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 >

Class

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
The Planet of Sound
13:38 / 11.01.02
The final moments of last chapter:

"Now, this could be interesting. If we're going to talk about 'class' at all, and you were the one to use the terms 'working class people', Flyboy, what's the problem with the acknowledgment that a 'criminal underclass' exists? Yes, these terms are arbritrary, dismissive, even disrespectful examples of stereotyping. All examples of socio-economic grouping, marketing 'demographics' are: is anyone purely a 'yuppie'? Is anyone purely a 'dinky' (double income no kids yet)? Is anyone purely 'working class', or 'upper class'? Let's start a new thread, and wrassle it out. "

Chapter 53: the heated discussion

Are the terms 'Upper- Class', 'Middle -Class'', 'Working - Class'', 'Criminal Underclass' derogatory?

Should we use socio-economic groupings at all?

Have you ever had your car stolen?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:42 / 11.01.02
The terms are potentialy offensive.

The socio-economic terms dictate a particular demographic. These are demographics that will always be refered to regardless of the term used. It kind of comes down to a PC bitch out on inflectives.

No, but then again, I've never had a car.

[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Wisdom of idiots/potus ]
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:57 / 11.01.02
shove me into whichever category makes you feel more organized, I honestly cant be bothered to give a flying shit

and no, I havent had my car stolen, but my (now ex)finace did have his truck stolen, from right in front of my house, taken many a mile away and burned to the ground. his father, having the same name and insurance company, was notified of this in the middle of the night, and told that it was burnt so badly that they couldnt tell if someone was inside at the time. his parents flipped out and called, but the ringer was off so we could have some peace, then they came to my house, but for some reason we didnt hear the doorbell. they finally reached my mom, who had a key and let herself in. I really felt for his mom, who spent most of the night imagining the three of us burnt to death
 
 
sleazenation
14:05 / 11.01.02
True fact:

Most cars that are stolen are stolen by car thieves.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
14:11 / 11.01.02


[ 12-01-2002: Message edited by: just todd ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
22:10 / 11.01.02
I don't know the thread it comes from, so I'm not sure who came out with the quote at the start up there, but the question that comes to mind is, Are you serious?

[paraphrase]If you're going to acknowledge that a 'working class' exists, what's wrong with talking about 'the criminal underclass'?[/paraphrase]

Do I really need to spell this out? One is a hotly contested analytic category used across a range of disciplines (mostly, but not exclusively, in the social sciences, and especially economics, politics and sociology), and a wide range of political perspectives from progressive to reactionary, from pro- to anti-working class perspectives; it has been a crucial tool for labour organisation since the industrial revolution - it was the working class who fought for, and won, basic occupational health and safety practices, the eight hour day, toilet breaks, the right to organise, the right to strike, etc. Many people take pride in their working class heritage, and working class culture generally.

Now, nobody takes pride in their criminal underclass heritage; this is mainly because it is not a political or analytic category, but a tabloid insult with dodgy racial undertones.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
23:52 / 11.01.02
crunchy got there before me. but c'mon - a 'criminal underclass'? puh-lease...

"The law in its infinite majesty forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread" - Anatole France.

get real.
 
 
Ganesh
07:04 / 12.01.02
Socioeconomic definitions of some sort are necessary for the study of phenomena (ie. certain illnesses) which affect some parts of the population more than others. These usually relate to relative financial status, etc. The terms "middle-class", "working-class" and so on are increasingly blurred around the edges but may be helpful for self-definition...

The idea of a "criminal underclass" is potentially more offensive, though. It seems to imply a certain degree of inevitability, that an inclination towards criminality is somehow "hardwired" within a particular subset of the populace - and that brings us into distinctly dodgy territory.

As has been pointed out, one may take some measure of pride in "working", but would be unlikely to voluntarily own being either "criminal" or "underclass".

And no, even when I had a car, it was never stolen. The radio was, once, but I've absolutely no idea who did it or, indeed, in what specific way it relates to the question of "class"...
 
 
noone
08:07 / 12.01.02
quote:Originally posted by sleazenation:
True fact:

Most cars that are stolen are stolen by car thieves.

and they're all called "Tony Car-Criminal."
 
 
No star here laces
08:07 / 12.01.02
So what about castigating people for having middle-class values, since the underclass thing is a foregone conclusion to anyone with a modicum of empathy and intelligence? You know the sort of thing:

A - "I love Belle and Sebastian and read the Guardian"
B - "Don't be so fucking middle-class"

A - "I think the system should work to help the third world. I'd like to see more of my taxes go to international aid. That's why I've got a direct debit going out each month to Oxfam"
B- "The third world needs revolution, not your middle-class pity"

etc.
 
 
Fist Fun
08:07 / 12.01.02
...but deciding that the term criminal underclass is offensive wouldn't necessarily negate the existance of one...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:07 / 12.01.02
Okay, let's turn it around. I would suggest that certain aspects of western society are geared to the creation of an inevitable sub-class, beneath what can fairly be described as 'working', from which egress is structurally far more difficult, because of functional, if not actual, disenfranchisement, and a host of internal sub-cultural problems which are spin-offs from and interlinked with the main culture, but which are far more prevalent here.

Further, the overt lack of caring and the disdain displayed by the main culture and its myrmidons (employers, police, civil servants, lawmakers) generates a reciprocal lack of respect for the institutions of mainstream society (laws, jobs, social contract) in those who are born or thrown into this environment. Since the main culture possesses the means of enforcement, however, any violation of its norms is criminalised or stigmatised, enforcing memebership of the underclass.

The conditions of being 'thrown away' being predictably awful as inmates of this floating prison are shoehorned into marginally legal activities and outright criminality in order to obtain the one remaining means of gaining status and goods (exchangable cash), a defensive self-despite, contempt for the possibility of long life and a happy ending, and a mirror-image contempt for anyone who seeks these things, become psychological staples....

The term 'criminal underclass' is an accusation not of the group it describes, but of the one which creates it. That's not to say, however, that it's any less unpleasant or dangerous to walk the gauntlet of a run-down housing estate in London; nor does it vanish groups of young males who pinch cars and end up in hospital or prison. Denying they exist, or refusing to see a collective and structural issue as well as the product of 'broken homes' and 'bad parenting', is a strange way of addressing the issue.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:07 / 12.01.02
It occurs to me belatedly that the same rough outline also applies to the creation of 'criminal states' where the main export is drugs or arms or terrorism - and where every individual carrying a passport from that nation is automatically suspect, and consigned to a global underclass. Having a Columbian passport must, surely be a handicap at customs in many nations.
 
 
No star here laces
10:46 / 12.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Buk:
...but deciding that the term criminal underclass is offensive wouldn't necessarily negate the existance of one...

Yes but it might make the use of the word unacceptable.

No doubt there are some black people who are unpleasant. No doubt there are also some illegitimate black people who are unpleasant. Does that make it okay for me to run around saying 'those black bastards cause most of the trouble round here'?

Why not?

By applying the word criminal as a descriptor of a type of person who you also describe as having certain quirks and mannerisms which you happen to dislike you imply that criminality inevitably accompanies those mannerisms and that it is the fault of the person that they are in that position. There is absolutely no difference between this and the 'racial profiling' that we despise the NYPD for practising.

And what makes this even worse is that the 'schemies' and 'neds' you are applying this description to represent the ordinary styles of dress and behaviour for the majority of young, working class scots. So it's hard to take your comment any other way than as some kind of victorian pronouncement on the evils and bestiality of the lower orders. Making you insufferably snooty and elitist.
 
 
Ganesh
10:54 / 12.01.02
I think it's more acceptable (and perhaps also more accurate) to make reference to the "poverty line" and those individuals and families who fall below it. "Criminal underclass", IMHO, carries a hint of Victorian-era "send em to the Colonies" conviction that a majority are "constitutionally criminal" rather than driven to break the law by simple fact of their general poverty.

And no, I don't like the derision that's loaded onto the phrase "middle-class" either. We discussed this at some length here once (on a thread called Middle-Class Heroes) but I can't quite remember which conclusions we eventually reached...
 
 
Sax
11:33 / 12.01.02
I think it was "All you middle-class whiners will be the first against the wall when the scum take over the planet", wasn't it?

The phrase "criminal underclass" has acquired a lot of currency lately, not just among the middle-classes but also among the traditional working classes (many of whom, it has to be said, have wide-screen TVs, DVDs, read the Daily Mail and send e-mails from their Sky Digital tellies, so what does that really make them? The Under Middle Classes?)

Whatever label you put on "them", it is true there are people who have grown up feeling disenfranchised/dispossessed enough to accept that a criminal way of life is the easiest/only/natural course to follow. I know, I've met them. My parents still live among them (whereas I have obviously moved away to a leafy little village in Yorkshire where the milkman says "good morning" rather than "please move into the light before I pass that dark alley")
The so-called criminal underclass, if it exists, is largely young.
Damn. I've forgotten what I was going to say now. Afternoon drinking alone not good.
 
 
Sax
11:37 / 12.01.02
I think it was going to be along the lines of what Ganesh just said, anyway. Creating a whole classification to lump those who are a bit non-u into a group with scrotes who screw cars is generally a bad thing.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:30 / 12.01.02
I wasn't sure I could even begin to articulate the levels on which using the phrase "criminal underclass" is just wrong, wrong, wrong, without a Red Mist descending over my eyes... I had to go away and have a nice long lie down, and I was sure someone else would be able to say what I wanted to say more articulately, which Cruncy and autopilot and Ganesh and Nick to a certain extent have all done, although my initial reaction is still with Lyra, this should really be obvious... But I'll try to add a little bit.

quote:Originally posted by The Planet of Sound:
If we're going to talk about 'class' at all, and you were the one to use the terms 'working class people', Flyboy...

As far as me using the term 'working class' goes in this context, it was a somewhat sarcastic rejoinder to a post made by Karasu which originally appeared (for Crunchy and anyone else's benefit), on this page of a thread about things that really annoy or make you angry. I was a bit concerned at the socio-economic/cultural stereotype that seemed to be rearing its ugly head: eg, "all they'll end up doing in life is find the female varient (usually identifable by gold Argos jewlery, L&B cigarette and pram) and procreate more of the wee shites". I wanted to know what Karasu really meant, because all the Kappa/baseball caps/cheap booze details are really a smokescreen (by which I mean, there are plenty of young, affluent people who favour Kappa, or baseball caps, or cheap booze - hell, everyone favours cheap booze, don't they?). Maybe 'the poor?' would have better. I don't know. I was hoping that Karasu would qualify his statement, but instead we got more of the same ("lil bleeders that hang around shops drinking cheap booze and harrassing passers by"), plus shrugging it off with a joke about servants. ‘LOL’.

What really got my goat, though, Planet of Sound, was your attempt to clear up any confusion I might have had and explain the reasonableness of Karasu’s statement… by trotting out even more stereotypes and derogatory terms. But moving on...

quote:Are the terms 'Upper- Class', 'Middle -Class'', 'Working - Class'', 'Criminal Underclass' derogatory?

The first three aren't inherently derogatory - I think they've all been used as insults, but can also be used approvingly - in fact I'm more familiar to hearing/reading 'working class' used in an approving/sympathetic/proud/'positive' manner than any other (see Crunchy's post). Which has its own complications and draw-backs, but we might want to skip over that for now. (Lyra, I think the interesting thing about the parallel you use is that 99% of the time I’ve encountered the term ‘middle class’ used as an insulting epithet, it’s come from other middle class people… )

Obviously, any statement we make regarding a very large social grouping is going to be a huge generalisation, and so no-one is going to be "purely" anything, and there will be inaccuracies... But we tend to have to use generalisations for the purpose of discussion: it's just a good idea to try to keep them as well-informed and balanced as possible.

'Criminal underclass', though, is to me at least fairly obviously derogatory. I don't think I'd even want to use the term 'underclass' without being pretty specific about what I meant by ‘under’ (ie, either ‘below’ whom and in what respect, or lacking in what?). The phrase "criminal underclass" equates the one with the other - there are people of low income and social standing, and they are inclined to commit crimes. As a result of what? Breeding? Social and material deprivation that is a side effect of a system through which others live in relative or undeniable luxury?

Nick: I agree entirely with your first three paragraphs, and the last thing I'd want to see happen is a denial of the existence of the conditions and structures you describe. That wasn't my intention and I regret if I gave that impression - where we differ is in our opinion of who or what the phrase 'criminal underclass' is criticising/denigrating. And come on, whatever you think about the connotations of the term in general, in the context of the original thread, it was made very specifically clear that it was the members of this 'underclass', not the system, who were being criticised: those nasty, brutish proles who are apparently, and I quote Planet of Sound verbatim "what the English might describe as rat-boys, kappa slappers, 'twoc'ers; kids in baseball caps and shell-suits who break into your house and shit in your front room. Not really working class, more criminal underclass".

Slight tangent: this reminds me, actually, of something I read on another message board recently: “it’s just wishful thinking to pretend there isn’t a racial trend to crime”. Now, statistically that statement may well be true. However, in the context of the discussion, it was extremely clear that the person who wrote that was not bemoaning anything like racial inequality in society, or institutionalised racism in the police force and legal system. No, what they meant was: “non-white people are just more likely to commit crimes, because that’s the way they are, the fuckers”. Similarly, in the context of a thread about things or people that really piss you off – and I am aware that this is complicated because it wasn’t actually Planet of Sound who listed them, but he was in agreement with Karasu’s point as far as I can tell – saying ‘the criminal underclass’ hardly suggests a great deal of empathy for the plight of society’s marginalized or underprivileged elements. What it suggests, actually, is contempt.

Oh, I also have to admit, as someone who does it fairly regularly myself, that the "you know, it's really scary to be a middle class white guy walking through the rough part of town on the way to my comfortable and stylishly furnished flat" has never done much to elicit much sympathy from me. The idea that it’s you and I who suffer most from the existence of areas of low-rent and extremely low-quality housing, rather than, you know, the people who actually have to live there on a day to day basis… Well.

Lastly, does anyone object to me having moved to this thread to the Head Shop? I kind of think that's where it belongs.

[ 12-01-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]
 
 
alas
13:58 / 12.01.02
what about the "criminal overclass"? For some reason I'm more comfortable with that, given everything that's currently going on in the world. . . . But is that bigotry against poor rich sods--can they help it that they happen to own everything?
 
 
Fist Fun
15:05 / 12.01.02
Right, so we are arguing that the term criminal underclass is offensive rather than the non-existance of a demographic who habitually commit crime due to social and economic circumstances. Yes I consider the term offensive and unacceptable and yes I would say that demographic exists.
Oh and Lyra I take it you are quoting me and making a comment that I agree with then going on to discuss someone elses point...

[ 12-01-2002: Message edited by: Buk ]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:05 / 12.01.02
Nick: Possibly, to acknowledge the role of prevailing economic systems in the creation of an "underclass" which has no way to achieve the comforts others take for granted except by criminality, a phrase like "criminalized underclass" - i.e a social group unable to achieve those comforts through the standard exhange of work for cash and cash for goods and services and thus a) more likely to commit crime (I doubt that many of us would risk imprisonment, loss of social standing etc to brak into somebody's house and nick their video in case the one we already have broke and the warranty had expired, for example) and b) immediately suspected either of having committed a crime in their catchment area, or just of being likely to commit a crime by people walking past them on the street. And then, if you treat people as if they are going to break into your house and shit in your living room, they may start wondering why they shouldn't...

Something I do find interesting, if a bit tangential - if the working and middle classes contribute their labour (yes, I know, crusty marxist lingo, but I am old and slow and need instruction), and receive for it cash, which goes to the maintenance of the structures of governance through taxation and the maintenance of consumer culture through its subsequent exchange for goods and services, who profits from the existence of an underclass? Except the evil Shredder, obviously...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
21:34 / 12.01.02
Flyboy: fair enough. As to walking through tough bits of town, it's not sympathy I was hoping to elicit for anyone. It's merely a recognition that people who threaten the way we wish to live, for whatever good or bad reason, will never be our especial favourites. (Need I mention the police here, or George Bush?)

Haus: who profits from the existence of an underclass? Not many. Who profits from systems whose consequences include the inevitable creation of such? Almost everyone. That's the thing. They're not a good or a market. They're a waste product. Although they provide raw recruits to the military in some countries, do short-term and often illegal jobs for cash, keep the wheels greased, I think the reason this happens is because, much as with gross environmental damage, the mechanisms which provide the shiny tech and nice stuff everyone else uses also produce the underclass - and it seems like a good deal unless you're a throwaway.
 
 
Fist Fun
10:45 / 13.01.02
quote: who profits from the existence of an underclass?

Well there is the economic argument that a certain level of unemployment is necessary to contain inflation.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
10:53 / 13.01.02
If Karusa's comments in the 'poink' thread had been about skinhead culture in the seventies rather than 90s-00s ned culture, would this thread even have started?
 
 
Gho5tD4nc3r
15:54 / 13.01.02
Firstly anyone read 1984? (stupid question right?) So pop quiz kiddies, what is the scariest characteristic of newspeak? And the answer is the dictionary gets smaller every year. They deny ideas by denying words. So what has this go to do with class? Simply that as far as I am concerned description is always valid. I would be classified as a young, professional middle-class individual. In terms of my job, and what I get paid that's valid. Aside from my job and paycheck it tells you nothing about me though. People only get offended because they read more into the description than is actually said. Middle-class conjurers up the image of a conservative individual probably reads the Guadian, is vehemently PC and believes what the media says. Anyone who actually knows me will laugh at that description. Economically, though, middle-class is a valid descrition, and description is never impolite.

As long as you do not judge on perceived class, but keep class for economic description I see no problem. Note the way I have not said socioeconomic. If you think finance dictates social dynamics then you are immature and naive. It has a does play a role but isn't the be all and end all. It certainly doesn't dictate an individual.

Oh and I can't agree with sleazenation more Most cars are stolen by car theives. By definition. One who steals a car is a car theif.

My car hasn't ever been stolen, but it is protected.
 
 
passer
17:47 / 13.01.02
Tossing my two cents out there, there's a system out there that benefits from at least the fear of a criminal underclass. Criminal underclass is a great "not like me" phrase that puts comfortable distance between speaker and defined. What a nice example of look what happens if you don't behave and conform. Do you want to end up like that? No? Then go be a good civil consumer and don't look at the little man behind the curtain.
 
 
Karasu
10:16 / 14.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
I was a bit concerned at the socio-economic/cultural stereotype that seemed to be rearing its ugly head: eg, "all they'll end up doing in life is find the female varient (usually identifable by gold Argos jewlery, L&B cigarette and pram) and procreate more of the wee shites". I wanted to know what Karasu really meant, because all the Kappa/baseball caps/cheap booze details are really a smokescreen (by which I mean, there are plenty of young, affluent people who favour Kappa, or baseball caps, or cheap booze - hell, everyone favours cheap booze, don't they?). Maybe 'the poor?' would have better. I don't know. I was hoping that Karasu would qualify his statement, but instead we got more of the same ("lil bleeders that hang around shops drinking cheap booze and harrassing passers by"), plus shrugging it off with a joke about servants. ‘LOL’.

OK, fair do's, my humour was inappropriate for the discussion at large, but as it was in 'Conversation' I made a joke out of it. But seeing as we're here now, I'll try my best to explain a bit more.

My statements are nothing whatsoever to do with the poor. It's more so to do with mental attitude and the implementation of it. Whether the person in general is upper/middle/lower or whatever varient of the class system in use is not the point with what I stated, I took the stereotypical representation of these people.

The reason I find a problem with them is through their input into society. To me they provide nothing of use and and do not benefit anything in the slightest. Now I know that is a very harsh statement and blatant stereotyping again, but this is part of my personality. This is a mental facet of mine that has been built up for years. I'd like to apologise for this, but it is ingrained in me through the area I grew up in, my life experiences and from having a cop as a father and thereby hearing his stories of this group (for want of a better word). This is, I know, a fault of mine. I do know, logically, that they provide benefit to their friends and families, but when I'm angered by them, that logic disappears; hence the fact that I mentioned them in the thread on anger. It's their general disregard for other people that I find fault with. The abuse they spew forth, the wastage of a human life (by my standards anyway)... I can't fully articulate my feelings on this. Sorry.

I'm a product of my upbringing and experiences as much as they are and from that maybe I'm a lesser person for behaving in this way. I'm not proud of this fact, but that is the way I am at this stage in my life.

I really don't know if that has explained my position any better, if so, say and I'll try to expound upon it further.

[ 14-01-2002: Message edited by: Karasu ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
10:28 / 14.01.02
Karasu: I would suggest that you look at Nick's suggestion that the "Criminal Underclass" are a waste product of the consumer society - a necessary and sustainable consequence of western capitalism.

How does the idea strike you? That, in a sense, you and your dad have helped to create them?

[ 14-01-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Rain ]
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:22 / 14.01.02
<troll>Given the inevitable associations of the word "class" with a Marxist framework for viewing the world, it was also inevitable that someone would utter such a meaningless statement as "the criminal underclass are a wasteproduct of western capitalism." This analysis apparently hinges around the ludicrous proposition that a group of people of a certain demographic are more likely to commit crime was non-existant before the advent of the industrialized capitalist state. Are there no criminals in China? Sub-Saharan Africa? Could we not group any of these non-Western criminals into a "set" that it would be facile to call a "class"? This is a simple concept, and only one blinded by light from the lens of Marxist criticism could make such a bold overstatement such as that.

Granted, coming from a country where the vast majority of people desribe themselves as "middle class" (even if they make $25,000 a year) and social stratification is not as traditionally important as it is in the UK (or is at least under wraps), my view of this debate may be skewed, as the mention of "class" is not so much a hot button issue here.
</troll>

[ 14-01-2002: Message edited by: just todd ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:54 / 14.01.02
Not skewed, just screwed. Your point can be very neatly deflated either by the supposition that crime in the developing countries is also a product of western capitalism, but at a slightly greater remove. Or, more simply and obviously, by pointing out that we are not talking about "crime", as a concept, but the "criminal underclass", which in the terms of the discussion so far has been described as a classification peculiar to a) Western Economies and b) in fact, pretty much precisely, the United Kingdom. Which is not to say that it may not exist, or the classification may not exist, elsewhere, only that it has not so far been discussed here.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:36 / 14.01.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Rain:
Or, more simply and obviously, by pointing out that we are not talking about "crime", as a concept, but the "criminal underclass", which in the terms of the discussion so far has been described as a classification peculiar to a) Western Economies and b) in fact, pretty much precisely, the United Kingdom. Which is not to say that it may not exist, or the classification may not exist, elsewhere, only that it has not so far been discussed here.

It is exactly these "terms of the discussion" that I am attempting to question. If you take as one of your premises that the classification "criminal underclass" is peculiar to Western Civ, then it is only a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's to come to the conclusion that it is a "waste product" of the institutions that make up Western Civ. In fact, what has been done so far in this discussion is to take a term that is necessarily dependent on a Marxist analysis of political economy ("criminal underclass") and explain in terms of that Marxist analysis. Which is hardly useful or clever.

A more useful formulation of the problems that this thread seems to be grappling with, would be, as you suggest, the concept of "crime." What is a crime, what type of person commits a crime, and do the results of this investigation match what is theorized through use of terms such as "criminal underclass."

I'm just sayin'...
 
 
No star here laces
12:46 / 14.01.02
Haus, what about Todd's point that the 'criminal underclass' probably existed before the advent of the modern capitalist nation-state?

Surely, by definition, anyone who is both criminal and poor is a member of the criminal underclass? Theft has been a crime since before Moses came down from the mountain with a bunch of rocks. People don't tend to steal unless they have no other option. Therefore all logic seems to point to the idea that, if there is a group that can be called the 'criminal underclass, then that group has always been with us...
 
 
sleazenation
13:08 / 14.01.02
surely if someone is both poor and a criminal in a pre capitalist era they are not so much a crimal underclass as a an underclass of underskilled or incompetent criminals.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:13 / 14.01.02
Way-ull. Crime and criminality. There may well have been a group of people who could not find work and instead adopt a "life of crime", or alternatively could work but chose not to, preferring instead a life of crime (depending on how you want to look at it). But the *term* "Criminal Underclass" seems to be a very recent one. When was the first time you heard "underclass"? The mid-80s?

Which I think is a distinctor. There are certainly criminals outside the "criminal underclass". They may previosuly have been ascribed to "the criminal element". But the criminal element is an element *of* something, whereas the criminal underclass is a class of itself, cut adrift from any community with the other inhabitant of the society (who are non-criminal).
 
 
Ganesh
13:16 / 14.01.02
They're a superstitious, cowardly lot, aren't they?

<squeezes into latex-nippled batsuit and slides down greasy pole>
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply