3 ms·

The definition of social classes differ between Europe and the US; and there's also far less consensus on the US definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameri

The definition of social classes differ between Europe and the US; and there's also far less consensus on the US definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class

pat_punnu 13y ago
So if it's just about money, what would you call a fifth generation Baronet who was educated at Eton and Oxford, served as an officer in a prestigious Army regiment, listens to Radio 4, reads the Telegraph, never watches TV and likes to walk in the country, but happens to be poor in his old age? It's insane to call him working class, just because he's poor. Just like it's insane to call someone like David Beckham upper class - everything about the man is still working class.
- droopyEyelids 13y ago
  Careful, you're showing your status by failing to read the article, respond to the points made in the post, or comprehend the basic idea that class delineations vary between cultures.
- integraton 13y ago
  We don't call the "fifth generation Baronet" anything because, frankly, virtually no one of any class in the US cares.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  In America, such a person would probably be called "retired", no different from someone who worked for 40 years in a factory before retiring to live on social security (= small government-provided pension). Being educated at a fancy school doesn't matter unless you're looking for a job in particular industries. A military career can earn some respect, but definitely not prestige.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I don't see either of your hypotheticals as "insane". Of course you call a rich guy "upper class", no matter how he acts, and a poor guy not, no matter how refined his background.
  - pat_punnu 13y ago
    Wow - that is so totally different to how we look at class in the UK. I think what I'm thinking of the class divide, you might call the old-money, new-money divide.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Sounds about right to me. I'm not sure if "old money" could be applied when the money is gone, but I wouldn't rule it out.
- msabalau 13y ago
  Most Americans would call him poor (or retired) and Beckham rich. The social signifiers Americans would recognize distinguish between the main groupings of people who work for a living: working class, middle class, and professionals. On either side of that are the rich and the poor. Take a poor person, give them a lot of money and they become rich. Their interests, habits, or speech are irrelevant. Some rich Americans who happen to have inherited their money distinguish themselves from outsiders through affections related to clothing and habits. The vast majority of their fellow citizens would not even recognize most of what this group regards as markers of group status, any more than they would be able to distinguish between this or that gang sign. America's original sin is slavery. Skin color was a quite simple way to distinguish between castes, so there was no reason to develop the mannerisms that became important in Britain. Someone studying acting in the UK will likely spend a tremendous amount of time on voice, so they can navigate the complexities of representing a variety of classes. It's not accidental that Americans are more noted for a much more inwardly focused "method".
- _pius 13y ago
  what would you call a fifth generation Baronet who was educated at Eton and Oxford, served as an officer in a prestigious Army regiment, listens to Radio 4, reads the Telegraph, never watches TV and likes to walk in the country ...? British. Very, very British.

pat_punnu 13y ago

So if it's just about money, what would you call a fifth generation Baronet who was educated at Eton and Oxford, served as an officer in a prestigious Army regiment, listens to Radio 4, reads the Telegraph, never watches TV and likes to walk in the country, but happens to be poor in his old age? It's insane to call him working class, just because he's poor. Just like it's insane to call someone like David Beckham upper class - everything about the man is still working class.

droopyEyelids 13y ago
Careful, you're showing your status by failing to read the article, respond to the points made in the post, or comprehend the basic idea that class delineations vary between cultures.
integraton 13y ago
We don't call the "fifth generation Baronet" anything because, frankly, virtually no one of any class in the US cares.
jmillikin 13y ago
In America, such a person would probably be called "retired", no different from someone who worked for 40 years in a factory before retiring to live on social security (= small government-provided pension). Being educated at a fancy school doesn't matter unless you're looking for a job in particular industries. A military career can earn some respect, but definitely not prestige.
mikeash 13y ago
I don't see either of your hypotheticals as "insane". Of course you call a rich guy "upper class", no matter how he acts, and a poor guy not, no matter how refined his background.
- pat_punnu 13y ago
  Wow - that is so totally different to how we look at class in the UK. I think what I'm thinking of the class divide, you might call the old-money, new-money divide.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Sounds about right to me. I'm not sure if "old money" could be applied when the money is gone, but I wouldn't rule it out.
msabalau 13y ago
Most Americans would call him poor (or retired) and Beckham rich. The social signifiers Americans would recognize distinguish between the main groupings of people who work for a living: working class, middle class, and professionals. On either side of that are the rich and the poor. Take a poor person, give them a lot of money and they become rich. Their interests, habits, or speech are irrelevant. Some rich Americans who happen to have inherited their money distinguish themselves from outsiders through affections related to clothing and habits. The vast majority of their fellow citizens would not even recognize most of what this group regards as markers of group status, any more than they would be able to distinguish between this or that gang sign. America's original sin is slavery. Skin color was a quite simple way to distinguish between castes, so there was no reason to develop the mannerisms that became important in Britain. Someone studying acting in the UK will likely spend a tremendous amount of time on voice, so they can navigate the complexities of representing a variety of classes. It's not accidental that Americans are more noted for a much more inwardly focused "method".
_pius 13y ago
what would you call a fifth generation Baronet who was educated at Eton and Oxford, served as an officer in a prestigious Army regiment, listens to Radio 4, reads the Telegraph, never watches TV and likes to walk in the country ...? British. Very, very British.