In the late 80s into the early 90s I was a sixth former, then an art student, then an undergrad. In short - just exactly the demographic that might take the NME. Indeed, numerous of my chums were avid patrons of that magazine. I hated it. With a vengeance. Because I knew what it was - first time I read it I knew exactly what it was. Oh, after the blitz spirit of the second world war, the mass expansion of higher education in the 50s, and the liberation of the 60s we all know that insisting on crass class distinctions was wrong, unsustainable, immoral even. Oh yes - cant do that. But, actually, thats exactly what the NME did. It was the chief offensive in a proxy class war by the middle-class generation that had forgotten why their parents thought to play fair after the war effort. These sons (and it was largely sons) of the generation that had fought a war would impose their sense of entitlement upon the oiks by stealth. And, being British, much of the country bought into it. The genius of the British Middle-Class has been its ability to absorb and co-opt whatever it encounters and believes useful. It can be very inclusive - but it dictates the terms of that inclusion. Fair enough, perhaps, but it is, I think, extremely useful to examine those terms, to understand what is being admitted to the club, why it is being admitted, what is being and excluded and why. And do we see this dynamic at play today? Oh yes. We see it in the sneering at Russell Brand. The sneering at a late and clumsily developing bloke expressing himself inelegantly. Nevermind that hes pointing out serious deficits to our society. No, that isnt whats important here. Whats important is that he used 19 words where one would suffice. The oik. But then the British Middle Classes are implicated in the exploitation to which Brand objects, are they not? I mean, imagine the effect on house values should we achieve a more balanced economy! Can you imagine what the cleaning lady would charge? I dont mind people picking apart his argument. As long as they are actually picking apart what he says. But the attacking of his mode of expression instead of what he actually says is a very, very old and lazy trick. And difficult to see as anything other than a tacit admission that you dont have a counter to what hes actually saying.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:53:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015