Listening to the 'Today' programme on Radio 4 this morning, I happened upon a piece that purported to be a discussion about the discrimination suffered by 'Posh' people.
The proponent was suggesting that 'Posh' people are a minority who now experience discrimination to such an extent that they try to hide, and even to deny, their 'poshness'. He cited the reluctance of David Cameron to talk openly and with pride about his background and schooling at Eton. He also cited an instance from some television programme on which a woman received a round of applause from the audience after loudly stating 'I hate posh blokes'.
His opponent immediately turned the discussion to one about the rich who rule our society; he equated 'poshness' with privilege, wealth and power, and no one did anything to disabuse him. Unsurprisingly, John Humphries, the presenter, simply chuckled in his usual annoying manner and left no one in any doubt as to where his sympathies lay.
It seems to me that everyone involved in the radio discussion completely missed the point. These days, anyone with a reasonable education and background, who dresses and speaks relatively well, is deemed to be 'Posh'; as such, they are pigeon-holed by those who see themselves as 'ordinary blokes' and may well be vilified to some degree. However, this 'poshness' has nothing to do with people being privileged, rich or powerful; it is simply a matter of education and familial influence.
Because I speak reasonably well and know a range of long words, I've been nicknamed 'Posh John' in my local pub. Partly, this is a mechanism to distinguish me from several other Johns who drink in the establishment, but it's also a mark of discrimination. The person who invented the acronym doesn't like me; he sees me as being 'posh' and equates this with privilege and wealth, of which he is envious. That I am far from privileged and far less wealthy than his family appears to have escaped him. He settles arguements with his fists, I write letters and use the law - this he sees as further evidence that I'm to be despised as not being like 'ordinary blokes'.
Much of our media is dominated by privileged and wealthy people who eschew their origins and deny their innate 'poshness' in order to make themselves acceptable to the uneducated masses who comprise their audiences. There is no doubt that being 'posh' is not only out of favour it is positively despised, but this is, in a way, the consequence of a failed education system. It is a result of the inverted snobbery of those who didn't go to the best school, didn't get any GCSEs and didn't go to university; it's the attitude of those who believe the only real work is manual work and that office workers and management are the enemy.
My dictionary defines 'Posh' as being 'smart, elegant or fashionable' and also as 'upper-class or genteel'; it does not mention privilege or wealth. I'm certainly not 'upper-class' and I don't think anyone would call me genteel. I've never been fashionable, and elegant isn't an adjective I'd use about myself, but possibly I might sometimes be considered 'smart', in the presentational sense. Do I feel discriminated against ? Possibly, on occasion. Does this worry me ? No.
No comments:
Post a Comment