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 >

Definition of a chav

  
  

Page: 123(4)56

 
 
Tsuga
22:49 / 16.11.06
Rural Savage, you're talking about these properties of a somewhat particular kind of person within a somewhat specific kind of group that you don't like. Maybe you think there are "chavs" and then there are the "violent chavs" or whatever. But why are you isolating this particular group? This is just a societal subculture with blurry edges like most, and really just another way of people placing themselves within groups of comfort. But in any group of people, there are mostly nice, okay people, and kind-of-assholes, and raging assholes, and violent assholes, and the mentally ill, and a mix of these and more. Don't you think in some country club setting or fox hunt, whatever the fuck you guys have there, doesn't matter- don't you think there's pretty much the same mix of personality types there? The differences are in the cultural permutations that have a strong affect on people and their world outlook, but still, to put it simply, people are people. Everywhere. And one thing you should know is that you don’t know other people by seeing their eyes or clothes or the way they walk. Those things might mean something, or might point you in the right direction of understanding something about them, but you don’t know. I don’t know you except from these few words, and while I might have some conception of you, I don’t know that I’m right. I try to remember there’s nothing more ignorant than the assumption of another’s ignorance. But I tend to assume universal ignorance, to a certain extent, including myself. Does that sound contradictory? I guess I mean the individual as opposed to the universal (excluding myself). I joined Barbelith because it seemed there was a less-than-normal amount of ignorance here. Whatever, I’m digressing, sorry.
You should know that, especially in headshop, de rigueur is for people to dissect and examine the machinations of cultural workings, and discuss them in a well thought-out and often didactic manner. So when you post just looking for gut-level reactions, you’re going to get your comments picked apart. Just as anything I write here that someone has a problem with will be picked apart. Ganesh isn’t being dicky, other than showing maybe a little irritation that you’re not being very specific and trying to get you to be. It may not be fun to “take the wheels off”, but that’s how you play the game here. To say, "you know what I'm talking about" isn't really going to work, and it's no offense to you. I think I get kind of what you're saying, but really, you've got to think it out and spell it out, you know?
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
22:51 / 16.11.06
When was the last time you took a shit? How do you go about getting an authoritave opinion on every single person? I think you might be set to code beige. I wonder and I wonder and I pick up here and there and I live with the fuckers and avoid the fuckers from past experience.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
22:55 / 16.11.06
Yes I understand, everyone here understands. Everyone got it in the first page and let it slide down the wall like it should have, I just single out this term because it interested me. I dont think most people are like this but for most people stereotypes save time. Doesnt make them right. I understand that this thought can be applied to practically any social setting with the same results, in this case I tagged it to chavs
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
22:55 / 16.11.06
That last thing wasnt directed to you btw
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
23:13 / 16.11.06
Ah this is awful now, you know how you feel about everything already. Its rigid in its openmindedness. There's no meat to anything you say, its just all hungry talk. This place is intelligent, more intelligent than me. But redundant nonetheless in this respect, defensive of everything but supportive of nothing.
 
 
Ganesh
23:30 / 16.11.06
If you're able to frame your question(s) intelligently and thoughtfully, ideally without too much reliance on stereotyping, you'll find people keen to engage. If you're after a less examined response, you might be better off trying the Conversation. I suspect you'll find that, wherever on Barbelith you post, if you use terms like "chav" in as nebulous a manner as you have in this thread, you'll be called on it - and, generally speaking, with less patience than you've encountered here.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
23:40 / 16.11.06
You didnt show me patience, you lorded nicely, you couldnt resist coming back to this topic again and again. You're transfixed by a knot that doesn't mind being a knot.The world would be fairly boring if everything was as nailed down as you pretend to want it to be but be honest, you loved it. You loved getting ticked off and antsy. You've made thousands of judgements since this all started but you can't question a question and besides I wouldn't be interested in personally trying to offend you or catch you out but you shouldn't feel the intelligence of your walled fort is being compromised by anything, its sealed up pretty tight. Its the intellectual highground and the high hat for anyone else.So dont come out like the boffin in shining armour to pick apart things when you are so safely enconsed yourself in this fabrication.
 
 
Ganesh
23:45 / 16.11.06
I don't think it's specifically me you're having the problem with here, Rural Savage; I think it's the confused nature of your question. It's unclear what you're actually asking, and about which group of people. I've tried to push you to sharpen that up, and you've clearly not enjoyed my pushing. I'll happily leave you to it, sit on my hands and just make shark-eyes at this thread for a while.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
23:50 / 16.11.06
My question was how people define the word chav? That is not confused, I wanted to know. I've said how I feel.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
23:53 / 16.11.06
How would you define it?
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
00:11 / 17.11.06
Well you can answer that anytime. I'll dive back into tomorrow, thanks that was cool, genuinely.But now I have to go down this bastard field and drag coal up and then I might watch the Sopranos.Don't forget to genuflect before you have fun
 
 
ghadis
00:23 / 17.11.06
I've spent the last half hour reading this thread and i suggest you go back and do the same Rural Savage. Nobody is 'lording it' or trying to gain the 'intellectual highground ' or being a 'boffin'. All people are trying to do is engage with your thoughts and ideas on the matter. This sometimes entails a quite trying and deep seeking examination of your own thoughts and prejudices. Thats fair enough is say. Go with it. But i'd say refrain from the insults (and the 'lording it', 'boffin' stuff is pretty insulting i'd say)
 
 
stabbystabby
06:20 / 17.11.06
Wait, what? We're not boffins? dammit! i've already gone and bought a white coat!
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:27 / 17.11.06
As I said before you can tell a lot about a person from their eyes and body language. It's not foolproof, sometimes you only see what they want to portray. Sometimes it's dramatically dependant on mood and whim. And sometimes their ethical outlook is so wildly different from yours, that from eyes and body language alone you'd come to a completely incorrect conclusion (my favourite example of this is bin laden, who has the eyes of everyone's favourite grandfather). So yeah, definitely far from a 100% accuracy rating. But by and large you can trust your gut on these matters. We all do, every day. It's difficult to intellectualise, and even harder to put into words without sounding like a judgemental twunt, but we are hardwired to pick up on these things. It's a protective mechanism we might have trouble surviving without.

And yes, there are assaultative arseholes in every population subgroup. However, every cultural subgroup does not not celebrate this perjorative violent attitude to the same extent. Last night on the bus I had the very dubious pleasure of listening to one lively pair of lads regale their friends with the story of when they beat up a beggar. What was the friends' reaction? Nothing short of congratulations and admiration. I ask you, would that be tolerated to the same extent in every subculture in the land?

As for the eyes ganesh, what he identifies as "cold black and dead", is in my humble opinion, a lack of empathy*. Tell me that's not something to fear.

* Opinion based upon observation and interaction. Replicates aplenty.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:42 / 17.11.06
My question was how people define the word chav?

Do you mean people as in other posters? Or society in general? For the latter the wikipedia entry on it may well give you some insight on it's origin, historical usage, and current cultural impacts. Someone may well have already provided a link, but if not then here it is.

For the former. Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I try and avoid using the term chav at all if I can help it. I certainly don't automatically label people with it just because they give off a certain "indescribable" vibe. However that may be because when I was Stroppy Teenage Evil Scientist my social group never used the term, I guess it had dropped out of usage, and it still seems unnatural to use it now. To us the groups of teenagers who seemed to pass the time starting fights and hanging round Ashford train station were "the pricks".

Although "the pricks" doesn't have the same racist vibes emanating from it as the term "chav" does it still arises from a similar prejudice that I had developed (ie that there was a class of people who, compared to me, were violent and stupid and criminal and "other"). I'm sure the one or two times my friends and I were forced to defend ourselves/leave an area because of people who fit what we considered a "prick" to be made it easier to allow that prejudice to continue.

I think that your personal perception of chavs (and what you consider to be "chav" seems extremely nebulous at the moment) may well be soured by a similar prejudice which you are qualifying as acceptable due to violent encounters with people who fit your chav-template.

You didnt show me patience, you lorded nicely, you couldnt resist coming back to this topic again and again. You're transfixed by a knot that doesn't mind being a knot.The world would be fairly boring if everything was as nailed down as you pretend to want it to be but be honest, you loved it. You loved getting ticked off and antsy. You've made thousands of judgements since this all started but you can't question a question and besides I wouldn't be interested in personally trying to offend you or catch you out but you shouldn't feel the intelligence of your walled fort is being compromised by anything, its sealed up pretty tight. Its the intellectual highground and the high hat for anyone else.So dont come out like the boffin in shining armour to pick apart things when you are so safely enconsed yourself in this fabrication.

Rural, you're not a telepath (as far as I am aware) so don't try to describe what another poster's intentions are. Ganesh is not lording over you (although I sure if he were he'd do it nicely, he's a polite poster). Perhaps you need to develop a slightly thicker skin with regards to people altering the flow of "your" thread. This being Head I think it's entirely appropriate that the thoughts, beliefs, and prejudices behind terms such as "chav" are addressed.

You could perhaps get away with a thread where you ask people to describe what they consider a chav to be over in Convo where things are a little more liquid. However bear in mind that you will most definitely be questioned as vigorously as you are in Head.
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
10:16 / 17.11.06
Well, NRJ and Rural Savage are both basically saying the same thing, yes? That when they use the word, they use it only to describe the bad people in the group who are more widely described by the term when other people use it?

Well, actually i thought i'd made it reasonably clear that i actually use the word(s) to describe "bad" people who are arguably outside the group (ie people of a "lower" economic class than the user) that a lot of people here seem to think "chav", "townie", etc are always used to refer to, so i'm not quite sure the Chris Rock analogy applies, since i don't think his character also used the N word to refer to white people who fit into the negative stereotypes...

Like i said, for me "chav" and (more especially, as the word i prefer to use) "townie" don't refer to class, they refer to a cultural attitude of which the main components are brutally self-policed conformity in terms of clothing, hairstyle, choice of consumer goods etc, unexamined extreme heteronormative and gender-essentialist views leading to violent homophobia and transphobia, and persecution "for a laugh" of anyone who's Not Like Us. The vast majority of people who i've experienced this from are richer than me (I'm disabled, on the dole, and vulnerably housed if not actually homeless, so that isn't very hard).

If anyone can suggest a word to describe such people which doesn't have any classist connotations, then suggest away... but to conflate such people's attitudes with class, and therefore defend/excuse them, is IMO totally unhelpful, and especially really doesn't help the many just-as-working-class-if-not-more-so people who are the victims of violence or harassment just for being members of minorities from such people...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:19 / 17.11.06
But by and large you can trust your gut on these matters. We all do, every day. It's difficult to intellectualise, and even harder to put into words without sounding like a judgemental twunt, but we are hardwired to pick up on these things. It's a protective mechanism we might have trouble surviving without.

For me, it's black skin. I know that most people with skin - even black skin - aren't violent - are, in fact, just regular people, who happen to have skin, trying to make their way in the world. But you have to make these judgements sometimes, and it's foolish not to trust your instincts. On the plus side, it's hella easier to work out someone's skin colour than the level of empathy in their eyes, and you can do it from a lot further away.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:22 / 17.11.06
If anyone can suggest a word to describe such people which doesn't have any classist connotations, then suggest away... but to conflate such people's attitudes with class [...] is IMO totally unhelpful

I'm not quite sure how that integrates with the decision to call people "chavs", even if one is using it to denote a group of people others might not call "chavs" (and honestly, I don't think you are, entirely - do you call Tory MPs from Eton and Oxford with homophobic or transphobic views "chavs"? I imagine not)? Since people seem to use that as a classist term generally, using the same term to describe what you identify as a totally different set of people the identification of which has nothing to do with their class, it seems pretty clear that to call them chavs is to conflate their attitudes with class, just as, even if one decided to call a group of people who were not of a particular skin colour by a term of abuse leveled at people of a particular skin colour, one is still referencing the abuse of people with that skin colour.

As I already mentioned, and Quantum proposed, how about "wankers"? Or "bigots"? Or "hate-filled shitheads"? If you can do this, without then going on a tirade which intimately connects their hate-filled shitheadity with their white trainers, you're onto a class-free winner.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:01 / 17.11.06
You didnt show me patience, you lorded nicely

God if only someone had this nonsense might not have continued for four pages.

Look Savage, you've made it quite clear that you fundamentally don't understand what the word chav means, that you can't define it because the definition you understood has broadened. You then go on to describe some people who you think fall under the definition of chav, the definition you can't define, as very violent so they must be true chavs. Well that's nice and all but can't you just call those people violent instead of chav and stop using the word altogether and have done with it?

Frankly the word's an unnecessary piece of crap used primarily by people who like to generalise groups because it makes it easier to be nasty to them. The reason it's in wide use now is because, in case anyone failed to notice, most sub-cultural groups have hugely dwindled and some bright spark decided that the conservative middle classes needed someone new to bitch about.
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
12:13 / 17.11.06
Well, i did say that i only use those particular words in contexts where i'm reasonably sure they won't have classist intent attributed to them. But, valid points... however, there are several different types (very broadly and stereotypically categorised, of course, but the whole purpose of this sort of language is to differentiate categories on such a level, IMO) of hate-filled shitheads, and one of those types is, in my experience, the mostly young, mostly male and (IME) practically entirely cross-class social/cultural group who identify themselves with a certain uniform style of clothing, which, despite your seeming identification of "white trainers" with working-class-ness, you don't have to pass a test of having certain socioeconomic origins to buy (in fact, the opposite, since most of the stereotypical "chav" clothing - branded sportswear etc - is frankly too expensive for most genuinely poor people to be able to buy), and i think a shorthand word to decribe that (stereo)type, while obviously by its nature not a nice word, doesn't have to be a word condemning anyone for factors that they can't help...

so, "chav" might not be the best word for that purpose, and i've never denied that sometimes, perhaps even the majority of the time, its usage is a classist usage - but, basically what i'm trying to say is it's not always classist (or perhaps more accurately it has a classist meaning, as well as a non-classist meaning, and arguably the biggest problem with the word is the way that its use conflates those two meanings with each other), and many of the people who use it are of the same or even poorer economic class as those they use it to describe.

i guess my biggest problem with the debate on this thread is the suggestion that it's somehow classist to condemn homophobia, transphobia, treating sexual violence (or violence generally) as funny, virulent conformism to the extent of persecution of anyone seen as not conforming sufficiently to codes of appearance and dress, etc, simply because they are part of a cultural stereotype that is associated with "the working class" (when the majority of people embodying that cultural stereotype are, IME, not even necessarily members of that class)...
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
12:17 / 17.11.06
Also, i'm definitely not saying that everyone who dresses in hoodies, trainers, branded sportswear, etc is a person who does those bigoted things - but it really can't be denied that that "dress code" is used as a Self/Other identifier by people who do (just like the skinhead/leathers/steel-toe boots look in no way makes someone a white supremacist, but undeniably has been used as a "uniform" by white supremacists)...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:26 / 17.11.06
i guess my biggest problem with the debate on this thread is the suggestion that it's somehow classist to condemn homophobia, transphobia, treating sexual violence (or violence generally) as funny, virulent conformism to the extent of persecution of anyone seen as not conforming sufficiently to codes of appearance and dress, etc, simply because they are part of a cultural stereotype that is associated with "the working class" (when the majority of people embodying that cultural stereotype are, IME, not even necessarily members of that class)...

Well, I hope that that suggestion doesn't exist in this thread. I don't think I've seen it. What does exist in this thread is a fairly uncomplicated statement that if I call people by a term that is used to further class hatred, specifically against people who did not go to nice schools, do not talk properly and do not "fit in", whatever their annual income - and it's worth noting that the clothing you cite above is a lot less expensive than, for example, a suit that might confer equivalent status in middle-class, professional society - then I am helping to perpetuate that class hatred, even if I sincerely believe that my usage of it has absolutely nothing to do with class or income (which are themselves two different things).

Might I ask what term you apply to, say, upper middle-class rugby players who find sexual violence funny?
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:52 / 17.11.06
so, "chav" might not be the best word for that purpose, and i've never denied that sometimes, perhaps even the majority of the time, its usage is a classist usage - but, basically what i'm trying to say is it's not always classist (or perhaps more accurately it has a classist meaning, as well as a non-classist meaning, and arguably the biggest problem with the word is the way that its use conflates those two meanings with each other), and many of the people who use it are of the same or even poorer economic class as those they use it to describe.

But is it not fair to say that it is more commonly used in a classist way? There is another word in common usage that refers to female canines and is also a derogatory term for women. I would suggest that it's likely that if someone heard that word being used by a stranger in a pub then they are more likely to assume it being used in an insulting fashion.

If I hear a stranger using the word "chav" in a pub in regards to another person I (and this may just be me) assume that the stranger is establishing that person as being of a lower class than themself.

If it is the case that it is mainly used as a classist insult then surely it is best that we don't use it at all. I suppose that people who get dropped into this group may well decide to use it as a way of taking power over the insult (in the way that some minority groups do). But that is their decision to make.

I would percieve someone like myself (ie atrociously middle-class) labelling another as a chav to be a classist act.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
13:02 / 17.11.06
If I were to define chavs as being a seperate minority to most people and not defined in any way by class but what I see as a violent gang element where I believe the term and the negative connotations arose. I still fail to see what is wrong with this, you can hate speech me out of the building but is it any different to call them pricks? In reality, prick only signifies one thing while chav at least does have a nebulous meaning IF you want to use it in that way. I didnt really want to insult Ganesh but to be consistently questioned when he still hasnt actually said how he feels about the issue is quite annoying and besides even if you try to be diplomatic and pretend everyones the same, theyre not. The people I would define as chavs arent on this message board, they wouldnt even be allowed on this message board.They wouldnt say the right things and they wouldnt reference the right books. Get back to you in a while
 
 
Ganesh
13:04 / 17.11.06
Are we asking new posters for photographs of their eyes now?
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
13:05 / 17.11.06
The boffins thing was a joke btw too bit of craic
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
13:07 / 17.11.06
You're kinda focusing on the eye thing a bit too much, I cant biologically break down an eye and tell you how its different. Recognisation of another animal as being threatening is no different than being attracted to someone from first sight etc
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:10 / 17.11.06
Yes, or responding to their terrifying, dark skin, as I mentioned above.

Now, Rural Savage, look at how your contributions are, in comparison to other people's. They are incoherent, rude, meandering, often incomprehensible. In this field, you _are_ the underclass, if we create a rigid stratification of class. That's why it's in your interests not to have a rigid stratification of class here, as is reified by terms like "chav".

Issues with "chav":

1) Its racist origins
2) Its frequent use, which you are supporting and validating, as a weapon against people who do not fit into middle-class ideas of acceptable behaviour
3) As it turns out, its imprecision - everyone wants to use it, but apparently everyone wants to be able to claim that they are usng it in a special, magic way that only insults bad people. See "supporting and validating", above.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:12 / 17.11.06
Oh, and

4) Invention of utterly subjective criteria for identification of those who fit within this magic usage - e.g. murderous eyes.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
13:14 / 17.11.06
Responding to someones skin colour is totally different, skin has no emotional content whatsoever.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
13:15 / 17.11.06
But the class does exist whether you use the words or not
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:16 / 17.11.06
Responding to someones skin colour is totally different, skin has no emotional content whatsoever.

What about when someone gets angry? Or scared? Of course skin has emotional content.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
13:19 / 17.11.06
No someones skin doesnt change when theyre angry or sad, but peoples eyes do change all the time
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:22 / 17.11.06
So, people stop being chavs when their eyes change to being un-chavlike, but then return to being chavs when their eyes "chav up"?
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:24 / 17.11.06
I still fail to see what is wrong with this, you can hate speech me out of the building but is it any different to call them pricks? In reality, prick only signifies one thing while chav at least does have a nebulous meaning IF you want to use it in that way.

Not my intent to hatespeech you out of the building Rural. I had hoped I'd made it clear in the post that lumping a group of people under the banner of "pricks" is still as classist as lumping them under the banner of "chavs". As a term though it is less loaded with racist conotations than "chav".

Chav doesn't have that nebulous a meaning to me. I know what it signifies in current society and I don't find it particularly tasteful to label people with it. If someone chooses to call themselves one that's up to them. It still doesn't give me the right to use it as a way of pidgeon-holing people.
 
  

Page: 123(4)56

 
  
Add Your Reply