A question about class in Middle Earth

Did a class divide exist between all the races in Middle Earth? Elves and great lords such as Gandalf being of the upper classes, with Hobbits, Dwarves and lesser men perhaps being the working classes?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Did a class divide exist between all the races in Middle Earth? Elves and great lords such as Gandalf being of the upper classes, with Hobbits, Dwarves and lesser men perhaps being the working classes?

It would depend on exactly the Age you are referring to and what specifics you are inquiring about. Elves had effectively removed themselves from most traffic with Men by the 3rd Age (save for the Silvan Elves of Mirkwood, who still did business with the Men of Laketown), but in the 3rd Age one doesn't find the fealty extant in the 1st Age between Elves and Men (where the Edain in many cases were under vassalage to Elvish Lords).

Men independently of Elves had caste systems (readily apparent in Rohan, as there was a definite feeling of inferiority among the Dunlenders towards the Rohirrim), and certainly there was a nobility present in Gondor (where lineage to Numenor would play an important role). Dwarves had their lords as well, and even the Hobbits had a squirearchy of sorts, with leading families holding sway over territories in the Shire (the Brandybucks and the Tooks for instance). There is certainly an intimation of class in the manner in which Bilbo and Frodo have employed the Gamgees.

[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.

Thank you.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

There were no classes in early human history. Indeed the classes were introduced by the advent of neolithic (and pastoral) cultures about 8000 years ago. From there (modern day Iraq) they spread to Egypt, Greece, Rome... and then to Europe - the same developement can be seen in India and China as well; places where agricultural societies replaced the old hunter-gatherer societies. So the class society has it's roots in the earliest civilizations - in good and bad.

American indians were hunter-gatherers.

When the Europeans started to flux to America during the 16th century, they were mainly outlaws and protestants who were persecuted for their faith. In the "promised land" they thought the doctrine that fit only too well to their own status would be fine: every man is the maker of his own fortune - and God will follow closely how it goes. Calvinism - one of the major faiths of those immigrating to the Americas - says that those who are rich are approved by God and those who are poor are abhorred by Him.

Looking at the available "empty land" (the original Americans eg. the indians were not counted as humans having a pledge to their country) to be taken and the individualistic thread of European thought that started to evolve from the 14th century onwards (William ockham & Duns Scotus and their voluntarism added with the ideas of reformation a few hundred years after) the idea of a free Man being able to make his fortunes became a myth sought after by many and felt real in the new continent open for all possibilities.

There were no classes then in the becoming U.S., just free individuals doing their best and earning what was fit to them. But in part that was self-deceiving already at that time as some people had very different angles of departure as the others, like the aristocracy of the old world settling to the U.S. beside these outcasts...

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.

Ahh.

Class is nothing important? Look at the statistics of black males with no education and compare it to highly educated parent's white children... No classes? Or look at the so called "white trash"... Education, wealth of the family... class.

Rising and falling on your own abilities? Well Napoleon in France got this idea two hundred years ago. It's called meritocracy. He decided to get away with the old aristocracy in his army and appointed capable soldiers to his staff.

Everyone for his merits, right? But how do you gain merits from starting points where you have no chance for education or benevolence?

Yes, some people do it. The story of Obama sounds like a fairy tale proving the point. But then again millions of people never achieve it.

You know, anyone can win a national lottery. Yes, anyone. But only one does and the millions of others do not win but lose. The stories that tell you about a guy who was a poor kid and became a millionaire are true, but not possible for everyone. Anyone can be a millionaire, but everyone can't - and the ones who are, are that by luck (my opinion) - it's the same logic as why everyone can't be celebrities.

It's a question of rarity - according to which being fat was sexy during the Middle-ages and the early new age...

Only a few can be rich / different / celebrities / whatever...

And that pertains to the classs-question as well. We can't all be high-middle-class... If we are, being high middle-class will wane and become nauseating mediocrity and leaves us with a great nausea towards the very rich and in shame in relation to the really poor.

It's the law of the market economy that those who have will get more and those who have not will lose even the little they have. Jesus had insight to say this in the Bible already - even if I find it troubling that he seems to approve of that...

So you can say it's the individual and not the class but I'd say it's (sadly) the class still whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Morthoron]

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.

[Sauron the White]

Nogrod - I am not arguing that class is not a fctor in ones life. I only aksed why in British films it seems that class is THE ISSUE in so many films.

By the way, I taught for 33 years in a Detroit high school and saw all kinds of people make it well beyond their parents status. Smarts, hard work and a bit of luck all helps. Everyone got, and still does get, a free public education. Some make the most of the opportunity while others flush it down the toilet.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Nogrod - I am not arguing that class is not a fctor in ones life. I only aksed why in British films it seems that class is THE ISSUE in so many films.

Sure. No problem. You just gave me a lead I couldn't resist to follow...

And yes, the Brits seem to be so attached to their centuries of glory to whitewash all their problems today... That's why they cling to the films of aristocracy as a national passtime or as the "good old" workers... Like the world hadn't changed and reshuffled the cards already...

By the way, I taught for 33 years in a Detroit high school and saw all kinds of people make it well beyond their parents status. Smarts, hard work and a bit of luck all helps. Everyone got, and still does get, a free public education. Some make the most of the opportunity while others flush it down the toilet.

That's the argument for individualism: one can rise above the expectations. And some people do it. And that's great.

The story still is that looking at the statistics those who are children of white (or black) high-educated parents will do well with percentage X (a high one) and those who are the children of low income black (white) single-parent households will do bad with a percentage Y (a high one).

Having these numbers can you still say it's a question of a personal merit only? I mean, yes it in a way is. A few people jump over the fence and a few fall down. But what is the foreseen career you're able to reach unless you perform extremerly well / poor? Some people just have better starting points - and in today's world I'd call that a class-difference. In the eighties it was smoother but now we're going back to the class society of the early 20th century or the late 19th.

And that's sad.

[Bêthberry]

Dragging this back to Tolkien . . .

There are kings among several of the races in Middle-earth, men, elves and dwarves. There are also hereditary positions, such as Gondor's Stewards. There are many references to noble blood, with the idea that the highest form of behaviour is shown by those with such blood. Gondor's ruling class seems mighty concerned with its Numenorean heritage, as if that gave them some sort of special dispensation. Both Rohan and Gondor have formal burial grounds for their kings/stewards, but we don't hear (as I recall) much about where the ordinary folks are buried. Aragorn must earn his throne, but he is still a king in waiting and his son--right of primogeniture--inherits his throne. (We aren't even ever told the name of his daughter.)

Contrasted with this pervasive backdrop are the Hobbits, who might not have a king but they do have, as Morthoron points out, a class society, as evidenced in the Gamgees and the Tooks/Brandybucks and Sam's term of address for Frodo. Of course, the fact that Sam becomes mayor many times over adds a suggestion that the class society which is otherwise displayed all over Middle-earth will have some mobility in the 4th Age, yet even there we have the paternalism of the King decreeing who shall have access to the Shire.

There is much niggling over class in Middle-earth, as there is over many of Tolkien's themes.

EDIT: I rather like Morthoron's patrician to describe the sense of class in LotR.

[Nerwen]

StW, Yes, England has a reputation for being particularly class-obsessed. Morthoron has outlined some of the historical reasons why this may be the case.

However, inequality is a fact of life everywhere– including America.

I am Australian, and here you also get people saying that we live in a classless society... even though this clearly contradicts daily experience.

Yes, people at the very bottom of the heap can be there because they're feckless, and many people rise through their own efforts– but overall a lot depends on opportunity. Middle class and upper class kids get much more of it than working class ones. From everything I know of the United States, it's much the same there.

EDIT: X'd with Nogrod and Bethberry.

[Lindale]

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.

Thank you.

A risky business, to equate a man's literary work with his political stances. But then, you may also argue that no literary work is not political.

In my experience, class has everything to do with one's life. A man from the lower classes strives to get up the social ladder, while those in the upper echelons (who aren't Paris Hiltons) strive to keep their place. That is in the Philippines.

Being a former American colony, I can say from our history books (those written by Filipino and American scholars), class is also valuable to the latter. Why else would they suppress the ilustrado class during the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century?

But good point, Mansun. You barely hear of any little one from a nobody-family doing great things. Radagast was an exception, but how was he looked upon by Saruman? Beren had to be descended from Beor. Erendis from Beor's sister (unmentioned anywhere else except UT). Even the hobbits in the quest were descended from the "noble" families of the Shire--Brandybucks and Tooks. Sam only became a part of it because he was... at the right place at the right time, but he became a sort of "noble" after returning.

[Nerwen]

Mind if just drag this thread back to the original topic for a moment? Mansun, you didn't simply ask whether social classes existed in M-E, you said:

Originally Posted by Mansun

Did a class divide exist between all the races in Middle Earth? Elves and great lords such as Gandalf being of the upper classes, with Hobbits, Dwarves and lesser men perhaps being the working classes?

Now, that question is answered pretty comprehensively in the next post. However, I'm just curious about what made you think of it to begin with.

Because, you see, though societies with species-based class-systems do crop up in speculative fiction, I can't recall any sign of that in Middle-earth (apart from the example Morthoron gives). Or have you seen something I've missed?