The divine rights of society
I must confess to having lived as a bewildered youth, confused by abyss that lies between the contemporary and academic use of English. Although English is a mongrel language, having been fertilised by wave upon wave of passing Celts, Romans, Saxons, Angles, Vikings, Danes and Normans, our mother tongue’s promiscuity is well compensated by her flexibility and versatility. However, the definitions of words and phrases learnt at school always seemed to be at odds with their actual use, and this was at times disorientating, if not downright confusing. For instance the ‘great and the good’ was a popular reference for society’s leading lights, until of course I discovered that the label often belied their modus operandi. Nowadays I prefer the phrases ‘those at liberty’ and the ‘privileged elite’. Similarly in my early teens I became confused by the phrase ‘law and order’ when inner cities were openly rioting and accusing the police of institutional racism, brutality and corruption. It wasn’t until my early twenties that I cottoned on to the fact that ‘justice’ was a euphemism for highly paid lawyers and the protection of vested interests. Well, all good intentions are heaven sent and hell bent…
For most of my early adult life I remained confused as to the meaning of the world ‘people’. According to the dictionary the entry for people is ‘all the men, women and children who live in a particular country or society’. So here then was a simple English word, triumphal in the elegance of its simplicity, serving as the ultimate collective noun for ‘everybody’ (human). Seeds of confusion first began to creep into the subconscious when phrases began to suggest that ‘people’, and its singular ‘person’, were not the all-embracing collective nouns they had at first appeared to be. Innocuous phrases such as ‘why do people work?’ at first appeared to reflect upon the general rights of employees, although soon they began to appear decidedly ‘selective’ in their reference.
‘People needed to know’ apparently, unlike those who were ‘not in the know’. Often ‘people did not approve’, although no votes ever seemed to be cast or any consensus viewpoint taken. ‘People’ usually took two weeks off at Easter and Christmas, although other employees were entitled to only three weeks paid vacation a year. ‘People’ seemingly did ‘other things’ during the summer, which presumably explained their often lengthy periods of absence from work during the long, hot season. As for other members of staff it was hours as usual. ‘People dined out for lunch’, whilst employees had only a half hour’s lunch break. ‘People had secretaries and PAs’, the remainder only paperwork. ‘People’ earned six figure salaries and ‘went away’ for weekends, whilst the masses trudged on from eight-to-six and caught what rest they could at the weekend. If a judgement was made socially or at work, charges were often dropped if the individual was the right ‘sort of person’. ‘People’ had the latest conveniences, Blackberries and shopped for designer clothes, others went to the sales.
Soon I discovered that many educated individuals failed to qualify for the rank of ‘personage’, and that it was a social status that could be as readily conferred as it could be taken away. So who were ‘people’, and how could the all-empowering status of ‘personage’ be conferred, awarded or indeed recognised? After all, it was clearly not a qualification for which public examinations were taken or formal ceremonies held? After many years the language and coding of this society within society became somewhat clearer. Status was entitlement. ‘People’ had their teeth whitened at the dentist, others did not. ‘People’ could roll into the office at all hours with immunity or disappear without explanation, others could not. People left work after lunch on Friday, others did not. People were invited, others not. People ‘did it’, others could not. People were kept ‘in the know’, the remainder ‘on a need to know basis’. It is clearly an awesome collective cognitive ability which allows individuals to operate as a society within a society, using a complex, secret code of subtle signals and visual cues. Indeed, the day that awareness of this hidden society finally dawns is the moment a mass of confused jigsaw pieces suddenly assembles into glorious Technicolor. With this new paradigm of understanding, an unexplained chaos of events and actions are suddenly transformed into a smooth social logic. Some people are naturally more equal than others. People dine, others eat; people make love, others have sex; people live, others exist.
Surely though there is more to a thriving society than just people and those who exist to serve them? Naturally, there are of course many layers, and with each layer is bestowed more privileges and further ‘offices’. Humans are social animals, and as in all complex societies there are social dominance hierarchies. Ants and bee colonies have soldiers who protect the genetic legacy of their society, as do we; workers who maintain construction and the food supply, as do we, and of course young queens and drones to propagate the genetic legacy of the colony as do we. However it would of course be overly simplistic to talk in terms of such functional specialization for a social primate. Clearly there are alpha drones, beta drones and delta drones, and likewise for young queens. Exactly how these castes are defined is even less simple, and involves a complex interplay of factors such as who your father was, how much money you have, where you went to school, your marks of excellence, and your merits of social distinction (a gray area this one, but it goes along the lines of who you know and who you’ve slept with…).
With the exception of the occasional spat over a mistress or a promotion, these levels seem to pretty much separate out of their own accord, much like the layers of an expensive trifle with the cream of society occupying the top layer. As for those others of us who dare look on and question their divine right to rule over us in comfort, well you are of course free to be unemployed or to entertain yourselves in abstinence as you see fit. Mind you that’s how the ruling classes of England in 1639 thought, as did the aristocrats of Revolutionary France and Russia, and look what happened to them… Anyway, whatever the truth and balance of society, there is no doubt that ‘people’ serve as a fascinating sub-species for us humans to study.
For most of my early adult life I remained confused as to the meaning of the world ‘people’. According to the dictionary the entry for people is ‘all the men, women and children who live in a particular country or society’. So here then was a simple English word, triumphal in the elegance of its simplicity, serving as the ultimate collective noun for ‘everybody’ (human). Seeds of confusion first began to creep into the subconscious when phrases began to suggest that ‘people’, and its singular ‘person’, were not the all-embracing collective nouns they had at first appeared to be. Innocuous phrases such as ‘why do people work?’ at first appeared to reflect upon the general rights of employees, although soon they began to appear decidedly ‘selective’ in their reference.
‘People needed to know’ apparently, unlike those who were ‘not in the know’. Often ‘people did not approve’, although no votes ever seemed to be cast or any consensus viewpoint taken. ‘People’ usually took two weeks off at Easter and Christmas, although other employees were entitled to only three weeks paid vacation a year. ‘People’ seemingly did ‘other things’ during the summer, which presumably explained their often lengthy periods of absence from work during the long, hot season. As for other members of staff it was hours as usual. ‘People dined out for lunch’, whilst employees had only a half hour’s lunch break. ‘People had secretaries and PAs’, the remainder only paperwork. ‘People’ earned six figure salaries and ‘went away’ for weekends, whilst the masses trudged on from eight-to-six and caught what rest they could at the weekend. If a judgement was made socially or at work, charges were often dropped if the individual was the right ‘sort of person’. ‘People’ had the latest conveniences, Blackberries and shopped for designer clothes, others went to the sales.
Soon I discovered that many educated individuals failed to qualify for the rank of ‘personage’, and that it was a social status that could be as readily conferred as it could be taken away. So who were ‘people’, and how could the all-empowering status of ‘personage’ be conferred, awarded or indeed recognised? After all, it was clearly not a qualification for which public examinations were taken or formal ceremonies held? After many years the language and coding of this society within society became somewhat clearer. Status was entitlement. ‘People’ had their teeth whitened at the dentist, others did not. ‘People’ could roll into the office at all hours with immunity or disappear without explanation, others could not. People left work after lunch on Friday, others did not. People were invited, others not. People ‘did it’, others could not. People were kept ‘in the know’, the remainder ‘on a need to know basis’. It is clearly an awesome collective cognitive ability which allows individuals to operate as a society within a society, using a complex, secret code of subtle signals and visual cues. Indeed, the day that awareness of this hidden society finally dawns is the moment a mass of confused jigsaw pieces suddenly assembles into glorious Technicolor. With this new paradigm of understanding, an unexplained chaos of events and actions are suddenly transformed into a smooth social logic. Some people are naturally more equal than others. People dine, others eat; people make love, others have sex; people live, others exist.
Surely though there is more to a thriving society than just people and those who exist to serve them? Naturally, there are of course many layers, and with each layer is bestowed more privileges and further ‘offices’. Humans are social animals, and as in all complex societies there are social dominance hierarchies. Ants and bee colonies have soldiers who protect the genetic legacy of their society, as do we; workers who maintain construction and the food supply, as do we, and of course young queens and drones to propagate the genetic legacy of the colony as do we. However it would of course be overly simplistic to talk in terms of such functional specialization for a social primate. Clearly there are alpha drones, beta drones and delta drones, and likewise for young queens. Exactly how these castes are defined is even less simple, and involves a complex interplay of factors such as who your father was, how much money you have, where you went to school, your marks of excellence, and your merits of social distinction (a gray area this one, but it goes along the lines of who you know and who you’ve slept with…).
With the exception of the occasional spat over a mistress or a promotion, these levels seem to pretty much separate out of their own accord, much like the layers of an expensive trifle with the cream of society occupying the top layer. As for those others of us who dare look on and question their divine right to rule over us in comfort, well you are of course free to be unemployed or to entertain yourselves in abstinence as you see fit. Mind you that’s how the ruling classes of England in 1639 thought, as did the aristocrats of Revolutionary France and Russia, and look what happened to them… Anyway, whatever the truth and balance of society, there is no doubt that ‘people’ serve as a fascinating sub-species for us humans to study.
posted by The Angry Man at 9:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home