I recently heard Telegraph columnist Janet Daley express her amazement at the peculiar notion of “living above one’s station”. I remember being equally surprised when it was used to attack Peter Mandelson a few years ago. When he borrowed money to buy a big expensive house, he was not only attacked for the loan’s questionable origin, but also because he had dared to aspire to such accommodation. How odd, I thought. Surely when somebody does well for himself, one ought to congratulate him?
“He lives above his station” is used to shame people who want to improve their social situation. A successful upstart is often sniggered at for being a social climber.
On the right it is the language of those who think the world has gone to the dogs since indented tenure became obsolete. The eighteenth century equivalent was moral opprobrium for becoming wealthy through commerce rather than to live of dwindling land holdings. Left wing intellectuals snigger at social climbing too: they portray it as petit bourgeois ambition. Imagine the monstrosity of the working classes aspiring to become middle class – the hallowed principles of class war would be no more!
Attacking social ambition is the enemy of contemporary Conservatism which, since Thatcher, has been the driving force behind social mobility. The Great Lady was sniggered at, too, for being a grocer’s daughter. Social mobility was what John Major defended when he spoke up for a classless society.
There is a great deal of jealousy behind the denigration of successful people of humble origin. It is unpleasant for impoverished old (or, more often than not, not so old) money to see their cleaner’s son rise to riches. It is a stark reminder of their own ineptness at earning the income needed to fund a lifestyle to which their ancestors became accustomed. So the unpleasant fact is sniggered at, as they cannot think of any other avenue to put the successful upstart back in his place. There is jealousy from the left wing intellectual, too. He cannot deal with the fact that a working class person could become financially more successful than him – without any state aid, collective bargaining or class solidarity. The self-reliant individual is profoundly unsettling for the socialist dogmatic.
Those who sneer at the wealthy peasant usually display selective memory syndrome. If you go back far enough most aristocrats have humble origins. And so it is with virtually all families: class goes up and down. Rare are the people who do not have at least some very wealthy as well as some very poor ancestors. The rising and falling nature of class undermines the socialist dogma of poor people always getting poorer under capitalism. Hence their denigration of social ambition.
Pooh-poohing the wealthy peasant is often done by reference to his supposed lack of taste. One is expected to roll one’s eyes at the sight of a newly built bijou Mac Mansion with five or so larger than necessary parking bays for the assorted Ferraris. But surely taste is subjective. Have you ever seen the palm room in Spencer House? It is portrayed as high taste. It’s one of the gaudiest displays imaginable. But society says it’s ok, as it was commissioned by one of Princess Diana’s ancestors, the highest aristocracy. Left wing intellectuals elevate the taste of the working classes to high art and the equal of bourgeois taste – so the working classes don’t improve and remain firmly in place.
Another sneer is aimed at the wealthy upstart’s supposed lack of education. So what of it? We’ve known for a few thousand years that the self-made millionaire is seldom a successful scholar. Sometimes there was no money for schooling. Or he displayed characteristics which are unsuitable in a one size fits all education system: originality, independence of mind, brightness greater than the teacher’s. Unsuccessful in class, chances are that the future millionaire showed great bargaining skills in the playground. Left wing intellectuals, always anxious to preserve working class purity, will put great effort into banning commercial activity in the playground. Or any commercial targeting of children for that matter, e.g. via TV commercials. Yet the educated need not panic: if they are able, the successful self-made-man’s children will go to the best schools. Look at all the Asian corner shop owners whose children now crowd the bar and the medical profession.
The rising and falling nature of class is an undeniable fact in a meritocratic society. Under free market capitalism the meritorious become wealthy; the lazy poor. It fulfils a signal function for everybody else: this is what you ought to do to become wealthy. This is what you ought to avoid. Income inequality has a key signal function in this system. Income inequality is a thorn in the socialists’ eye because it fuels the desire for upward mobility.
It is individual merit only which drives the capitalist system. It is not driven by the state. When the state starts to mingle in the process it becomes distorted: not the meritorious but the political clients are helped along. This is what Labour has been doing for the last ten years and this is why social mobility has come to a halt.
Inequality and social ambition drive economic growth. It is to maintain or improve their social situation that people get out of bed in the morning to work. It is the activity of billions of people all over the world who want to have a better life which has led to economic, cultural, social, industrial, and medical advance. Growth created by private individuals – not by the state. This is why growth is so mistrusted by the left: it points at individuals beavering away to escape their working class shackles.
So social climbers of the world: you were and are and will always be our future and hope. The world is a better place thanks to you.
