something about "class"
This book is very interesting and worthy of reading as it is not a historical book written by some historians. George Orwell used his specific viewpoint as a novelist to show us the real world of life in the bottom society of Britain. His wording and phrasing are very delicate and accurate which revealed every detail of daily life in the miner area. I could not deny that the first part impressed me a lot as there are some superb descriptive passages in this — of a cheap lodging house and its inhabitants, of what it's like to work down a mine, and of the unemployed scrabbling for waste coal. His description is just like a guide that shows us around the miner’s house and working place. It tells me some truth which I was not feel sure about before just like the women who worked in the miner had to work everyday even when they were pregnant. I still can not image the miserable life like that, although I know it was their real lives. Besides, insightful interpretations accompany the descriptions, though in places Orwell ventures less successfully towards social history, with analysis of household budgets, statistics, housing, and so forth. Some of what he writes is still topical — an explanation of the low quality diet of the poor, for example.
Part two has different style from the first part. In part two, Orwell goes on to offer some broader observations on the English class system and on the challenges facing socialism. Orwell’s arguments are led by his autobiography. He used himself as a good example to show the readers the class difference in Britain at that time. He was taught that there were inherent gaps between middle-class and working-class and he never doubted this idea until he went to Wigan and felt the lives of the miners as a member of them. He really understood the working-class and began to think about the problem related to “socialism”. As Orwell said in his book, the socialism is nearly impossible. Because on one hand, the socialistic movements were always led by some guys from middle-class, even they claimed to be fighting for working-class, they didn’t understand the working-class; on the other hand, the leaders of socialism still behaved like a middle-class, the physical barrier of middle and working classes could not be got over easily. The core of socialism is equality, but class prejudice is severe at that time in Britain. How could people from two solitary groups unite with each other? As socialism is the only way to solve class problem and conquer Fascism, Orwell suggested everyone put the class-differences aside and unite as many people as possible to struggle.
By the way, the title of this book is full of meaning too. Wigan is a town famous for mining and there is no pier at all. Why Orwell use “Wigan Pier” as the name? In my opinion, there are some metaphors in this short title. Wigan is a symbol of the working class, even the class problem. And the Pier is a paraphrase of destination or objection. The Road to Wigan Pier here means the process to solve the class problem and reveals Orwell’s willing to resolve this problem smoothly.
After reading this book, a lot of questions about class came to my mind. First of all is indubitably the definition of “class”. Every time we discuss something, the first job is to define the concept. Orwell talked a lot about class in his book without giving one definition and few books related to class dare to give a clear definition about it. It seems that it is not an easy job. Then, what are the factors that affect a person’s class belonging? Or in the other words, how can we compartmentalize people into different classes? Is there any criteria? George Orwell put forward his own criteria in the book. Class is as much about origins as it is about income. In England especially, class doesn't washed off easily; the business about accents, for instance, is still an issue at that time. It means that the breed, the education, the household of one person play really important roles in the decision of his class. Economic state or simply the money one owns is not the critical factor that influences one’s social status. Therefore one can find middle-class persons with an income up to 2,000 pounds a year, and down to 300 pounds a year. As Orwell described in his book, they (middle-class guys) had a standard of living comparable to a well-situated worker, but knew everything about good behavior, how to give a servant a tip, how to ride a horse, about a decent dinner, although they could never afford a servant or a good dinner. And even the accent when you’re talking, which Orwell mentioned several times in his book, is one mark of your class.
Here comes another question about class: What’re the differences between middle-class and working class, as we couldn’t tell them from each other by their appearance? Another aspect of the class-system in Britain is the almost inherited rejection of the lower classes. Every one from middle-class considers working class “smelly”, because they are labor workers and they sweat a lot but have no conditions to bath or laundry. We admit that there are physical differences existing. But just suppose that if one mine worker changed into one suit, could the class gap disappear? The answer is no and the reason is the behavior. Just like I mentioned above, breed and education are the basic of one’s class. Even you disguised your out looking, your could not be able to disguise your inside quality. Without education, you could not know how to be gentle and how to be polite on some certain occasions. Class can not be imitated, that’s why two different classes can not understand each other. The gap between them seems to be inherent.
“Class” is a common concept in the European society, especially in Britain. But I don’t think it is a world-wide used concept. The existence of class should ask for some specific political and social environment. In China, as far as I know, there is no class. Be more veracious, there is no such a word which has the same meaning as “class” in Europe.
In China, income is the main criteria to divide people to different groups (not different classes). The rich people are always considered to be of important social status. And others will look up to them and regard them as “upper group” with great reverence and much more admiration. I use “upper group” to define this kind of people because in my understanding, “class” is a specific concept that related to aristocracy, chivalry or king and queen. This word is strictly related to one person’s ancestry and education. It is the Europe, whose political system and hierarchy provide soil and nutrient to the formation and development of “class”. This can’t be simply created and measured by money. In the ancient China, there used to have king and aristocracy. But there was no clear boundary between common people and the uppers. If you want to be the upper, just donate some sum of money to the government, then the government will give your a title as the rewards. It appeared that people could buy one’s social status in ancient China. That’s why China’s social class mobility is severer than that of the West and that’s one cause of social instability. In modern China, things changed a lot, not only the political system, but also the way of ranking people. The imperialism disappeared from China and so did the aristocracy. There are no upper class any more, only exist the difference between the rich and the poor. But, as the influence of ancient literature and minds, sometimes people still use the word “class” to confine some certain group of people. For example, if one girl from a poor family married a boy from a rich family, people would say that the girl is going to the upper class. In addition, if one man’s ancestor used to enjoy great social fame, but he was not very rich now, nobody would put him in the group of “upper class” In people’s minds upper class is equal with rich people. Obviously, there are some misusages and the real contents of “class” are distorted in China to some extent. That’s the diversity between China and Europe, maybe even the East and the West.
Orwell said it was very difficult to be a member of the working class in Britain. They could allow you to live with them, but they could realize the difference and be wary of you. Then, accordingly, will it be difficult for a foreigner to merge into the middle-class or upper class, if he is rich enough? In my opinion, the answer is no too. This situation is as complicated as we must take into account many factors including nationalism, racialism, and patriotism and so on. Imaging a rich American came to Britain, he had different world view, belief, ethical memories with the British. How could the British upper-class admit him as one member of it? One class in one country has very strong cohesive force and is not easy to interfere. Further more, if it was a rich Chinese man, things would be different. Here concerns the international status of countries. Developed countries enjoy some privileges over developing ones. An American man would be much easier to be accepted, at least to be admitted as a rich man in Britain.
Great events in the history always change some social structures, so did the wars. Last but not least, I want to say something about the change of class structure between the two world wars. We must admit that the wars really affected the class structure. Orwell showed this in his book too. He said the differences between middle-class and working class were not so sharp. And people from various classes began to get rid of the class prejudice and unite together to fight against Fascism. That’s the progress. There’re roughly three reasons for this change. First of all is the war consumed a lot of money and materials and a lot of people sacrificed on the battlefield. So, the economy of the whole society became to decline. The upper or middle class donated their belongings to war and their economic supporting was weakened. So their privileges and advantages over working class people became less. The class gap narrowed. Secondly, the industry developed fast in that period and the widespread of mechanization made everything cheaper than before. Even the blue-collars could afford to buy something used to be luxury. They had fewer things different from middle class from appearance. The last reason is the war was just like a bond that united everyone in the country in spite of their race, religion or class. People’s patriotism was inspired by the terrible war. During the war, there only exists the boundary of countries, no boundary of classes. Everyone held together for the sake of the nation’s safety and future. Of course, the discrepancy between middle class and working class didn’t disappear because of the war. People just neglected these differences for a period of time. They admitted the differences and left them where they were without irritating them.
Class is a complex topic. It contains so many social or economic elements. Orwell’s book just provides us a window to observe this question. Europe is the birthplace of class and Britain is the most typical country. As everyone in the society has the self-perception that he belongs to a certain class, the society has relative stability than others just like China, although there’re class gaps or even conflictions existing within the society. And the two great wars stimulated the development of class relationship in Britain. The strong patriotism got the run upon the class-prejudice and united everyone from any class together despite of their differences in breed or accent. After the war, the class-gap still remained, but conflictions became rare, as far as I am concerned.
Part two has different style from the first part. In part two, Orwell goes on to offer some broader observations on the English class system and on the challenges facing socialism. Orwell’s arguments are led by his autobiography. He used himself as a good example to show the readers the class difference in Britain at that time. He was taught that there were inherent gaps between middle-class and working-class and he never doubted this idea until he went to Wigan and felt the lives of the miners as a member of them. He really understood the working-class and began to think about the problem related to “socialism”. As Orwell said in his book, the socialism is nearly impossible. Because on one hand, the socialistic movements were always led by some guys from middle-class, even they claimed to be fighting for working-class, they didn’t understand the working-class; on the other hand, the leaders of socialism still behaved like a middle-class, the physical barrier of middle and working classes could not be got over easily. The core of socialism is equality, but class prejudice is severe at that time in Britain. How could people from two solitary groups unite with each other? As socialism is the only way to solve class problem and conquer Fascism, Orwell suggested everyone put the class-differences aside and unite as many people as possible to struggle.
By the way, the title of this book is full of meaning too. Wigan is a town famous for mining and there is no pier at all. Why Orwell use “Wigan Pier” as the name? In my opinion, there are some metaphors in this short title. Wigan is a symbol of the working class, even the class problem. And the Pier is a paraphrase of destination or objection. The Road to Wigan Pier here means the process to solve the class problem and reveals Orwell’s willing to resolve this problem smoothly.
After reading this book, a lot of questions about class came to my mind. First of all is indubitably the definition of “class”. Every time we discuss something, the first job is to define the concept. Orwell talked a lot about class in his book without giving one definition and few books related to class dare to give a clear definition about it. It seems that it is not an easy job. Then, what are the factors that affect a person’s class belonging? Or in the other words, how can we compartmentalize people into different classes? Is there any criteria? George Orwell put forward his own criteria in the book. Class is as much about origins as it is about income. In England especially, class doesn't washed off easily; the business about accents, for instance, is still an issue at that time. It means that the breed, the education, the household of one person play really important roles in the decision of his class. Economic state or simply the money one owns is not the critical factor that influences one’s social status. Therefore one can find middle-class persons with an income up to 2,000 pounds a year, and down to 300 pounds a year. As Orwell described in his book, they (middle-class guys) had a standard of living comparable to a well-situated worker, but knew everything about good behavior, how to give a servant a tip, how to ride a horse, about a decent dinner, although they could never afford a servant or a good dinner. And even the accent when you’re talking, which Orwell mentioned several times in his book, is one mark of your class.
Here comes another question about class: What’re the differences between middle-class and working class, as we couldn’t tell them from each other by their appearance? Another aspect of the class-system in Britain is the almost inherited rejection of the lower classes. Every one from middle-class considers working class “smelly”, because they are labor workers and they sweat a lot but have no conditions to bath or laundry. We admit that there are physical differences existing. But just suppose that if one mine worker changed into one suit, could the class gap disappear? The answer is no and the reason is the behavior. Just like I mentioned above, breed and education are the basic of one’s class. Even you disguised your out looking, your could not be able to disguise your inside quality. Without education, you could not know how to be gentle and how to be polite on some certain occasions. Class can not be imitated, that’s why two different classes can not understand each other. The gap between them seems to be inherent.
“Class” is a common concept in the European society, especially in Britain. But I don’t think it is a world-wide used concept. The existence of class should ask for some specific political and social environment. In China, as far as I know, there is no class. Be more veracious, there is no such a word which has the same meaning as “class” in Europe.
In China, income is the main criteria to divide people to different groups (not different classes). The rich people are always considered to be of important social status. And others will look up to them and regard them as “upper group” with great reverence and much more admiration. I use “upper group” to define this kind of people because in my understanding, “class” is a specific concept that related to aristocracy, chivalry or king and queen. This word is strictly related to one person’s ancestry and education. It is the Europe, whose political system and hierarchy provide soil and nutrient to the formation and development of “class”. This can’t be simply created and measured by money. In the ancient China, there used to have king and aristocracy. But there was no clear boundary between common people and the uppers. If you want to be the upper, just donate some sum of money to the government, then the government will give your a title as the rewards. It appeared that people could buy one’s social status in ancient China. That’s why China’s social class mobility is severer than that of the West and that’s one cause of social instability. In modern China, things changed a lot, not only the political system, but also the way of ranking people. The imperialism disappeared from China and so did the aristocracy. There are no upper class any more, only exist the difference between the rich and the poor. But, as the influence of ancient literature and minds, sometimes people still use the word “class” to confine some certain group of people. For example, if one girl from a poor family married a boy from a rich family, people would say that the girl is going to the upper class. In addition, if one man’s ancestor used to enjoy great social fame, but he was not very rich now, nobody would put him in the group of “upper class” In people’s minds upper class is equal with rich people. Obviously, there are some misusages and the real contents of “class” are distorted in China to some extent. That’s the diversity between China and Europe, maybe even the East and the West.
Orwell said it was very difficult to be a member of the working class in Britain. They could allow you to live with them, but they could realize the difference and be wary of you. Then, accordingly, will it be difficult for a foreigner to merge into the middle-class or upper class, if he is rich enough? In my opinion, the answer is no too. This situation is as complicated as we must take into account many factors including nationalism, racialism, and patriotism and so on. Imaging a rich American came to Britain, he had different world view, belief, ethical memories with the British. How could the British upper-class admit him as one member of it? One class in one country has very strong cohesive force and is not easy to interfere. Further more, if it was a rich Chinese man, things would be different. Here concerns the international status of countries. Developed countries enjoy some privileges over developing ones. An American man would be much easier to be accepted, at least to be admitted as a rich man in Britain.
Great events in the history always change some social structures, so did the wars. Last but not least, I want to say something about the change of class structure between the two world wars. We must admit that the wars really affected the class structure. Orwell showed this in his book too. He said the differences between middle-class and working class were not so sharp. And people from various classes began to get rid of the class prejudice and unite together to fight against Fascism. That’s the progress. There’re roughly three reasons for this change. First of all is the war consumed a lot of money and materials and a lot of people sacrificed on the battlefield. So, the economy of the whole society became to decline. The upper or middle class donated their belongings to war and their economic supporting was weakened. So their privileges and advantages over working class people became less. The class gap narrowed. Secondly, the industry developed fast in that period and the widespread of mechanization made everything cheaper than before. Even the blue-collars could afford to buy something used to be luxury. They had fewer things different from middle class from appearance. The last reason is the war was just like a bond that united everyone in the country in spite of their race, religion or class. People’s patriotism was inspired by the terrible war. During the war, there only exists the boundary of countries, no boundary of classes. Everyone held together for the sake of the nation’s safety and future. Of course, the discrepancy between middle class and working class didn’t disappear because of the war. People just neglected these differences for a period of time. They admitted the differences and left them where they were without irritating them.
Class is a complex topic. It contains so many social or economic elements. Orwell’s book just provides us a window to observe this question. Europe is the birthplace of class and Britain is the most typical country. As everyone in the society has the self-perception that he belongs to a certain class, the society has relative stability than others just like China, although there’re class gaps or even conflictions existing within the society. And the two great wars stimulated the development of class relationship in Britain. The strong patriotism got the run upon the class-prejudice and united everyone from any class together despite of their differences in breed or accent. After the war, the class-gap still remained, but conflictions became rare, as far as I am concerned.
有关键情节透露