maybe the question of class should be based on the educated and the uneducated. Education is the freeing of the mind. I know from studies working class children seem to break off after 16 and work. This would mean that they are missing a very large chunk of education. The school system doesn't really allow area for personal thought, only university/college can really open a child's mind. I know many educated people who are very 'unaware' so i cannot say this applies to everyone.

Classism will always exist, those with gained experience from either side will critique the other. IMO.

/CR
 
 
creation
12:45 / 18.02.03
frankly it's insulting to suggest that our lack of wealth corresponds to lack of intellect or self-improvement

RE:

No lack of money is not an 'excuse' per se, But the environment of a child is. Where there is no intellectual stimulation i.e reading, discussions etc, you are in a disadvantaged situation already, so to break free from this you have to try harder than the individual who has these tool to hand.

Money is not an exuse in my case, I as a student work and study on my own, not living with my parents. But i am working of my own & studying. Aspirations which were grounded through the stimulation I recieved.

Are you suggesting middle class kids don't play computer games or watch cartoons

RE:

Yes they do. But they also potentially have access to more material to gain knwoledge from their counterparts.

My statement of working class children (of who I know) dont want to suceed. Is through responses i have heard from them. Most of them feel repressed. They fulfil the prophecies set by their teachers and parents. Teachers constantly quashing any agrument they putforwas breaks any need to rebel.

PS: And yes looking back at what i said about the digger thing, makes me blush.. that was a very ignorant statement to make.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:53 / 18.02.03
Now its my turn to be a little spiky.

creation: As flyboy has said, you seem to be giving your personal tastes some kind of moral imperative. Why does Big Brother have to have a purpose? And how do you go from a judgement of a particular show, or a selection of shows, to a simplistically broad judgement on the state of the intellectual life of the working class. Its absurd.

Next you seem to be saying that the working class ("them") lack ambition, are lazy, uneducated and possible stupid. *Deep breath*

I think a case might be made for some cultural trends in the working class toward disillusionment with following certain stable, financially rewarding career paths. Maybe. As a gross generalisation. And perhaps there one could also see anti-intellectualism. Perhaps. But again, this would be crude in the extreme.

I could point out the many occassions where this fails and where your analysis is really little more than snobbery. I could also point to the fact that class (or at least wealth) has an enormous impact on the potential success of pursuing a middle class life. But mostly I'd like to point out that some of the people here may be working class, or have working class backgrounds. Some may run completely against the stereotype you paint. If only to avoid looking foolish, a little sensitivity here wouldn't go amiss.
 
 
Sax
12:58 / 18.02.03
The needs and attainment are set forth by real time evidence, most of the working class children see footballers and pop-stars, as their role models. But non of 'them' want a career in which to study hard for or work hard for.

Which is why Haus's plumber gets paid twice as much as he does, because Middle Englanders are obsessed by going into academia and studying to be poncey fucking journalists or artists or "something in the media" instead of getting their hands dirty, which is evidently your chosen career path for "working class children" who shouldn't be having dreams of being handsomely paid pop-stars or footballers.

Um, haven't the working classes largely been responsible for providing the main source of talent for football and pop music?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:11 / 18.02.03
you ask an educated person about war and they will give you a more 'elaborated' answer with abstract logic, compared to a uneducated person who is likely to recite what he/she saw on television.

What utter tosh. I barely know where to start here - so the 'educated' per classes read their broadsheet papers and enjoy the TV news with alert, questioning minds; whilst the 'uneducated' classes mindlessly parrot back what they read and hear? You don't think that formal or higher education ever contains forms of indoctrination or propaganda, for one thing, or that the academic success that might lead one to pursue higher education could ever be the result of being willing to accept what, say, your teachers tell you, and not question it (what Chomsky calls "selection for obedience")? Or that the educated classes may find it very conveniant to accept certain assumptions peddled to them by the media they themselves create - eg, that less privileged people are ignorant, mindless sheep, a line you yourself seem to have bought wholesale?

I'm not even going to bother dignifying the "un-educated people grow up wanting to be Eminem or Beckham" with a response, beyond that of a sneered "yeah, 'educated' people grow up wanting to be individuals, or else aspire to be like really good role models..."
 
 
creation
13:16 / 18.02.03
simplistically broad judgement on the state of the intellectual life of the working class. Its absurd.

RE:
I did state I was refferring to those who i knew I never wanted my agrument to stretch further than what I stated, as many of the middle class individuals of today were indeed working class in the past. I am sure that my argument has been taken out of context in that manner.

uneducated and possible stupid

RE: Again I did state that one can be educated and still be ignorant. I dont recall me calling anyone stupid.

anti-intellectualism

RE: Yes this was the premis of my argument, with those who I knew. The latent intellectuality of those who I know around me are extremely high, but its using that intelligence for their own good which is lacking. This is due to the circumstances in their lives which have led them away from excercising the mind and capacity they have.

Some may run completely against the stereotype you paint

RE: I never intended this to be an offensive or umbrella of all working class. Thus me mentioning 'my friends'.

Um, haven't the working classes largely been responsible for providing the main source of talent for football and pop music

Thus my statement of proven career. As most surgeons barristers etc are made up mainly of m/c individuals.

/CR
 
 
Sax
13:24 / 18.02.03
I should think there are just as many middle class kids who want to be pop stars or footballers as working class kids. It's nice to see career aspirations working "downwards", then, for a change.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:26 / 18.02.03
that was a very ignorant statement to make

The first of many, it would appear. As Lurid has already suggested, perhaps it would be an idea to post with a little more sensitivity in future. I doubt I am the only person who finds your sweeping, ill-informed generalisations and simple-minded condescension grossly offensive.
 
 
creation
13:28 / 18.02.03
less privileged people are ignorant, mindless sheep,

Not all are, again I was reffering to my experience. 3-4Million people voted for popstars / pop-idol is that not mindless conformity? I know that m/c voters make up that number too, so thats why i mentioned the ingnorant daily mail crowd.

Education is doctrination? o.O

Of course it is, you are learning the logic of thought, you are assimilating someone elses patern of thought, but you, yourself use such logic to think by your self. This pragmatism comes through experiencing the logic in the first place, otherwise how do you expect to think in an abstract sense? If i bought into mindless programming i would be reciting functionalist theories lefy right and centre. But pure structuralism cant explain the interactions which lead to causality. But would you agree state policy and doctrination of roles and 'fake' meritocracy are responsible for creating the personal choices made.

Factoring that the education system is constructed by the m/c for the middleclass, and to expect the majority of m/c children to suceed is a heinous oversight?
 
 
Ganesh
13:35 / 18.02.03
Is it possible to dissect out the 'reality television is mindless' strand from this rather vexed thread? It doesn't appear particularly relevant to the issue of class...
 
 
creation
13:36 / 18.02.03
would be an idea to post with a little more sensitivity in future. I doubt I am the only person who finds your sweeping, ill-informed generalisations and simple-minded condescension grossly offensive

Maybe i should have put 'This is very generalised statement' after each point i made

I am new to this board and did not know the mood or setting before i dived in. It has become clear now, that i should srcrutinise my posts more carefully. But all of the counter arguments set forth have been nothing short of 'condecendence' No explanation thus far points to any counter studies or theories to make your argument more valid than mine. I have said on all ocassions, I base my understanding on all of those who I knew. You saying that I am generalising all of the peole who I making these arguments against/for is grossly unfair. Such conclusions have come from your selves and not me. The only flawed assumption I admit to was the whole 'digger' thing, though I did explain it to be a deviation of what 'I' thought to be a worthful life.

/CR
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:04 / 18.02.03
Well, you could have applied a bit of abstract reasoning, Creation. Otherwise we're just hearing about your mates, which is all very nice but not very relevant.
 
 
Sax
14:10 / 18.02.03
I agree with Ganesh that someone should start a new reality TV thread, if that's what people want to talk about. There are too many strands which are fogging the original debate and my poor working class non-university educated brain am beginning to hurt. I expect it to be back on track by the time I've watched the Salon, and perhaps also Hollyoaks.
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:13 / 18.02.03
We should probably do as Ganesh suggests, but...

creation: You are now making a poor defence of a rather inflammatory statement. First, you can't really hide behind the fact that you were referring to your "friends". They were, after all, working class friends, rather than any other sort. To pretend that your description of their class was unrelated to a more general point you were making is unconvincing to say the least.

Second, the broad generalisation you have made cannot really be defended by pointing to the lack of evidence to the contrary. Facile generalisations are not justified by a lack of disproof, since the former is much easier than the latter.

Logic and abstract reasoning. *sigh*
 
 
Sax
14:36 / 18.02.03
Sax: Um, haven't the working classes largely been responsible for providing the main source of talent for football and pop music

Creation: Thus my statement of proven career. As most surgeons barristers etc are made up mainly of m/c individuals.

But your intimation is that football and pop are somehow less valid careers, and you poo-poo the fact that the working classes aspire to such levels. And of those surgeons and barristers, is it possible that some of the might have had working class upbringings but by virtue of their wages and aspirational desires are now middle class through the route of their careers? And before you bring your mates into this, let me go first: I know at least one barrister who had a working class upbringing. Perhaps wigs and gowns are the new baseball caps and adidas tracky tops?
 
 
creation
14:44 / 18.02.03
Damn.. I have managed to turn everyone against me in my first few posts..

I am sorry to have disrupted your clique. But my conclusions wil remain the same. I am not hiding behind, those who I mentioned, as I say I drew, MY conclusion from the people I knew, It is impossible for me to go around to every person in the world and ask for an explanation of their lives.

If you cannot provide a valid argument, which can't be substantiated then isn't it hippocritical to disclaim mine? My claims have proof, such as the Bullock* report, and theorists such as Bernstein*, your counter to that may be Labovs argument, that children from lower class can display abstract reasoning through restricted code. Backing arguments is needed IMO. And for reasons why L/C children dont do well, you could have given me a theorist like Paul Willis*. I apreciate and value your opinions, but i cannot see how you arrived to that conclusion, whereas if you name a Theory or Study, which reveals your premis for agrument then i can make claims for/against your self.

Paul Willis:- 1977
Bernstien:- 1961/1970/1972

And for statistics regarding attainment in education and then toward employment refer to M.Thomas et al 1998 from the general household survey for national statistics.


/CR
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:52 / 18.02.03
I am sorry to have disrupted your clique.

*sigh*

Not again...

What was the point of joining a discussion board, if you can't handle people disagreeing with you without accusing them of being a 'clique'?
 
 
creation
15:03 / 18.02.03
I havent left have I

It seems like that though, when agressive statements such as 'simple minded' are used to describe my posts. And after that everyone takes a 'pop', all the while providing no clear definition of the argument you refute to be unsound and incoherant.

I have never made personal attacks against the state of your mind(s) but you have mine. This is is why I felt cornered. If there were clear arguments with refrence to the causation of your thought, i would have felt less threatened. I never intended my statements to be inflamotry, if they were I apologise sincerely.


/CR
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:06 / 18.02.03
Being a bit dim is not an offence. However, rudeness to the point of threadrot is not acceptable. If people disagree with you, Creation, kindly pause before accusing them of being a clique, rather than simply people who disagree with you.

Also, be so good as not to accuse others of hypocrisy at the very least until you are familiar enough with the concept to be able to spell it. It's tiresome and tends to threadrot.

Now, might I suggest that we start again, working if you wish from studies or theories rather than your understanding of your friends? And note, working from, not merely citing. Throwing names at people is not "abstract reasoning", it's parroting.

So, let's retrench and reexamine, with one contention examined in a little more detail as opposed to the current ramble. How about we start at:

Of course it is, you are learning the logic of thought, you are assimilating someone elses patern of thought, but you, yourself use such logic to think by your self. This pragmatism comes through experiencing the logic in the first place, otherwise how do you expect to think in an abstract sense?

Now, as far as I can tell this seems to be arguing that the more one learns, the more able and the more likely one is to exercise independent or "abstract" thought. And by "learn" we mean reading things, and more precisely reading things identified as "educational" or possibly "academic". Or, to put it another way, reading Marx or Berger is more likely to foster independent thought than reading The Sun. Watching Late Review is mor elikely to foster independent thought than watching Pop Idol, and listening to Radio 3 is not just a signifier of "intelligence", it actually makes you more intelligent than listening to Capital FM.

That strikes me as a fairly fundamnetal stratification of media, where those things most enjoyed by a minority are identified also as the most beneficial to the individual. That is, these media exist not only to satisfy the appetites of the more profitable members of our society, but also to create these more profitable members. Yes?

Now, these media, and the "non-intellectualising" media are produced, by interests existing within society. Why? What are they aiming to do with the creation of these products? Why are they apparently creating comparatively few "intellectualising" products, and whose interests are being served by this? cui bono?
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:13 / 18.02.03
Creation: People have not "turned against" you, but disagreed. Also, while you are now claiming some basis in studies for your argument, it didn't seem like that was the thrust of your argument. Unfortunately, I don't know the studies you refer to - perhaps someone else can say something? - but these sorts of areas are notoriously problematic in their confusion between inherent characteristics and societal structures.

I'd be very surprised if you managed to show any innate difference between the reasoning skills of different people based on class, race, religion or whatever. So what you are saying is that the lower classes are less educated or less trained in certain abstract skills than the middle classes.

No real argument there. Education is notoriously class biased (one might argue wealth biased, but I'll confuse that issue for now). IIRC, university entrance statistics tend to show that lower class entrants with the same school quals have a harder time finding places. Moreover, their school quals tend to underestimate their performance at uni (in the UK). Structural properties of the education system favour those with some money to bolster school resources, avoid "bad" schools and afford uni loans. In the states this is all much worse. Plus, I think there is some evidence of class discrimination in getting jobs.

All of which is to say that pointing to educational underperformance or poorer reasoning skills may not really support your argument. If one group of people is just as bright and just as able as another, yet is regularly discriminated against, then blaming this group comes pretty close to bigotry. It just sounds like the self serving argument of privilege to me.
 
 
creation
15:19 / 18.02.03
Oh dear..

I was not trying exhibit an abstract rationale by citing the studies I did. I was woking on the assumption that people would be intrested enough to look into them, as a breif summary of the theories would take ME 2000 words or more to explain.

Anyhoo to that matter at hand.


Now, these media, and the "non-intellectualising" media are produced, by interests existing within society. Why? What are they aiming to do with the creation of these products? Why are they apparently creating comparatively few "intellectualising" products, and whose interests are being served by this. cui bono?

This creates a culture out of culture no? The world of the celebrity causes there non-intellectualising medium to replicate in the form of clebrity journalism. Another vice media capitalising on the 'weakness' of the mind? The advertising in between these shows on television and the advertising in these press, which are bought surely have takers of such products, who would consume them, as they see a celbrity wearinh, eating, drinking it? So does clebrity media have hegomony over its readers interms of consummerism?
 
 
creation
15:26 / 18.02.03
Lurid thank you.. That was the most welcoming reply I have read thus far.

Here are some links concerning the argument that w/c children can display abstract logic:-

http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/~ttrippel/labov/

This is a linguistic argument against theories set-forth by Bernstein who suggested that Working class people use restricted code, which restricts them from thinking and writing in an abstract sense, their implied language was the restricting factor, where as M/c children are akin with elaborate code, which could be more useful in attainment in education here is the link:-

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/ccs/dowling/kings1999/
 
 
No star here laces
15:34 / 18.02.03
Working class people use restricted code, which restricts them from thinking and writing in an abstract sense, their implied language was the restricting factor, where as M/c children are akin with elaborate code, which could be more useful in attainment in education

Or, conversely -

"Middle class people communicate using abstract reasoning and communal chunks of accepted logical truth whereas working class people primarily use emotional expression of restricted code. This means m/c children are impaired at forming truly intimate relationships and are thus improperly socialised."

i.e. - what's better? True, integrated communities or an ability to manipulate abstract concepts and get jobs in the city.

I feel a new thread coming on.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:55 / 18.02.03
This creates a culture out of culture no? The world of the celebrity causes there non-intellectualising medium to replicate in the form of clebrity journalism. Another vice media capitalising on the 'weakness' of the mind? The advertising in between these shows on television and the advertising in these press, which are bought surely have takers of such products, who would consume them, as they see a celbrity wearinh, eating, drinking it? So does clebrity media have hegomony over its readers interms of consummerism?

I'm afraid there are bits of that I don't understand, but again as far as I can tell you are suggesting that the lower classes are driven by the sight of celebrities in the media doing certain things to do those things also, and thus presumably that the function of these media is to compel the lower classes to consume the items depicted.

Now, problem with that is that the lower classes (not, again, the working classes - the "piky", "council" etc subject matter is singling out people who are working-class or unemployed and have low incomes, AFAICT) tend to be a sucky demographic. So, for example, there is not much point selling handmade suits or organic aubergines to the lower classes, because they won't be able to afford them. So, sell them to thems as can afford them, right? Except by the logic operating here the "intellectualising/intellectual" media are being consumed by people too clever to be compelled imitatively to consume...

So what's the upshot? Are we forced to suggest that in fact the same processes are occuring across both these hypothetical media divisions, and that the pikeys and the clever people are actually uising similar sets of codes, just in different ways?
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:39 / 18.02.03
This is a linguistic argument against theories set-forth by Bernstein who suggested that Working class people use restricted code, which restricts them from thinking and writing in an abstract sense, their implied language was the restricting factor, where as M/c children are akin with elaborate code, which could be more useful in attainment in education

An obituary here briefly outlines the theory. I note that creation's link provides some argument as to the empirical basis of the theory. What is also quite interesting is that Bernstein's theory is supposed to explain differences in language skills. The evidence seems to suggest that when it comes to mathematical reasoning, there is a much more level playing field.

Doesn't that rather undermine the point that the lower class are somehow disadvantaged with regards to abstract reasoning and logic? In fact, if the Guardian article is to be believed, its not clear that Bernstein's work really supports creation's point at all.

I'm also reminded of old fashioned arguments about language where it was claimed that northern european languages were masculine as opposed to feminine which obviously explained the success of empire.
 
 
creation
17:11 / 18.02.03
But I was led to believe that Mathematical and Abstract logic are completely different forms of thinking.

I.E Arts - Abstract Logic
Sciences - Mathematical Logic
 
 
Char Aina
17:28 / 18.02.03
damn, i got here late.
apologies if this just gets in your way.


259 [iivix] - you are a fucking bigot

Strong words indeed!

If loathing a certain demographic who demonstrate all the signs of glorifying stupidity and making a virtue out of bitterness (after all, The Sun has a lot of readers no?) makes me a bigot, then so be it.


from that i would extract

If loathing a certain demographic... ....makes me a bigot, then so be it.

is that not a fairly accurate description of a bigot?


anyways.



i have a friend, called nick. he, like me, thinks the misfits are great, loves to drink till he falls over, and pops the odd pharmaceutical down his all-too-handsome-to-be-so-punk neck. he also shares my political beliefs as close as is possible in two people.

he decided, when going to raves a few years ago, back when they were populated by 'ravers', to dress the part occasionally. he bought a Kappa tracksuit, and he wore it with a misfits tshirt. sometimes.

when he was out dressed more 'bam' than 'punk', he would get no end of shit from the 'better' people who couldnt see past his outfit. when he went wearing more punk stuff than sports casual, he was accepted by almost every bam in the place.

i never heard or saw nick trying to plan his outfit along those lines, but it did happen that way.


i wonder where this myth that they are all out to rob you and possibly knife you comes from. possibly from the many youths dressed in tracksuits who commit crime. it is a ridiculous application of logic, or even the apllication of ridiculous logic, to assume that these people all commit crimes.



i would also like to add that i as a kid always used the scottish expression bam, or ned. in edinburgh, it seems that more people if not all people use 'schemie'. i have a problem with the word schemie to the extent of not using it, because to me 'ned' was an attitude, defined much like terrorist; after you have done something fitting of an arsehole. 'schemie' seems like a social position, and descriptive of where you are from.
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:00 / 18.02.03
But I was led to believe that Mathematical and Abstract logic are completely different forms of thinking.

I.E Arts - Abstract Logic
Sciences - Mathematical Logic - creation

I'm trying to think of a way to justify the above statement, but I'm not having much luck. One might argue that the arts are broadly concerned with reason as applied to humanity. But its too restrictive really and suggests something like applied reason - logic isn't really a good description. The sciences certainly employ mathematics, but I'm not sure they are characterised by mathematical thinking. Its more inductive creation of hypotheses tested empirically (in a math model). You can call this math reasoning if you want, but then you have to invent a new word for what mathematicians do.

Abstract logic, or at least formal logic, is mathematics to a large extent. Your division is neither clear nor widespread.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
09:35 / 19.02.03
In Newcastle, we have the term 'charver' - I have no idea what this actually means or what the hell it's derived from, but it's a word that you could apply to dodgy bastards who might want to thieve your telly or mug your uncle.

Whilst it's obviously connected to the above terms 'pikey' , 'council' , 'townie' , etc.. it functions slightly differently from them. It doesn't seem to carry the same connotations of class derision, as it's often used by people from the same class demograph. You would use the term to describe someone who you think is a scummy little wanker, but the class thing doesn't really come into it in the same way, as in all likelihood the 'charver' in question could be from a similar social and economic background to yourself. It's not a middle class / working class thing, it's more a working class / thieving bastard thing.

Obviously it gets used a lot as an insult if you want to accuse people of having certain 'charver' qualities, but the vague abstract nature of the term seems to give it less baggage than something like 'pikey'. The word 'charver' is in common usage in the North East, but I've never actually met anyone who knows what it means technically or where exactly it derives from. The word 'pikey' is a derogatory term for an Irish traveller, 'Council' presumably refers to someone who lives on a council estate, and 'Townie' is frequently used by students to describe non-students who live in the same town as them, and who are imagined to have certain working class characteristics. 'Charver' on the other hand seems to specifically mean something like 'scummy little fucker'. *

I find the whole working class/middle class thing weird anyway, and would tentatively venture that it might be a very middle class thing to be thinking/arguing about in the first place. I'm from a working class background, but went to university and now do editorial work in London. So should I now inherit some weird kind of middle class guilt about it? You can't just generalise people into working class and middle class boxes, as the lines between the two are so blurred that loads of people seem to inhabit both categories, dependent on what you're basing your judgements on. A person's occupation? their parents' occupation? intelligence? dress sense? motivation? imagination? viewing habits? How can you categorise someone so definitively.

* I should put a disclaimer here, as someone is probably going to come along and inform me that 'charver' was originally a very offensive term used to describe , but to be honest I'd be so happy to have solved the mystery of where it comes from that I wouldn't mind having my argument trashed.
 
 
Char Aina
15:14 / 19.02.03
i think ned is similar; it comes from the name for teddy boys, the thugs of the razor gangs era. as you say, the word ois more a description of an idiot/arsehole who will tap cigaretttes of strangers, try to nick your wallet and shout at you abnd your girlfriend when there are more than five of them.

bam i have no idea about; it is used similarly, but its etemology is a mystery.
 
 
_pin
18:58 / 19.02.03
So about Bernstein: I'm pretty sure I'm using both my Psychology and English Language learning in the correct when i say that his theory is, erm... total bollocks, essentially.

See, there is evidence to back up his assertion that working class people use a more restricted code when talking to each other (to be exact: motehrs talking to their four year old children) but... that's it. Who fucking cares. The problem with his theory is ONE: he believes people who sue restricted codes can't use elaborated codes, but people who use elaborated codes can use restricted codes and TWO: his prescriptive linguistic theory, which haven't been conidered "valid" for years.

The point about the codes is that people can use any code they like, it is simply a matter of practise. In much the same way as people caliming working class people lack the most ocmplex cognitive functions- that's wrong too. Plumbers probablly employ hypothetico-deductive reasoning all the time, and the Queen doesn't. but this could easily be revered if the plumber got laid off, his wife left him, he got depressed and turned to drink, thus ceaseing to praqctise and maintain the cognitive functions, while the Queen actually did something with her life and learnt these things. It is not a matter of wether they do it, but wether they have the oppotunity to.

And now to the words... I'm amazed these words made it out of secondary school. I gave up using "townie" (the only word I ever did use) during my GCSE's, and the only people I ever really thought it applied to were the ones on heroin who used to be me up and still spit at me from outside McDonalds. And I know for a fact that atleast five of the people came from middle class backgrounds. Really, the people involved were just wankers.

And to be honest, I'd never even considered the class aspects of it, as I was much to busy being spat at.

All that said, I'm repulsed by the idea that these terms are being used. At all. Particularly disturbing was the sheer ammount of shit Jade from Big Borther got hit with last year. And yes, I'm sure there is a certain degree oflisence that the people using these words feel they have been granted, because we are constantly told how we live in a meritocracy, and these people haven't made it (but The Beatles did, and they're working class... ), so there must be something wrong with them. Which seems to just fuck the whole idea of a meritocracy out of shape, frankly.
 
 
grant
20:11 / 19.02.03
The point about the codes is that people can use any code they like, it is simply a matter of practise.

I'm not sure I buy this. I mean, I do to an extent, but I think "practice" isn't entirely the same thing as "learning a new language," which seems to be closer to what would be necessary.

Wouldn't derogatory terms like the ones mentioned in this thread be pretty sure-fire indicators of tribal boundaries? And wouldn't those tribal boundaries bring with them differences in language/coding/worldview? And if we're talking about subcultures within a single dominant culture, then wouldn't those divisions be less visible - and thus harder to confront?

As a note (not sure how relevant this is), in my experience, "townie" is a slang term used exclusively on college campuses to refer to people living in college towns but not attending the school. At my (rather small) alma mater, you could always spot townies at a party. They'd be slightly rowdy, drink in front of the cops, and would hit up tripping people for drugs. In other words, they'd be violating unwritten rules that we on the inside all knew about, but they had no way of knowing. (Ah, perhaps relevant after all!)
 
  

Page: 1(2)3456

 
  
Add Your Reply