This bit got missed out! I know none of this matters - it just comes from a conversation at Oxonmoot earlier today, and I fell to musing on the subject on the journey home.
Hey there! Interesting poll! I must admit that I haven't the foggiest idea. I understand "class" in a historical sense, but I don't really "get it" in the contemporary context. I don't think I have the tools to answer this one. Sorry I'm no help!
No, your comments are helpful. I know intellectually that such things are different in the States, but I haven't experienced enough of it to understand it.
I am foreign - I don't 'do' class in that way. I believe your education and profession would put you into middle class. But it means relatively little to me in terms of connotation. Hope that makes sense.
Entirely understandable! - although I'm still trying to work out whether I have met (in RL) one of the people who have voted, or whether he is going entirely by my LJ posts and my reputation ...
I havnt met you either, and this question has made me realise how classless text can be. I'm guessing middle, because most of my friends are.
A good book on the anthropology of the English (I forget the author) says we have in fact 6 classes. Lower working, upper working, lower middle, middle middle, upper middle, upper. I think this is about right.
In this day and age, I'm not really sure what class I am anymore*, because computer programmers don't really fit in! Professional of some sort I guess would probably be closest, although like most in my field, I don't have (or need) any industry-regulated qualifications (just a couple of Oxford degrees).
*What I was when I was growing up was middle middle class. Pretty much by definition, since both my parents were teachers and that's about as middle as you can get.
Wondered how long it would take for you to ask this ;)
Looked up the defs before answering...as I now see, same answer as you gave yourself.
However, I think it is all a load of *******, for lots of reasons that I am too tired to talk about, but two that come to mind are that the socio-economic scale naturally puts younger people at the beginning of their careers in a lower banding (despite the fact that this takes no account of the 'socio-' bit), and that none of the scales I just looked at properly take account of people (often women but not necessarily) who do not fit into the traditional pattern of career progression due to other non-paying or non-career-oriented responsibilities/lifestyle choices.
Regardless of you being upper middle class and A-banded by definition, I stand by the original comment I made at the time too, (which wasn't *the* original comment).
Oooookay, that was like being informative only not. Since I have no clue who Creatrix is I'm still no closer to knowing who you are, but hey ho, I'll figure it out sooner or later. :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-17 07:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-17 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-17 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-17 09:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-17 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 02:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 08:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 12:29 pm (UTC)A good book on the anthropology of the English (I forget the author) says we have in fact 6 classes. Lower working, upper working, lower middle, middle middle, upper middle, upper. I think this is about right.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 12:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 08:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 10:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 01:11 pm (UTC)*What I was when I was growing up was middle middle class. Pretty much by definition, since both my parents were teachers and that's about as middle as you can get.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 08:28 pm (UTC)Looked up the defs before answering...as I now see, same answer as you gave yourself.
However, I think it is all a load of *******, for lots of reasons that I am too tired to talk about, but two that come to mind are that the socio-economic scale naturally puts younger people at the beginning of their careers in a lower banding (despite the fact that this takes no account of the 'socio-' bit), and that none of the scales I just looked at properly take account of people (often women but not necessarily) who do not fit into the traditional pattern of career progression due to other non-paying or non-career-oriented responsibilities/lifestyle choices.
Regardless of you being upper middle class and A-banded by definition, I stand by the original comment I made at the time too, (which wasn't *the* original comment).
no subject
Date: 2006-09-18 08:50 pm (UTC)You'll have to remind me (on or off list).
no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 08:38 pm (UTC)I don't think we've met (unless you are a TS or SocT member?)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 05:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 05:38 pm (UTC)