We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
APPENDIX 4 ranks. On the other hand, while they may affect to despise the social habits of the upper middle class, their main aspiration is to rise up and attain the social status of their employers. Anyone who holds out the possibility of this to them will receive their full support. This situation has already arisen in many countries in Europe, but in Great Britain there is still a possibility of avoiding it. This could be done by recognising the social needs of this class and giving it a constructive part, which it at present lacks, to play in the life of the community.1
Two points now emerge clearly: (i) that the new social groups, to which this article is devoted, for lack of other standards and because of their uncertainty as to the future organisation of society, adopt the standards of the bourgeoisie; (2) that these groups consider themselves fundamentally different from the proletariat, and wish to be considered so by others. Perhaps some further explanation of these points is needed.
Modern society is largely determined by bourgeoisie standards and outlook on life, and the bourgeoisie usually considers that the modern working-class movement is a threat to its rights of property. There exists, perhaps, no better description of these standards than de Tocqueville's. He, as early as 1848, experienced the decline of the bourgeoisie and the rising tide of the proletariat.
'L'esprit particulier de la classe moyenne devint l'esprit general du gouvernement; il domina la politique exterieure aussi bien que les affaires du dedans; esprit actif, industrieux, souvent deshonnete, generalement range, temeraire quelquefois par vanite et par egoisme, timide par temperament, modere en toute chose, excepte dans le gout du bien-etre, et mediocre; esprit, qui, mele a celui du peuple ou de l'aristocratie, peut faire merveille, mais qui, seul, ne produira jamais qu'un gouvernement sans vertu et sans grandeur.'2
1 Though this essay was published in Christopher Dawson's Dublin Review in January 1941, I had no hesitation in reprinting it here in the context of these studies on the sociology of film. I do not think that the outcome of the General Election in 1945 has made the argument of 1940 superfluous. On the contrary. What was then written under the immediate impression of the 'Battle for England* and the first blitz on London, must not be forgotten to-day.
For the time being, the British Mittel-Schichten have decided to throw their weight on the side of the Labour Party, but they have not joined the Labour Party — yet. They still can throw their weight in an opposite direction, if Labour should fail to pay attention to the subtle aspirations and demands of these new social groups. It seems, therefore, to me that my essay, though distinctly bearing the atmosphere of 1 940, may serve as a timely reminder. The text of Chapter IX will have shown to what extent films have contributed to shaping the ideology of 'the new middle classes'.
2 Cf. Alexis de Tocqueville's Souvenirs, Paris 1893, p. 6.
306