Discuss the ways in which the "middle class" emerged in significance in the period 1780-1840's.

Wahrman believe that advocates of either of the above arguments both make fundamental assumptions about the relationship between "social being and social consciousness" 3one argument states a change in social consciousness is evidence that a middle class came about. Where as the other group suggest that their not a change in social conscious and therefore no middle class. Both understanding do not fully appreciate that "the degree of freedom which in fact exists in the space between social reality and its representation" In other words human rationality may draw us to one give one "representation"4 of social history but that this rationality isn't necessarily correct in fact there is a huge number of often contradictory yet equally plausible answers to the same question. The window of plausibility appears to incorporate both arguments and yet both cannot be correct. No objective answer can be found.

E.P. Thompson point towards the idea that "dipolar field of force set between a patrician elite on the one had and the plebs on the other"5 typified society even up to very late 18th century opposed to a strong middle class. IT is highly difficult to establish even one example, outside of the cotton producing towns, of a national middle class even in Victorian times. Therefore the middle class in the period were far from significant.

Some historians have claimed that the reason why the middle classes were invisible was because they operated from within the upper classes. That middle class values and ideal existed within a proportion of the elite group, this section, the early middle class, shared the egalitarian and moral way of life of the later middle classes but were not a clearly organised nor disenable class. A idea criticised by Wahrman the idea of the middle class as existing through ideas and a morality although not actually being recognised by anyone makes this middle class so abstract that it is "invisible" makes it void of any real meaning.

Another branch of this debate is to say that the middle class in fact wasn't a middle class but an extension of the ruling class. There are only two classes explained Thelwall each is clearly more complex than the term would appear. The two classes should be subdivided rather than creating entire new categories. The middle class were in fact the "new aristocracy of thinkers and discourser". This argument is though simply one of a name someone referring to the middle class means the same as someone referring to a subdivision of the ruling class. Therefore the difference is of little lasting effect.

It appears though that their were groups of like minded people how operated separately from both the working and upper classes whatever problems of definition exist. A group characterized by intelligence and independence, with politically more "valuable than the power greedy upper classes and the ignorant and dependent lower classes" 6as Colliar puts it If there is a middle class then where does it come from and what did it achieve? Only complicated by the uneven distribution throughout England appearing in different concentrations in different places. There was a middle class it simply didn't exist everywhere with the same intensity.

One understanding of the origins of the middle class we must look to the French revolution. The battle between as Burk puts it the new monied and the landed class took place. He criticised this new monied national assembly. In response James Mackintosh suggested that this new group was superior in terms of virtue to the old landed order. "the majority of that middle rank among whom almost all the sense and virtue of society reside"7 this is an indication that a middle class does indeed exist and were of central importance to the future of society.

The notion of the middle class as "the singular role of the 'middle class' is the repository of all virtues, the hinge which holds society and the other social order together." Is of central importance to their very being. Whether the middle class can truly be seen as a morally superior group is a key question when refereeing to their significance.

Landsdowne suggest that the middle rank of people have been present in all ages and in France were rightfully become leaders. This idea of the middle class as moral guardians is advocated earlier by AAristotle in his "Politics" he makes a theoretical analysis of ancient Greek society, differentiating the ruling class, the middle class and the lower class. Placing highest moral value on the middle class, seeing it as a safeguard against social instability. Bousfield on the contrary suggest that the "spirit of the country resides among the middle class of men" country referring to the ruling class. Therefore even if we concede that a middle class did exist in this period it is not necessarily conceding that it was of any great significance. As it may have simply been a puppet of the elite guided by the upper class rather than a separate organism.

The middle class as the guardians of morality have been contested strongly by Dwarf in 1821 He suggest that the middle ranks are instrument which tyranny has been consolidated. That this group has the potential to do good but instead chooses evil. The French revolution is the case in point. A middle class group were able to seize power and promote the "right path" 8yet once in power there was much violence and needless slaughter. The middle class is therefore the lowest of all classes as it can see the good path but often chooses the bad.

I don't believe this idea of the middle class as tyrants to be whole accurate. The close association again following on from the French revolution between the middle classes and social progress was of much significance. The middle class greatest achievement was perhaps the act it gave middle class males the opportunity to be members of parliament. This realisation of the liberal idea of democracy, at present in its infancy was a sign of things to come. Significant not in and of itself but because of the change it represented. The rationality and progress appear to be dominating features of the middle class throught Europe.

A distaste for, coupled with a desire to change for the better both the decadence of the elite and the ignorance of the masses featured in this group but they often sought at least with respect the masses to enlighten. Women of the middle class for example would aid the process by going and educating the poor.

The middle class are a crucial part of society at least from the early 19th century although they were somewhat stagnant in the 18th. Their desire to promote rational thinking and the liberal doctrine of revolutionary France has changed society internationally. Whether they were indeed guardians of moral justice is a matter of opinion. We cannot though see the middle class as a unified national organisation having equal success all across Britian. Instead we can say that within certain areas notably the urbanised towns the middle class had greater influence which was used to promote their idea of how society should be.

Wahrman Cambridge University press d. 1995. 'imagining the "Middle Class,"'

2 Wahrman Cambridge University press d. 1995. 'imagining the "Middle Class,"'

3 Wahrman Cambridge University press d. 1995. 'imagining the "Middle Class,"'

4 Wahrman Cambridge University press d. 1995. 'imagining the "Middle Class,"'

5 Wahrman Cambridge University press d. 1995. 'imagining the "Middle Class,"'

6 Wahrman Cambridge University press d. 1995. 'imagining the "Middle Class,"'

7 Wahrman Cambridge University press d. 1995. 'imagining the "Middle Class,"'

8 Wahrman Cambridge University press d. 1995. 'imagining the "Middle Class,"'