Class in Britain

by David Cannadine

David Cannadine's unique history examines the British preoccupation with class and the different ways the British have thought about their own society. From the eighteenth through the twentieth century, he traces the different ways British society has been viewed, unveiling the different purposes each model has served. This is a social, intellectual and political history and a powerful account of how and why class has shaped British identity.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, British Literature

276 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 10, 1998

About the author

Sir David Cannadine FBA FRSL FSA FRHistS is a British author and historian, who specialises in modern history and the history of business and philanthropy.

Reviews

[kler]

British history is fucking boring

[Joshua Letchford]

"By the same token, it has been argued in this book that class is best understood as being what culture does to inequality and social structure: investing the many anonymous individuals and unfathomable collectivities in society with shape and significance, by moulding our perceptions of the unequal social world we live in. As with landscape, this is partly a matter of the social structure itself, which does change and evolve in terms of number, occupation, wealth and location. But this is also a matter of politics and perceptions, rhetoric and language, feeling and sentiment. And just as the meaning of landscape is often contested, so the meaning of social structure is disputed, not so much in terms of language, as in terms of the different models of it that are employed by different people at different times for different purposes."

Class In Britain, p.189

This paragraph neatly sums up the philosophical premise behind Canandine's book. The British have had three ways of thinking about their society- a finely tuned hierarchy of individuals, a triad of upper, middle and lower classes, and Us Versus Them. Which view is more sociologically accurate is actually a moot point. All three are like those oversimplified models of the atom you learn in highschool; quite useful, and quite inaccurate. Rather, we use them because they are ways to personify a value we hold, such as deference and social cohesion, rugged independence, or resistance against greater powers.

The main take away for me from this book was the idea of class, and most sociological commentary, as philosophical moralising, a social construct produced for rhetorical ends, rather than rigorous sociological models. This is true of everyday people's view of society and not just that of political pundits either. How we think about society is more influential than what society actually is because society is too complex to accurately categorise.

This is applicable even in Australia which is far less obsessed with class. You can apply it to our debates about multiculturalism just as easily. Our confidence in our melting pot, or our fears of social strife and tribalism are powerful ways to think about society, but they are at least as much a philosophy as a reliable sociological measure. Everyone has an anecdote that proves their point, because they're all true. Each perspective exists to some degree out there in the real world. Any attempt to choose one model as more true than the others requires a simplification beyond the point of accuracy.

Seeing sociological commentary as a philosophical exercise does not paralyse the field. I think it illuminates it's true nature, and it's true usefulness. Waxing philosophical about how we want to think about our society allows us to be visionaries and dreamers, appealing to people's hearts and not just crunching data. To be honest, that sort of visionary philosophising opens more exciting possibilities than attempting to maintain the illusion we can accurately summarise the corporate identity of 20 million people in a single concept.

[Toby · Rating 4 out of 5]

The comforting cup of tea on the Penguin paperback belies the fact that this is a serious and at times dense academic work by a well-esteemed historian of modern British social history. It's short but requires considerable concentration. Starting with the eighteenth century and moving up to Tony Blair (the recently elected prime minister at the date of publication), Cannadine explores the existence (or otherwise) of class in Britain (or England, Ireland and the colonies - Scotland and Wales don't feature much) through the lens of three understandings. These are a gradated hierarchy from prince to peasant, a tripartite division of upper, middle and working class and a binary division between the haves and have-nots, the patricians and the proles etc. He shows how the eighteenth century idea of the gradated society gave way, partly through the adoption of a Marxist sociology, to a binary division of class war. He also shows how all three understandings are frequently adopted at the same time by politicians and the public.

His view is that the tripartite and binary views are false. They do not express the reality of the complexity of Britain, past or present, but instead represent a way in which society is talked about. The fact that the last political revolution in Britain was in the mid seventeenth century - one that was comprehensively overturned in 1660 and 1689 - meant that the old order was never swept away as it was in post-Napoleonic Europe or in the independent United States. Class in Britain is assumed to be there because no-one has ever conclusively demonstrated otherwise. Thatcher thought that she had won the class war in 1984 and Major spoke of a classless society, but nevertheless it persists.

Perhaps there was a brief moment in the twentieth century when a tripartite model of society did exist (although Cannadine denies this). There was a point mid century when the working class did still exist in mines, shipyards and steelyards, and the upper class, or at least the upper middle class did by and large run the country. It is very hard now to argue for the existence of a working class as traditionally conceived and it is to be hoped that Cameron, Johnson, Rees-Mogg et al represent a last hurrah from the failed upper class attempts to lead the country.

Instead society seems to me to be one vast gradated middle class in which even the distinctions of the 1980s seem less obvious than they once did. Social Media, streaming, extra-community networking simultaneously atomise us and create connections across former social boundaries. At the same time the poisonous legacy of the Brexit referendum with the binary divisions of Brexiteers and Remainers have created new, and hopefully temporary, divisions marked, it would seem, by education and geographical/urban location, rather than class boundaries (overlapping though at times they may seem). It would be interesting if Cannadine had thought fit to revise this book twenty years on.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's interesting to see the mixed reactions to this book. I give it 5 stars. I think it is one of the more interesting, insightful, and valuable political books I have read. It starts out by discussing three historical ways British people have viewed class in their society. It does not "subscribe" to any one of these as the singularly accurate picture of British society. At first I felt great disagreement with him--because I thought he was disagreeing with Marx (and perhaps he is--but actually that isn't the point here) and trying to soft pedal the harshness of privilege differences. That is why the negative reviews here--very comprehensible to me, and my first reaction also. I just disagreed with him through almost half of the book. But once you get to the second half, after he's presented the three popular and historical "envisionments" of class structure in Britian, you realize he isn't talking about which description is correct. He's talking about how British people understand their own society, correctly or incorrectly. What this book is about is how heirarchy in British society and the justification for it and the way it plays out politically (and by extrapolation I think in many if not all societies) is a matter not just of fact but of popular belief and also institutional ritual. And the key he is talking about is that the description is something that people come to believe, feel outrage or righteousness about, and see their part in as an important part of their identity. Even more importantly, the book is about how these definitions/conceptualizations get used by politicians, and promulgated and shaped by politicians. There is very useful thinking about Thatcher and Major in this regard and where they stood vis a vis working people and the traditional aristocracy. This is something so clearly happening in the U.S.--how politicians play with the phrase "middle class" in order to get voters to see their alignments the way politician want them to. This book is important and insightful. I'm a transatlantic--U.S. father, British mother--started school in Britain, most of adulthood in the U.S. but a decade in Britain and a British husband and in-laws, this book also answered so many questions I have had. I rate if 5 stars.

[Melanie Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am a bit disappointed with this book, as I found it rather a dull read. The gist of Cannadine's argument could have been stated with much fewer words. I was also not terribly impressed by the fact that he insisted only on three models - the hierarchical, the two tier and the three tier. For myself, born in the 1960s, I grew up perceiving that I was in a roughly four class society - the elite, the upper middle class, the lower middle class and the working class - perhaps because I viewed myself as being in a lower middle class family. Things have changed with time. Under Thatcherism the 'underclass' evolved, creating a fifth tier to my perceptions. By now, of course, we are far from being a classless society, but the groupings are increasingly unclear as, for instance, some knowledge and skills are less valued than previously.
This book was first published in 1998 and I could not expect Cannadine to see into the future, but I was not convinced by his descriptions of society at all times. I was especially disappointed by his views of the 1960s and 1970s - I think things were rather more complex than he suggests, though one might argue that 'hierarchical' covers several variations - I am not convinced that it does. I think the study of sociology suggested more class groups, which were not covered by this book.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a good book and it made me think a little towards the end which is always really quite good for any book!!....the closing chapters presented Thatcher as someone who came in as a avenging angel against the elite trying to stabilise the notion of division but arguably left much more in its wake...it was an interesting premise mainly as personally I have (and remain) in the anti Thatcher camp...however it was interesting to see the initial appeal and revise some ideas.
It's a historical text book really which tries to do the impossible...define class through the ages...the book deals with the them and is view of class as well as the more defined working..middle and upper axis whilst acknowledging that ultimately even these terms don't encompass the variety within the sub sections and the rise of a under class..Another post Thatcher present.
All in all a small but quite heavy and heady read which a few years old now so the idea of the then familiar notion of a classless society seems naive in the Corbyn/May years where class and entitlement again occupy the political domain..
Regardless I enjoyed this despite it being a read to savour rather than devour.

[Oraklet · Rating 3 out of 5]

it's well researched and interesting but the language used is extremely dry.

[G.G. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wide-ranging account, through the lens of class, of how "British society has been observed and imagined, envisaged and understood" (p. 164). For me the most interesting chapter was the last one, which discusses class in the world-views of Thatcher, Major, and Blair.

[Richard · Rating 1 out of 5]

Gave up after 40 pages. Won't be going back to try to again.