Transcription: The Class System is NOT Static | Michael Dunn Goekjian | Part 4 of 6 - YouTube

- Share This:


00:00:00
and now look to microdongs ocean to continue the case of the opposition.


00:00:10
Thank you very much.
Let's start with a show of hand you're going on a date with your significant other.
What do you call it dinner or supper hands up for dinner? Hands up for supper, two can play at that game case.

So, let's be very, very clear in this debate.
There is obviously a tremendous sense of irony.

00:00:41
You can practically smell it.

I am the second all-male selectively educated speaker on the team that is trying to tell you that class is not a thing.
We look like a bunch of poor frankerz, but that is not categorically not what Simon said, and it is not what we are saying on side opposition today.
I want to make three things very clear.

First, we're saying that class is not static.
We are not saying we are not saying that it does not exist.
Secondly - and I want to be very clear on this one - we are not saying in any way, but class is a good thing.

We think it's morally reprehensible that a class system exists, but we do think for that class system has and continues to change.
Thirdly, we are certainly not here to deny the light experience of anyone in this room right.
Anyone who has been to Oxford or Cambridge or any number of places where there is a history of class discrimination will know what it is like we'll know.

Those offhand remarks, but your colleagues make that your tutors make about the most seemingly insignificant things the needle and bite and make you feel like you do not belong.

00:02:06
We are not here to deny that those things is.
Rather, this debate is about how you see them.

Do you see them as a sign of strength or a sign of weakness as a sign of someone who is confident in their way of life and their social standing or as a sign of deep insecurity, as a sign of someone with a nostalgia for a way Of life and a way of thinking that the modern world is frankly leaving behind this house believes that the class system is static.
All we're saying is that it's not that it changes and that over time empirically it has dissipates and it will dissipate.
That's not to say by the way, but every year there will be an increase in social mobility.

That's not to say that between 2005 and 2016 we would expect an increase in social mobility and a weakening of the class system.
This is of everyone in this debate.
Degrees, an entrenched system, so it does take time to dissipate.

I would ask you rather to think about the broad sweep of history about the people who would have been sitting in this room in your place many years ago and the quest the answer that they would have given to the question that I asked at the beginning.
I'd ask you to think about that they would all have been wearing what only the president, the librarian and the secretary and the treasurer.

00:03:35
Sorry, I don't really know the nomenclature.

You know have the gumption to wear today right they would almost all have been male.
The point is these: things do change, they change slowly slowly, but they do and they continue to do so.
That's always saying on our side of the house as much as we may look like heartless toughs.

That is not the argument that we are making today and you should vote with your feet on that basis.
So I want to make three points in this speech.
First, I want to talk about the structural economic forces that are undermining the power of class.

Secondly, I want to talk about the democratization of culture and how that has also undermined plot, and sadly I want to talk about aspiration about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

00:08:52
Probably the only memorable phrase that George Bush ever came up with the idea, except when you miss under estimated me, which was emitted Li pretty funny.
What I want to be very clear about is that all of these foot forces are pushing people away from a class dominated system.

Does that mean that there are no vestiges of it left? Absolutely not, but it has weakened materially first.
Does anyone have a point that they'd like to make from the floor, because I do really love these Brian and we're all much the poorer for it? So let me be very clear because I did provide studied maths at Cambridge and, as you all know, that means I'm not very good arithmetic.
So for the first economics I will be very clear about what the economics function of class historically has been.

It's effectively been as a substitute for uncertainty right people have relied on familial network as a means of identifying people whom they could trust with economic responsibility and whom they felt were worthy of economic benefit.
To structural changes in the world today are undermining that.
First, the availability of data: previously, you might have looked at someone boarding house at boarding school to identify where they were at sound check.

Now you can look at that.
A level result.
You can look at what they have on their CV.

You can look at how they perform in an interview, and you can come to understand so that personal background does not necessarily dictate who they are.
It's not to say that things like interviews and CDs aren't influenced by class.
Absolutely not, but they're definitely less influenced by class than the alternative, which is just taking someone purely because of where they went to school.

Secondly - and this is even more important - is competition, and I don't just mean competition in terms of firms and within labor markets.

00:06:32
I mean competition in terms of ownership 100 years ago, many of the largest firms in this country would have been family owned and that that the family could run them in order to benefit themselves.
Now Farms are owned by wide numbers of people with wide set of interests, united by one common desire, which is the desire for an acceptable rate of return in a competitive environment.

That means there is now an economic cost to prioritizing certain groups of people over others.
If all of the owners could even agree on who Malaysia prioritize, at whose expense so the divide certification of ownership, massively undermines the economic incentive for class discrimination.

00:07:07
Secondly, I want to talk about culture, because I think it's very interesting that today we have cultural phenomena but really do unites almost everyone in this country.

If you go along to almost any football stadium in the country, with perhaps the notable exception of Stamford Bridge, you will see people for a wide range of backgrounds, with a wide range of personal stories, with a wide range of values standing there and cheering.
So the same team comprised of a tremendously diverse set of people and yes, we can shove under the carpet for a second but they're all owned by the same set of Russian oligarchs, but that rather plays into Simon's point that I'm not too worried about it.

00:07:47
The reality is that the mass market for culture means that people have a much more continuous set of interests they ever had before, which means that you're busy to identify someone who's like you, but they happen to turn up the world house once a week is much Lower just because, basically no one turns up the Royal Opera House once a week.

Secondly, it's just worth highlighting the tremendous amount of social mixing that happens now.
Is that total social mixing? Absolutely not, but it's worth bearing in mind that in this room 50 years ago, a hundred years ago, everyone would have been public school educated.
There would have been no irony in my introduction when I pointed out that everyone in this row went to a selective school, because literally everyone in this room and everyone in this university practically would have had that experience.

So the reality is the degree of social mixing to understand that other people, not like you, you get calls out when you ask in a patronizing voice to cover up your closures and security, and where do you go to school? This means that over time, people become more socially aware and are much less likely to engage in that inadvertent discrimination.
Finally, the soft bigotry of low expectations as George Bush would have it.
I want to be very clear.

Perhaps the most perverse impact of the class system is its ability to tell people that they aren't worth it.
So there is a limit to what they can achieve, that there are places where they will never belong, and this means that the class systems work is done for it.

00:09:11
But the people don't put themselves forward for opportunities and put themselves forward for that place at university and put themselves forward for that job.

This is class at its absolute worst, but I would suggest to you the bat itself is much weaker: the sight of their arms.
Working-Class people in this room, the fact that there are people from immigrant communities in this room shows how far we've come and look it's not perfect by any stretch.
But every time one of you comes here every time, school kids watch these debates and learn how they can learn to do this too, and take confidence in that things get a little bit better.

I want to close off by thinking about all of those snobbish remarks.
We've heard from our colleagues from our tutors those signs of deep insecurity and worry about the crumbling society with those people see from their deluded twisted class inspired bigotry, because the best response to all of that is who you are is what you want is what you've Done and all the more importantly, what you will do, ultimately, that is the real proof that they have lost.
Thank you very much.

, you , .


More Related Video Transcripts

Loading Recommended Videos...
Back