“Society”,  social climbing and the individual

I am in a reflective mood today so, being a psychologist, I thought the following brief reflection might be of interest

Social climbing is widely condemned but quite a lot of people nonetheless seem to want to do it.  If we understand what it is and why it is, it may help one to succeed at it but I think it also shows how pointless it usually is.  I will use a little personal anecdote to set the scene:-

I once met in London a very nice young woman who was a minor member of the British aristocracy—the granddaughter of an Earl.  I did not know that at the time and she did not tell me.  Although my origins are proletarian Australian, we got on so well that she became my girlfriend.  In other words, despite the “social” gap between us (which I was not even aware of), the other affinities between us still caused us to get on well and enjoy one-another’s company.  That is the first lesson:  It is the individual person that counts—not the group to which they belong.  Finding people who are similar to oneself in outlook, attitudes and values is much valued but one may at times find such people in all sorts of places.

The second lesson stems from a time that the same lady introduced me to her uncle.  He initially gave me that frozen reception which the British upper class give to anyone who is not one of “them”.  I, however, just kept on contributing to the conversation in a relaxed manner and discussion of the events of the time immediately led to political issues.  I expressed my political views without rancour but as plausibly as I could.  (The once common advice that one should never discuss religion or politics is simply a confession that one is incapable of rational, moderate and amicable discussion of the events of the day).  His views, not entirely accidentally, were similar to mine.  More to the point, I was defending very plausibly causes that he believed in.  He loved it!  Now what do you think his attitude to me was by that time?  Was it still frozen?  Far from it.  After knowing me for just 15 minutes, I honestly believe that he would have nominated me to his club if I had wanted it.  The freezeout had totally vanished.  I was now a “sensible young chap” or some such in his eyes.  So the second lesson is similar to the first:  Similar outlook, values etc. is the key to social “getting on”.  Where two people have that, an awful lot of other differences can and will be overlooked:  Not all differences, however.  If I had had a Cockney accent, that would have been insurmountable!  (The English tend to fudge their description of who a Cockney is so I should tell you that Cockneys are simply working-class Londoners—the most cheerful group of people I have ever met).

The fact that all people tend to group themselves socially, however, has as its concomitant that people are more likely to find others of similar attitudes and values within their own group.  So my experience was somewhat unusual.  But it does show that WORKING at social “advancement” will usually be pretty pointless.  If you do not share the outlook and concerns of those you aspire to join, what is the point?  Do you intend to conceal your real views and concerns and live a lie?  Is that really how you want to live?  If you do, one can only pity you.

By the way, what really is social “advancement”?  Largely, it is a fiction.  “Society”, as it is called is mostly an illusion fostered by certain middle-aged and aging matrons in order to give themselves a sense of importance.  Among the British aristocracy there is some reality to it but elsewhere it consists simply of a small group of people who are united chiefly by a belief in their own importance—an importance that would not in general otherwise be obvious.  Even among the British aristocracy, there are many groups and sub-groups and by far the most important thing there is which individuals you know and get on with.

Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, June 5, 2005 at 09:08 PM in No particular place to go
Comments (2) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: Socialism and nationalism

Previous entry: No learning if you’re liberal