3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Social_commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Social_comment... I think English 19th century so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Social_commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Social_comment... I think English 19th century social critics would disagree regarding the material comfort of the subject classes. As I mentioned, my impression is that British subject classes have internalized the narrative of the inherent superiority of the ruling classes. How this was achieved fascinates me and remains an intriguing question. It is a unique phenomena afaik. A degree of psychological "comfort" appears to be necessary for a minority to maintain stable generational power over the majority. In China's case, this psychological component is pride in national resurgence after the 'century of shame', for which achievement the Communist Party of China can reasonably, and most certainly does, claim credit.

noduerme 5y ago
I think there's a vast difference between the British narrative of inherited social hierarchy and the American narrative of upward mobility. It's not really accurate to lump them together. To the extent that they serve as social guidelines and even instruments of control, the former operates as a stick and the latter a carrot. They approach the individual in completely opposite ways, but they both make room for the individual, whereas China simply pretends the individual does not exist except as a threat to the state. China's approach seems remarkably stable ATM, but I suspect it's more brittle than it appears because it cannot accommodate any complaint. Anyone can say anything about the Queen or about American capitalism. National pride in a relatively healthy open society is largely premised on the right to complain. England was the first country to enshrine the rights of commoners, and do away with absolute monarchy. The decentralization of power is what allows for the psychological comfort - or stops a boiling pot from exploding.
noduerme 5y ago
Just having reread what you wrote, and realizing you're referring to subject colonial classes in the 19th C as opposed to internal domestic lower classes in Anglophone countries today... there's another explanation. The British Empire didn't have enough manpower to administrate its colonies. So it was very adept at creating civil service bureaucracies composed of and managed by colonials at all but the highest levels. This is what allowed such a small maritime country to control such a vast empire. To do this, they had to educate and Anglicize a layer of colonials to a certain degree sufficient to run the colony, and had to give them elevated privileges. The bureaucratic classes created by the British are still in control of most former British colonies today. Naturally enough, they still play Cricket, speak English, send their children to school in Britain, and run the armed forces; the structure is their source of power, and their place in it is backed by their proximity to and familiarity with British customs. What you perceive as a narrative of inherent superiority of the British is really a sense of superiority themselves, versus the uneducated masses they rule.

noduerme 5y ago

I think there's a vast difference between the British narrative of inherited social hierarchy and the American narrative of upward mobility. It's not really accurate to lump them together. To the extent that they serve as social guidelines and even instruments of control, the former operates as a stick and the latter a carrot. They approach the individual in completely opposite ways, but they both make room for the individual, whereas China simply pretends the individual does not exist except as a threat to the state. China's approach seems remarkably stable ATM, but I suspect it's more brittle than it appears because it cannot accommodate any complaint. Anyone can say anything about the Queen or about American capitalism. National pride in a relatively healthy open society is largely premised on the right to complain. England was the first country to enshrine the rights of commoners, and do away with absolute monarchy. The decentralization of power is what allows for the psychological comfort - or stops a boiling pot from exploding.

noduerme 5y ago

Just having reread what you wrote, and realizing you're referring to subject colonial classes in the 19th C as opposed to internal domestic lower classes in Anglophone countries today... there's another explanation. The British Empire didn't have enough manpower to administrate its colonies. So it was very adept at creating civil service bureaucracies composed of and managed by colonials at all but the highest levels. This is what allowed such a small maritime country to control such a vast empire. To do this, they had to educate and Anglicize a layer of colonials to a certain degree sufficient to run the colony, and had to give them elevated privileges. The bureaucratic classes created by the British are still in control of most former British colonies today. Naturally enough, they still play Cricket, speak English, send their children to school in Britain, and run the armed forces; the structure is their source of power, and their place in it is backed by their proximity to and familiarity with British customs. What you perceive as a narrative of inherent superiority of the British is really a sense of superiority themselves, versus the uneducated masses they rule.