While seeming to vanish, class digs deeper

[imomus]

In my quotes for AFP about the Last King of Pop, I outlined the idea that social networking software might be joining with increasing Gini-gaps and the collapse of postmodernism's flattening of high and low culture to produce a new social stratification, or, rather, a return to a kind of social stratification not seen since the 1960s:

"I think we're seeing the re-appearance of class and caste. Michael Jackson's fame comes from a cultural period -- postmodern global consumerism -- when the distinction between high and low collapsed. When Pierre Bourdieu surveyed French cultural tastes in the 1960s, he found that blue collar and white collar workers had completely different cultures -- classical music for the brain workers, cheap pop for the hand workers. A few decades later, postmodern consumer culture had leveled that, at least superficially: now, people with college degrees spoke about Michael Jackson "intelligently", people from lower class backgrounds spoke about him "passionately". But everybody spoke about him. Now that postmodernism is coming to an end, and now that narrowcasting and social networking limit our encounters with "the class other", I think we'll see different classes embracing different cultures again. Things will settle back into the kind of cultural landscape Bourdieu described in "Distinction"."

Another way to put this is to say that the only kings to exist in the future will be actual blue-blood kings (since monarchy seems to show no sign of going away) rather than self-proclaimed meritocratic entertainment world kings whose pomp, though it might have annoyed some, was also a way to say "anybody, from any background, can become a king". Calling yourself "the king of pop" was therefore, in a sense, a statement about social mobility, and a deconstruction of the blood claims of the aristocracy.

Yesterday I happened to be reading a Guardian Media article about -- of all things -- Graham Norton, the camp BBC host. The article quoted BBC1 controller Jay Hunt calling a Norton show "popular with C2DE viewers who we traditionally struggle to bring to the channel". The journalist (Stuart Jeffries) added "I'm not actually sure what a C2DE viewer is".

Since I wasn't sure either, I looked the term up. The NRS social grade scale was devised in the 1930s and describes the British class system (except for aristocrats, mysteriously absent) in a coded way. The letters are assigned according to the occupation of the principal breadwinner of a household (ah, that's why the aristocrats aren't there!):

A = Upper Middle Class: Higher managerial, administrative or professional (doctor, solicitor, barrister, accountant, company director)
B = Middle Class: Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional (teacher, nurse, police officer, probation officer, librarian, middle manager)
C1 = Lower Middle Class: Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional (junior manager, student, clerical/office workers, supervisors)
C2 = Skilled Working Class: Skilled manual workers (foreman, agricultural worker, plumber, bricklayer)
D = Working Class: Semi and unskilled manual workers (manual workers, shop worker, fisherman, apprentices)
E = Those at the lowest levels of subsistence: Casual or lowest grade workers, pensioners and others who depend on the state for their income (casual labourers, state pensioners)

[Error: unknown template video]

These categories can still describe the British class system fairly well -- and are still widely used by media and marketing people, despite the advent of rival systems from potato graphics to Mosaic geodemographics. You can use the NRS system to say things like "80% of Auto Trader readers are made up of social grade bracket B, C1 and C2" or "87% of Society Guardian readers are social grade ABC1 and 86% are educated to degree level or higher", and advertisers will know exactly who they have lined up in their sights. There's a fairly strong link between your NRS ranking and your cultural consumption patterns: "57% of Independent readers are deemed A or B on the NRS social grade, while just 11% of Sun readers, 14% of Daily Mirror readers, and 29% of Daily Mail and Daily Express readers occupy these socio-economic spaces," for instance.



But there's been a shift in the actual spread of the British population across the grid. The balance between ABC1s (middle class, white collar, broadsheet-reading) and C2DEs (working class, blue collar, tabloid-reading) has altered. The majority of British people are now ABC1s, whereas in the 1970s the middle classes would have been outweighed by C2DEs. This has happened through what we might call the "internationalisation of labour"; Britain doesn't really manufacture any more, so its working class has, in a sense, been outsourced to China (picture millions of Chinese in flat caps pigeon-fancying, supporting United, and watching Benny Hill). So it isn't so much that class has disappeared as that it's been internationalised. You have to travel a long way to see the people who smelt your steel now. They've been "hidden on the far side of the world".

Another reason that class has become less visible even as it's become more determinant is social networking. The internet has allowed us to filter our contact with others to such an extent that we're seldom likely to encounter anyone who thinks or feels significantly differently online -- unless we consciously seek them out. And why would we do that? To "challenge our own values"? Because "it's good for us"?



But perhaps the ultimate class gap today is between people who are and people who aren't on the internet. If you have internet access, you're part of a 15% global elite. Don't expect to encounter the other 85% online, your highness. They ain't here.

Comments

Re: Whose Story is Selling?

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

Of course it means the "most people" who use the internet. What else would it mean?

Which musical acts get big is not a class issue, per se. All it signals is that we're moving toward a situation where production is no longer limited to what major record companies can afford to support and produce.

The problem is that just as production and internet distribution becomes easier, mainstream distribution is closing up. I don't think there's any more room for "niche acts" on radio or TV, for example, than there ever was. In fact, as time goes on, I think there's less and less room for that kind of thing. So the idea that these niche acts will ever be "big" has to go through a scaling down of expectations. What constitutes "big" now and in the future is going to be very different from what it used to be.

Re: Whose Story is Selling?

[jdcasten.livejournal.com]

I’m reminded of Chris Anderson’s “The Long Tail”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail

Yes… but even though Content may decentralize, certain distribution Channels will remain “dominant”: I don’t think media conglomerates like Bertelsmann, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, Vivendi, Disney, etc. will lose their power to make the wider public aware of what they want to. To contradict my earlier claim, It is still difficult for smaller acts to get attention without going through these larger portals. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails may offer free music, be independent, and still make a buck, but they had a lift up to their “fame” by the entrenched media power-structure. That’s one reason I don’t write a blog: no one would read it! (So I comment on more popular sites like Momus’ pub, Click Opera, where I hang out a little).

Re: Whose Story is Selling?

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the signs are pointing to the collapse, or significant contraction, of these old distribution channels. The good thing about this is that we can control our own distribution channels. The bad thing, though, is that no distribution channels we can control will ever be as massive as the old ones. So how we define "getting big" is going to change dramatically as this all plays out.

I think the big issue is that, as of yet, no real "following" has ever been achieved on the internet alone. America has a pretty vast apparatus for live performance and touring, and that's how the most successful independent bands have made their names in the States. But what happens in a country like Korea, when the mainstream apparatus crumbles, and there is virtually nothing for artists to fall back on?

Re: Whose Story is Selling?

[jdcasten.livejournal.com]

Possibly, distribution channels could be like their content: certain memes “go viral” and explode in popularity. A successful meme is usually one that spreads widely: that’s part of “natural selection.” I’m not a social Darwinist in the traditional sense, but I don’t see a huge problem with cultural phenomena of scale: large cultural movements can be both democratic (many people buy into a phenomena) and anti-democratic (“attention power” is centralized on a limited focus—maybe a group or person).

Like dieting simply by eating smart and exercising, I don’t think there’s a secret formula to “fame success”: it often takes hard work promoting talent that a large group of people appreciate. But to pick up on our discussion on previous day… social connections help: getting a gig as an opening act for a more popular band can really help. Is there no “underground” scene in Korea?

Re: Whose Story is Selling?

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that nothing will ever be popular again, but rather that our definition of "popularity" (selling millions of albums vs. hundreds of thousands) might need to be scaled back somewhat. I think that the days of relative monoculture, when people can generally be expected to be interested in all of the same things, popculture-wise, are coming to a close.

Those days are still alive and well in Korea. I'd say that, with some basic exceptions, Korea is really in its own version of the 1950s. It is a period of great affluence, and there is a staggering level of equality in the middle class. Most people really do seem to be thriving here, and most people can expect to live a fairly high quality of life. As such, there hasn't really emerged a vibrant underground to support those who fall outside the normal boundaries of pop culture.