| |
|
Okay. I take Jack's point that this thread might benefit from expanding into a more general discussion of class, but I want to come back to a couple of Planet of Sound's remarks regarding the idea of a 'criminal underclass' that he still stubbornly clings to. I'll try to do this without screaming "AARGGH!" and bashing my head into the keyboard every five minutes:
quote:Originally posted by The Planet of Sound:
I think there are also many other factors, nature as well as nurture. Some people simply are more inclined to violence, and thus violent crime, for example. Although, yes, I agree entirely with the argument that the number one cause of crime is poverty.
Could you clarify something for me: are you suggesting that some individuals, across every section and class of society, are more inclined to violence by nature than others? Because if you are, surely that is at best irrelevant and at worst in opposition to the idea of a 'criminal underclass' (here's where the term 'criminal element', whilst still highly problematic, is preferable, since as Haus points out it suggests a disparate group, membership of which cuts across all classes).
If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that there's some kind of natural (genetic?) predisposition towards violence that occurs amongst people of low income or financial status (breeding? poor diet? who knows?), then, er... you and me gonna have words.
quote:But... do some people bring about poverty on themselves through their habits/lack of imagination? I'm certainly skint at the moment, and my love of drink, drugs and eating out are no doubt contributing to that. Hmmmm...
What Mordant said. The fact that you have expended your disposable income (for this given month as you later state) is pointedly NOT comparable with the situation of someone who lives on or below the poverty line, and it's insulting to suggest so. And yes, I'm making a couple of assumptions about your situation by saying that, but they're based entirely on your comments in this and related threads thus far - comments that do little to suggest that you have either ever faced the prospect of genuine hardship or taken the time to consider what this might be like.
God, it's been a while since I heard the "they brought it on themselves, idle junkie scum" argument. How 'refreshing'.
"lack of imagination"??? It's like that Brasseye sketch...
"Why don't you get a job?"
"Well... I've tried..."
"You must try harder! You could go round someone's house, offer to clean it up..."
quote:
Autopilot: I absolutely agree that a stereotypical member of the 'underclass' would not be invited to the debate (and probably wouldn't wish to come; talking's for cissys and toffs, after all), but badges, badges... If I overhear a man in a puffer jacket and baseball cap bragging about the beating he's given someone recently, is he not endorsing a set of values, in the same way that a man wearing a monocle and a cravat and talking about Oscar Wilde might be endorsing other values? You only need to explore 'gangster' culture slightly to realise that many confirmed criminals do hold counter-cultural values dear; theft, extortion, violent crime. They posit their own position as members of a 'culture' with distinct codes (the words 'cosa nostra' spring to mind) of which they are often, in fact, intensely proud. How do you explain gangsta rap lyrics in your world where nobody is proud to wear badges of criminality?
See, the problem here is that almost by definition, "a stereotypical member of the 'underclass'" doesn't exist. And yet you seem determined to create one, by running together a variety of different and unrelated characteristics - the wearing of puffer jackets and baseball caps goes together with the opinion that talking is for cissies and toffs, which in turn goes together with a fondness for violent crime. It staggers me somewhat that you can then proceed to accuse me of holding "cliched, hackneyed... and stereotypical standpoints" (the "academic" bit I just don't get at all, sorry). Then again, you also seem to think I'm focusing too much on the issue of your term 'criminal underclass' when one of the questions you began this thread was "what's wrong with talking about a criminal underclass?", so go figure. Incidentally, if you go through this thread again I think you'll find that "most other people" who's posted have taken a similarly dim view of the term. But whatever.
As for your mention of gangsta rap: this is a form of music, the main audience for which is comprised of middle class white kids, and which is mainly produced by professional recording artists/musicians. It has little or nothing to do with actual crime, no more so than, say, a PD James novel. Interestingly, the recent fascination in the UK with a mythical gangster culture (good boys who loved their mums and never hurt no-one who didn't deserve it, etc) has also been propogated largely by middle or indeed upper class wannabe 'lads' such as Guy Ritchie. These are the people who mythologise a life of crime, largely because they only see the enjoyable side effects of it, such as a nice little packet of cocaine. As Mordant Carnival pointed out in the 'poink' thread, the victims of crime committed by people with little or no income are frequently people who have to live in the same area, are probably thus in a similar financial situation and would thus risk being lumped together by you in this 'criminal underclass' for the crime of wearing shellsuits and drinking cheap booze.
Sorry if I seem to harping on about this, but yes, you've touched a nerve. And don't kid yourself that you're being 'subversive': a lot of what you've said thus far reads like the work of Daily Mail hack. |
|
|
), I feel a veritable expert in stereotypes. Which leads me to my next point.</sarcasm> Stereotypes are not formed by personal experience and interactions with people. The vast majority of stereotypes exist outside of individuals and are learned from others and society at large. Personal experience usually serves to reinforce or alter these stereotypes, not create them whole cloth. So personal experience is relevant, but not necessarily crucial to the discussion.