Afterword: ‘We Are All in This Together’ ‘We are all in this together.’ (Conservative Chancellor George Osborne 2009) ‘Work harder, those on benefits rely on you!’ (2012 bumper sticker) On reflection, we have found that this book, which was intended to be about the ways in which culture articulates, frames, organises and produces stories about social class, class difference and its various attachments, is also a book about the accumulation, defence, distribution and usage of resources, both material and immaterial, during periods of pronounced inequality. We stated at the out- set that we understood social class as being formed through material conditions and economic (in)securities and as being shaped by early disadvantage or privi- leges of birth and the uneven distribution of life chances which these conditions create. We also acknowledged that throughout our lives we are buffeted by chang- ing socio-economic circumstances which hammer at and refashion our classed identity, sense of self and individual status within social and civil society. But our emphasis was intended to be on how class categories continue to be com- monly used in culture and how these are ideologically loaded in popular and political discourses; used as shorthand to dispense judgement, criticism or praise, to evoke pride, fearfulness, nostalgia, disgust or shame. What we have come to appreciate as we have worked through different cultural accounts of classed rela- tions and their positioning of social groups is that the moralistic and emotional values articulated in culture are strongly attached to submerged, messy, contra- dictory and sometimes aggressive collective and individual struggles for financial resources and resources-in-kind: education, housing, healthcare, and so on. As we write this afterword, these struggles have been encapsulated in a slogan which has been circulating on T shirts, posters and bumper stickers, which urges read- ers rather facetiously to ‘Work harder, those on benefits rely on you!’ Sometimes this statement is accompanied by a pointing index finger reminiscent of wartime conscription campaigns. The slogan expresses the perceived and real ‘battle’ for resources in austerity times and a profound resentment on the part of those who still have something to lose or to preserve. Its offensiveness is, in fact, deeply defensive and highlights the divisive undercurrents beneath the unified flow of everyone pulling together. Every report we have offered here of the cultural articulation of classed identi- ties and social difference has also been an account of the haves and the have-nots and the ways in which the possibilities and resources for social mobility and for the maintenance of social position have been pursued, patrolled or pro- tected. We have seen, for example, how during the 1990s and beyond Essex Man and Essex Girl became objects of admiration, envy or disgust because they seemed to overturn the rules of social class: of class fixity, affiliation, politics and 197 198 Afterword: ‘We Are All in This Together’ consumption. Here a ‘post-working-class’ constituency appeared to possess not only an aspiration towards social advancement but also the capacity to earn, to attract credit and to spend. Money and prospects had broken out of their normal class-bound confines and attached themselves to different kinds of social sub- jects. We have also seen how underclass debates were not only about morals and conduct and a lack of aspiration, but also concerned a seemingly unfair allocation of public resources. We have argued that the underclass is symbolically central to political debate even though it is figured as a socially marginal, albeit growing, minority; this is precisely because the few are perceived to be a drain on the col- lective assets of the many. We also showed that, while debates about educational values and access to education have been rooted in meritocractic models of indi- vidual social progress based on ability, hard work and intelligence, resources of every kind are at the heart of the uncertain journey to become educated, skilled and ready for work. So powerful is the myth that social advancement is achieved through individ- ual merit (rather than via the supportive structures of birth, inheritance and the deployment of capital of all kinds) that celebrities especially become trapped in an ethical double-bind. They are clearly exceptional figures in culture because of their conspicuous rise to prominence, but many appear to their critics to have achieved success without real merit. Hence, we have shown how celebrities must endeavour to show that they have worked hard to earn their fame, their money and their lifestyle. So, too, their individual self-told stories of a rise to fame from humble origins help to reassure audiences that their success is deserved and that they have not been given wealth on a plate. Often, too, these stories also convey the reassuring message that wealth in itself cannot guarantee happiness. We have also suggested that, while the assets of celebrities are often conspicuously on dis- play because they form part of the branding of the celebrity persona, those of the upper classes and the aristocracy have to be managed quite differently. This is because the very existence of the upper class, which is often based in inherited class privilege, is all too easily read as an offence to the ideal model of a meri- tocractic society, and more lately to neoliberal notions of the self-made subject. So, rather like celebrities, rich elites, especially those with inherited wealth, titles and power, also take care to advertise their labour and their social, cultural and even financial contribution to the national good. From this perspective we have argued that the ability of the British aristocracy, in particular, to adapt and to at least appear to change and to promote itself as the guardian of national her- itage or as an advocate of social entrepreneurism has been impressive. Perhaps these strategies have helped deflect public criticism and academic scrutiny away from an examination of the state resources (tax breaks and other benefits) which enable them to continue in the manner to which they have become accustomed. If the aristocracy and other class elites have been the consummate social insid- ers, quietly benefiting from material wealth and family connections across the generations, then the immigrant has been figured as the very opposite, as an all-too-visible outsider and an interloper on the national scene. In our penulti- mate chapter we showed how public discourses sought to differentiate between legitimate insiders and illegitimate outsiders and to mark out the boundaries of moral, social and individual worth in the context of competitions for jobs, ser- vices and welfare resources. Here we suggested that a collective, referred to as the ‘white working class’, had become the container for broader social unease about Afterword: ‘We Are All in This Together’ 199 national identity, cultural difference and also the allocation of increasingly scarce social benefits. Public and political discourses amplify cultural differences and economic competition between mostly poor working-class people from all eth- nic backgrounds, while offering very few opportunities for those people to speak for themselves. It was in our final chapter that issues of resources (both national and individ- ual) were highlighted specifically in the context of the new age of austerity and in the light of the 2008 financial downturn. We noted here that the cloak of British economic prosperity which had shielded the nation for much of the previous decade has become increasingly tattered and threadbare. We chose to highlight the ways in which historical lessons have been deployed in political and popular discourses to head off dissent and to encourage compliance with the sometimes unpalatable policies and economic strategies advocated by the UK Coalition. The contention here was that a recourse to history was being mobilised to persuade citizens of how best to make sense of the downturn and to accept austerity mea- sures such as the cutting of public services and the further dismantling of the welfare state. Our suspicion has grown throughout the research and writing of this book that citizens are very far indeed from being all in this together, and that ultimately it will be the struggle for resources which throws into stark relief the sharper contours of the ongoing neoliberal project and its implications for class relations and a progressive politics of class. The fair allocation of resources, the opportunity to make a dignified living and the sustenance and social support of those who are struggling must remain central to the politics of hope. Notes 1 Introduction: Beginning the Work of Class and Culture 1. There are different versions of this speech. The version published in Cooke as cited includes material removed from the text after the speech press release had been distributed. 2. This is not to say that there were no outbursts of social disorder during the mid-1980s. In addition to industrial disputes, there were also riots arising from the ongoing fraught relationships between minorities and the police, such as the Broadwater Farm incident in Tottenham, North London, which took place in 1985. 3. See Palmer (2003), Biressi and Nunn (2008), Tyler (2008), Nunn and Biressi (2009 and forthcoming), Doyle and Karl (2010), Ferguson (2010), Nunn and Biressi (2010b), Wood and Skeggs (2010) and Biressi (2011). 2 Essex: Class, Aspiration and Social Mobility 1. Stuart Hall was a key theorist of a perceived crisis in British social democracy and its relationship to Thatcherism. In a series of papers throughout the 1980s, Hall described how Thatcherism was a distinct articulation of economic policies and cultural and racial discourses and how these helped sustain its hegemonic authority across three successive general elections. On authoritarian populism, see Hall (1983).