From looking at The making of the English working class it seems quite obvious that E. P Thompson’s main arguments throughout his book are about the notion of ‘class’, in particular the ‘making of the working class’; and in order to evaluate his theories we must attempt to look at other historians opinions about his book, and his suggested theories, in order to come to an impartial evaluation. Many historians have their own interpretations when trying to define class, like Bourke who links class to characteristics such as accent, clothing; Marx who states that class was ‘no more or less than an objective social category’; and E. P. Thompson’s definition, that class happens ‘as a result of class conscious experience.’ Therefore it is quite clear that class is a contested concept as there is no exact definition, thus making it more difficult for historians to come to a conclusion with evidence to prove it. The Making of the English Working Class is according to Kaye and McClelland, ‘the obligatory starting point for any contemporary discussion of the history of the working-class formation.’ This gives us the indication that Thompson had not just written another piece on the concepts of class but that his book ‘opened interpretive eyes to a new way of seeing class.’ In his book Thompson’s main purpose was to write adjacent to the grain of economic history by implying that ‘the working class did not rise like the sun at the appointed time.
The Term Paper on Class Inequality
Social class is one of the oldest and most persistent inequalities in British society. In the past, people were very aware of their social class and their expected roles and responsibilities. People would have worn different clothes, behaved in different ways and had a very different culture from each other and they would have accepted this as a perfectly normal element of behaviour. We are still ...
It was present in its own making.’ In this we can see how Thompson seems to evoke the working class experience in a vivid way, which is arguably one of the reasons why his book received such appraise. However his book also received much criticism, as Kaye and McClelland point that his ‘own theory of how class formation is determined remains highly ambiguous.’ This suggests that perhaps Thompson did not go into specific detail on how class was formed and when, which remains a highly debated topic. The fact that Thompson argues ‘thus the working- class presence was, in 1832, the most significant factor in British political life’, is argued by the Marxist historian Anderson, that class was not specifically made in the 1830’s due to its decline, but was perhaps made in the 1880’s. The fact that he insinuates that the English working class was not ‘made’ by the 1830’s suggests that Thompson was ‘too voluntarist and subjectivism’ in his approach to explain the origins of working class consciousness. However, it is argued by Palmer that ‘the platonic models of Anderson-Nairn thesis tidied up all the messiness of class struggles in a kind of tunnel vision that could scope only in the linear sightings of one-dimensional boundaries of hegemony,’ suggesting that Anderson had put all the essential struggles that the working class experienced.
However Thompson was not just focusing on this, but the aspect of ‘the extent to which, even in defeat, the working class proceeded to ‘warren’ capitalist society ‘from end to end’, building and supporting a network of trade unions, co-operative societies, fraternal associations, and self help movements.’ The fact that Thompson had attempted to explain the working class as an intellectual group or artisans who encouraged one another to through the introduction of such unions and societies goes beyond the notion of just explaining the meaning of class but that he is also trying show the number of different ways in which the working class expressed their ‘shared common interests’ and how they used these interest in order to achieve social identity, ‘the lived experiences of men and women were important in forming classes and their consciousness of social identity.’ The fact that ‘before Thompson no one knew how to write the history of a class,’ gives us the impression that Thompson was the first of many to attempt to show us ‘how workers could be given voices and wills and could be constituted as a collective agent in an historical narrative,’ which in itself is an achievement that other historians find hard to do.
The Essay on Does the Class System Still Exist?
There was a time when we have upper classes,middle class and working class, these classes were created and then in effect created the insecurities and pressure of the people of today. Depending on how much money our families had that determined our livelihoods, our prospects,our social circle and our families future generations. So if you we’re rich and prestigious you had a good chance in ...
Thompson tries to incorporate all that relates to the significance of class to the best of his ability, unlike such historians as Anderson, and therefore pays particular attention to the roles of the working class at the time, allowing the reader to relate to many aspects which were previously dismissed by earlier historians, which is why his book has provoked such praise. However, some historians as Anna Clark, a feminist historian, have focused on the notion that class is heavily gendered and therefore gives us the impression that class is a masculine assumption, as Thompson states that ‘class is defined by men as they live their own history, and in the end, this is its only definition.’ Therefore It could be said that Thompson has perhaps implied that class identity has been formed through masculine identity, as stated by Joan Scott; the fact that Thompson had disregarded the attitudes of the working women and instead has solely focused on the working mans attitudes towards class consciousness. This is also reflected by historians Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall when discussing the middle class, that ‘class consciousness always takes a gendered form,’ However this may not well be the case as such historians as Kaye and McClelland states that ‘Thompson insists that class is essentially historical,’ and thus gives the impression that, to engender identity of class was not the main intention, as Patrick Joyce, had analysed the ‘master narrative’ in order to come to the conclusion that ‘the terminology of class was not the favoured language of radicals in Thompson’s period and after, rather the construct ‘the people’ predominated and tended towards inclusiveness and harmony between classes.’ From looking at various historians opinions regarding E. P. Thompson’s book The making of the English Working Class, it is quite evident that there are many opposing views about his work that have led to many criticisms as well as many appraisals. The topic of class is highly debatable due to the fact there is no specific definition of it.
The Essay on The Service Class Social Power Working
The service class as defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (Gordon Marshall, 1998) is; A term first used by the Austro-Marxist Karl Renner to describe employees in Government (Civil Servants), private economic service (Business administrators, managers, technical experts), and social services (distributors of welfare. Subsequently adopted by the by the British sociologist John H ...
It is also debate able where it originated from and so we cannot just look at one historian’s interpretation of the subject but we need to look at many in order to come to our own conclusions of the concept of ‘class consciousnesses and ‘class identity’. Thompson has produced an ‘outstanding’ interpretation of his theories on what made the working class and many historians have made valid criticisms that allow us to question some of his main arguments within the book, meaning that the notion of class is still a contested concept for which there is no specific answer.
