LOTR - classist?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Generally the higher ups were the strongest/fastest/bravest and most wise/noble/intelligent. Sam certainly does not disprove that. He is, after all, shown through the course of events to be by hobbit standards extremely brave, resourceful, tough, sharp, and worthy of honor. And sure enough, he ends up being the mayor at the end.

Sam only helps highlight the differences between classes in some ways. The rulers and such were generally superior, and when on rare occasion a superior person was born into a lower class (like Sam), his superiority would lead to him being absorbed into the ruling class. It's a case of circular reasoning- being ruling class generally makes one superior, and being superior generally elevates one to ruling class.

So did Sam really break any barriers? Is he really a common hobbit who rose to the top? Or is he a superior hobbit that was inexplicably born to commoners and rose to take his rightful place among the elite?

Actually what you're describing is more the theory of Meritocracy. Blair alleged that we now have Meritocracy in Britain, as you do (by and large, discounting families of Kennedys and Rothschilds etc on their Martha's Vineyard estates) in the States, but we don't. This is where class can easily be transcended by those with talent, an almost Darwinian concept.

There is some evidence that Tolkien favoured the more Darwinian Meritocracy concept. Who was mayor when Sharkey came? Will Whitfoot. He was ineffectual as a leader and was one of the first to be locked up. Of course Sam was strong and brave and so he rose to the top because he had 'proved' his superiority. In a way, all systems are like this, as I cannot think of any political system whereby people do not have to 'fight' to be top dog, barring Absolute Monarchy, and a cursory glance at some of Shakespeare's plays will reveal that even Absolute Monarchs had to strategise and posture in order to maintain the throne.

Anyway...class...

Remember Tolkien was English and as such will have had ingrained into him notions of class. Class in the UK actually has very little to do with money or status. You might be Richard Branson but you will never, ever be considered Upper Class. You might indeed be the son of an Earl who grows dreadlocks and lives in a old bus with a dog on a string, but you will never ever be Working Class. In some ways, the caste system still exists in this country, and a person's class may be discovered from the tiniest signifiers, such as what they call their WC, or if they use napkin rings, where they shop for groceries and if they have garden gnomes.

I happen to think that Sam does indeed symbolise a 'new age' where someone who proves their merit can move from one class to another, as other characters symbolise shifts in Middle-earth society (Gimli and Legolas symbolise the ending of racial divisions, Eowyn symbolises the end of gender divisions, etc); and shifts are inevitable after such world changing events as Wars. However, up to that point of War, class divides did indeed exist in Middle-earth, and on a far wider scale than just in The Shire (I shall maybe pick up on some of these later).

The question is whether Tolkien was being 'classist' in showing such divides? I think not, as what he does show us is how they came to be broken down, shook up and changed around, all for the eventual good of Middle-earth.

[Lush]

“Even the unlucky little Samoyedes, I suspect, have tinned food and the village loudspeaker telling Stalin's bed-time stories about Democracy and the wicked Fascists who eat babies and steal sledge-dogs. There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as 'patriotism', may remain a habit! But it won't do any good, if it is not universal.” (Letter #52)

That creeps me out a bit, actually.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There is some evidence that Tolkien favoured the more Darwinian Meritocracy concept. Who was mayor when Sharkey came? Will Whitfoot. He was ineffectual as a leader and was one of the first to be locked up. Of course Sam was strong and brave and so he rose to the top because he had 'proved' his superiority.

LotR "proves" that Tolkien favoured Darwinian Meritocracy? Really now....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

LotR "proves" that Tolkien favoured Darwinian Meritocracy? Really now....

I say that 'Meritocracy' is a Darwinian political theory, I don't say that Tolkien favoured Darwin's theories, though there's no reason he shouldn't have as he'd have been taught about them in school and seems to have followed the basics in Middle-earth.

Now another thing about Sam I forgot to add. He did indeed rise in his class, but he also grew in wealth. I wonder how much he might have been considered 'nouveau riche' in The Shire? Money is no indicator of class, as seen by our beloved 'Posh' and Becks who might be rolling in Gucci and Ferraris but are still seen as very Working Class. Looking at it from the other side, Tolkien himself as an Upper Middle academic was not well off at all and had to take on extra work as a way of supplementing his income; the lack of money was a constant source of worry while he was bringing up his family. Ironically, he could have passed up University and set up in business and he'd possibly have become exceptionally rich, but he could not have ascended to the level of Upper Middle despite his hypothetical wealth.

[the.landlord]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Anyway...class...

Remember Tolkien was English and as such will have had ingrained into him notions of class. Class in the UK actually has very little to do with money or status. You might be Richard Branson but you will never, ever be considered Upper Class. You might indeed be the son of an Earl who grows dreadlocks and lives in a old bus with a dog on a string, but you will never ever be Working Class. In some ways, the caste system still exists in this country, and a person's class may be discovered from the tiniest signifiers, such as what they call their WC, or if they use napkin rings, where they shop for groceries and if they have garden gnomes.

i think the situation in germany is very much like the situation in england. an friend of mine is from a very rich family. he went to a private school, but left it without abitur (highschool diploma), because he wanted to be an artist.
later on he became a carpenter... now anyone would regard him as an upper middle class person... because of his ways, because he is interested in the arts, in theatre, opera and so on.

as for wc, napkin rings and garden gnomes... let me have a guess. just for the fun of it...
i am not from england, but i have some relatives, who live there.
wcs: i think upper class folks refer to them as "bathroom", middle class folks would say "loo" and they would talk about "spending a penny" and working class folks would say "the bogs'".
napkin rings: i would say middle class (napking rings from copper or decorated plastic) and upper class (napkin rings from silver). if working class folks happen to have napkin rings they use them only on christmas and easter.
garden gnomes: upper working class, lower middle class... like in germany.
did i guess right?