Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
May I ask a question here? It seems to an American that the British are absolutely obsessed with the idea of social class and where one stands on the class structure. Could someone explain this? Over the years, it seems that every other British film, or films set in British life, have class as its central or one of its more important themes. Here in the States, class is nothing important. It is understood that you will rise or fall on the basis of yourself and your abilities.
I think of the excellent film REMAINS OF THE DAY and its fixation on the roles of the classes and I could come up with hundreds of other examples.
I do not mean to hijack this thread and do not want to do so... but the topic introduced here seems central to this understanding.
|
As an American, I am sure it would be presumptuous for me to answer for the English contingent; however, since Americans are, as a rule, regarded as rude, I shall sally forth with a brief explanation anyway.
First, Universal Male Suffrage was not an established fact in Britain until well into the 20th century. Even though there were important reform acts in 1832, 1867 and 1884, much of the voting rights for men were based on income requirements (voting rights were originally only available to Protestant -- particularly Anglican -- landowners for the most part). For instance, up until 1832 great industrial cities like Manchester and Birmingham had no representation in parliament; whereas a 'Rotten Burrough' out in the country -- which might consist of perhaps 100 souls and a few sheep (and controlled by a single family for generations) -- had an MP representing them. An excellent summarization can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A545195
Second, for most of the history of British Parliament there was no direct salary for MP's. A member of the House of Commons was expected to be well-off enough to be able to maintain himself and his family without the need for recompense from the government (and thus govern the country with irreproachable discernment and enlightenment unmuddied by the crass need for actually working for a living). It was not until 1911 that MPs received a regular salary:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf
This patrician view of a ruling class was self-perpetuating, and almost hereditary (with such famous families as the Churchills, Cecils and Pitts as examples), and reached its zenith in the Edwardian Age preceding WWI. An excellent book regarding class in that time period in Britain (as well as political overviews of France, Russia and the U.S.) is Barabra Tuchman's
The Proud Tower.
Thus, a rigid stratification of class structure evolved over many centuries, and the rule of law was reserved for those constituents who were the landed part of the establishment. One only has to read the novels of Dickens or Austen to ascertain what a middle-class person could aspire to (but not step beyond one's station), or what was the eternal lot of the inveterate poor.
Sorry for the brevity of the explanation, but I don't think it's necessary to go into it further and drag this thread too far afield.
P.S. StW, Nogrod has a valid point regarding class in the U.S. Your statement
"Here in the States, class is nothing important" is naive. Though there has always been the ability to pull oneself up by the boots straps and be successful in a stereotypical Horatio Alger manner, the fact remains that class stratification is a fact in the U.S. as a careful study of American government will confirm.