Class is a subject which is open to a great deal of interpretation in itself. In modern Britain it is less discretely defined as it was in the past; the fall in traditional working class professions and the increase of the consumer lifestyle have resulted in an embourgeoisement of society. As the working classes have to move into more traditionally middle class jobs their income increases and therefore their political priorities change and have become more and more like those of the middle classes. This expansion of the middle classes has lead some to conclude that class is no longer significant though this is not the case. Embourgeoisement has simply emphasised the deficit of possessions and wealth of the remaining working classes raising the expected standard of living. The increase in single parent families has had a profound effect on who the poor are; where in the past a family would almost always have two parents meaning one full time income and then perhaps a second, if only part time, income. With a single parent family it is unlikely that the lone parent is able to do a full time job because there is no one then available to look after the children so no or only a part time income becomes the norm amongst single parent families with little opportunity to increase this.
Since the Thatcher government of the 1980’s it has been the principal view that it is the fault of the poor themselves that they are poor. Thatcher introduced a policy of Laissez faire by which state intervention was reduced, by privatising many public sector industries, such as the railways. Also taxes for the wealthy were cut to encourage economic growth; however the benefits of this were not seen in traditional working class jobs, further widening the gap between the poor and the rest of society. (Giddens 1990) The Meritocratic values of the masses lead to the misguided opinion that jobs are assigned on ability alone which obviously leads to the conclusion that the reason that the poor are not in well paid jobs is because they would not be able to do the job.
As one’s class is a key factor in determining one’s life chances it is difficult for the children born into poverty not to be caught in the same situation as their parents; they do not have the same possibilities as their wealthier counterparts. As well as having poorer health throughout life and dying younger than the rest of society the poor have to contend with the stigma attached to being poor. Peter Goldring argued the poor are not fully part of society the fact that they cannot afford to partake in the accepted pastimes or to own the necessary technology means that they are living on the outskirts of the population. ‘poverty led to a reduction in participation tantamount to partial citizenship’ (Levitas 1998: 12) The poor live in almost complete isolation from the rest of society making it hard for people in this situation to aspire to anything else, to aspire to something they have not seen; expectations here are inevitably lower than with other groups. The discrimination against the poor takes many forms; the poor are seen to be culturally poor as they do not have the same values as the wealthier majority. Such things lead to a belief that a person who is living in poverty is inferior to one who is not; this is a view which will without a doubt affect choices made by middle class employers and admissions tutors.
The wording of the question puts it in a negative context rather than one of inquiry, the 'Just' suggests that inequality does not exist or at least fails to recognize that it is something which has real influence on a person’s opportunities. It is clear that this is not the case; equality has indeed an unquestionable presence. It is simply to what extent this presence must be felt that is in question. It is unrealistic to say that it would be impossible for someone in poverty to get themselves out of it; the class system in Britain is very fluid in comparison to other social stratifications. At the same time one must acknowledge that inequality inevitably leads to unequal opportunities, meaning that it is easier for some than others. If the opportunities available to everyone were made equal it would be the responsibility of the individual to succeed or indeed fail in life. In this society the value that is placed on wealth means that one is automatically disadvantaged simply by not having it. The essay aimed to look at and perhaps answer the title question. It is accepted that the issue has been massively over simplified and it could be argued as a result not even touch upon however the question itself is unclear and would never have a single answer. Any individual could and probably would answer both yes and no as success in most areas of life is a complex combination of ability, dedication, opportunity and chance. Inequality is definitely more than just an excuse for personal failure but responsibility does need to be accepted by the individual.
Bibliography
Abercrombie, N (2000) Dictionary of Sociology, Suffolk: Penguin
Giddens, A (1990) Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press
Franklin, J (1997) Equality, London: The Institute for Public Policy Research
Levitas, R (1998) The Inclusive Society, Hampshire: Palgrave
Soanes, C (2002) Oxford English Dictionary, New York: Oxford University Press
