Classism

I witnessed an exchange lately where someone uttered the words "You're just a hairdresser, what do you know!?" the nature of the argument was somebody else's business so I won't go into details, that's not my story to tell; however what I can say is that the hairdresser in question has a degree in Art History and she very much has the authority correct this person.

This whole exchange however made me think about just how much other people make assumptions about someone's education and background based on the work that they do. I have a degree in Computer Science with Games Technology but I've never actually used it since I graduated from University as I never went into that field to work. I have done other jobs where elements of my education have been useful, and although I would choose a different degree if I were doing things over, I don't regret the choice I made.

I always had an interest in computing, my first PC was an Amstrad CPC-464 which I used at the age of 6 to learn how to program in BASIC. Even from that young age, Information Technology [IT], or Information Communication Technology [ICT], or Computer Science, or simply Computing, whatever you want to call it now as its name has changed so many times in my lifetime alone, was always my favourite subject in school and in my spare time it was what I devoted most of my time to exploring. The degree I chose reflected this passion, this interest, was my main motivation. Unfortunately part way through my degree that motivation died as I realised the degree wouldn't actually help me enter the industry. Employers wanted a portfolio they didn't care about education. That old catch-22 of needing experience to get a job and needing a job to get experience cropped up and I wasn't in the position financially to take an unpaid internship to get it.

In hindsight if I was choosing a degree to study today I would choose one that enabled me to apply for jobs that you could only apply for with that degree. As it stands any of the jobs my degree enables me to do are all jobs that someone without my degree can also apply for, there is no competitive advantage granted by my education despite that being the selling point that academia pushed on me and the other students when deciding whether to pursue higher education. Today I would study Clinical Psychology or International Law, both of which lead to professional qualifications and enable you to apply for jobs that you will only compete against other graduates for.

I am not alone in my acquisition of a piece of paper that is little more than the paper itself. The Millennial experience seems to be defined by this point of contention; I think of the friends and family who studied through Higher Education and the degrees they achieved but never used, the fields include Music, Geology, Geography, Political Science, Hotel Management, History, English Literature, and Microbiology among others, and in the case of the hairdresser mentioned above, Art History.

When you turn to the jobs they have done since graduating, those vary in field but are not related to the subjects they studied. Music went on to be a retail manager, Geology went on to become a video editor, Geography went on to become a Dean, Political Science went on to become a Mental Health Nurse, Hotel Management went on to become a senior manager in an NHS trust. As for History, English Literature, and Microbiology they are all unemployed at present as am I. Art History initially worked in retail then took a vocational course to become a hairdresser.

The fact that none of these people do jobs remotely related to their education highlights the fact you can't reliably judge someone's level of education based on what job they do, if any. I also know several people with more money than sense who never went to Higher Education and have never actually had a job because they've never needed one, and not to sound judgemental but some of them are to put it bluntly, thick as shit. I feel the need to state this in no uncertain terms because there is most definitely an element of classism to the judgement levied at people as was the case with the hairdresser mentioned above.

Classism in Britain is an oddity, as the comedian Reginald D. Hunter once eloquently put it "A class system is what you use to discriminate against people who look like you, so that's an advanced form of racism" they're both ultimately forms of prejudice that deal with forming opinions of others without knowing anything about them, although admittedly they both have vastly different ramifications. The interesting question is whether or not class can change, or if the class you are at birth is what remains regardless of what you achieve in life - this concept is known as social mobility and it's something of a hot button issue in the UK today because many people argue social mobility is dead.

There is a similar issue in the US to do with social mobility but there it is marked by capitalism and wealth acquisition, the divide between rich and poor, those who have and those who don't. It's slightly different than the UK as class as a concept is more complex than wealth acquisition - there are many people considered upper class or aristocracy in the UK whose wealth is quite limited, even the personal wealth of the Monarchy considered the upper echelons of class in the UK is minute in comparison to the wealth of the people on various billionaire indices. That old expression "more money than the Queen" - or King as it stands now, isn't as far flung one would think.

Despite all this, I and many other Brits would not consider the likes of Jeff Bezos to be "Upper class" despite the wealth he has amassed. It's difficult to explain or rationalise why that is the case, and even more difficult to sell to an American mindset the idea that Jeff Bezos would be considered Upper Middle-Class at most in Britain - again this harkens back to the complexity of class as a concept, in the US it is defined by wealth alone but in the UK it is not. By the US definition sure if you can amass more wealth you increase your standing and your class definition changes but by the UK definition the question of whether you can change your class is more complex. The answer for some is generational, you can be working class, acquire vast amounts of wealth and still be working class, but have children born with that wealth who you raise as middle class or upper class.

The emphasis here on history, and experience parallels the difference between countries - the US is a relatively "young" country having existed a few hundred years, whereas the UK throughout its iterations past and present is thousands of years old. History is more important as a result, and valued, and yes, judged. It is perhaps from this reasoning where the idea of class being determined by birth and immutable stems from, and subsequently the vehement objection to the concept of social mobility that some go so far as to label it "class treason" when people born into one class claim later in life to become another, with the term 'class traitor' often levied at them.

I don't really have a conclusion to this post other than to say that it's very telling when you see the assumptions people make about others based on their perceptions. Perhaps it also belies the arrogance of the offender in this case and lays bare their own insecurity, a fragile sense of self, threatened by the idea that someone "beneath" them might actually know more about something they think they're an expert on when in reality they're just a condescending prick, or maybe I'm over-thinking things and they're just a sexist pig.