CLASS DISTINCTIONS AMONGST THE POOR.
SOME sort of class feeling is, we believe, inherent in human natm.e. People often speak as though these demarcations in England existed only among the middle and upper classes, but such is not the fact. Indeed it is very far from the fact. No more misleading labels than "the classes" and "the masses" were ever invented. There are no masses, rightly speaking. Class distinctions go almost down to the bottom ; not quite of course, because there is always a residuum who through their fault or theit misfortune have neither the pride nor the imagination to sort themselves. But happily these are not, proportionately speaking, numerous enough to be correctly described as "masses." Below the middle classes the dividing lines of society are held to with rigour. Looked at from the top, they often appear arbitrary and unreasonable, just as from the bottom our distinctions must appear to be without foundation. The tacit social laws are only hilly compre- hended by those who live under them, at either end of
the scale. That two equally well-dressed ladies living ac- eording to the same standard of comfort should be divided by an invisible barrier is simply a matter of arbitrary nonsense to those who look on from afar off; but it may not be nonsense at all to those who see close. In the same way, those who have had to do with the ordering of social clubs among the roughest factory girls tell us that certain persons who desire to join are unanimously black-balled, upon social grounds, by the existing members. It is hopeless to inquire the inner meaning of this exclusive- ness. The questioner is merely answered that the persons concerned are "no class," and will p:obably be obliged to yield to popular feeling or to break up the club. To West End eyes the girls received and rejected are equally dirty and rough, just as to the East End observer all ladies are equally genteel and clean.
The social divisions existing among the upper poor are more easily understood, no doubt because we stand nearer
to. them. To begin at the very top, it is questionable
if families who keep a servant under their roof, be she never so cheap and young, should be classed among the poor at all. On the other hand, it is difficult to draw the line between those who actually pay regular wages to a little girl, and those who "have a woman in" at regular intervals to do the roughest part of the housework ; these latter certainly belong to the poor. The cleavage thus formed is very marked, and it is more reasonable and less snobbish than at first appears; there is, in fact, an inevitable difference of ideal at the bottom of it. The posi- tion of the woman of a family is greatly affected by whether or no she has help from the outside. It means a little leisure spared from the necessities of life, and bestowed upon its amenities. It means that the wife and mother rules as well as serves in her little domain. That one woman should cook and clean and wash and mind three or four children, one of whom is probably quite helpless, necessitates, or seems as if it must necessitate, that she should be a drudge. How it is that such is not always the case is another of those secrets which cannot be conveyed from class to class. Below the servant-keeping class comes the one whose married women do no work out of the house, with an aristocratic subdivision for those who "put their washing out." A great deal more opportunity for exclusiveness is implied in this abstinence from bard labour than at first appears. All the dwellers in one house, or in one block of flats, do not necessarily belong to one stratum of society, and unless they meet to wash in a common backyard they need hardly know one another. Besides this, to hang one's clothes on a line in front of one's neighbours' eyes is to run the risk of all sorts of offensive criticism, and is a fruitful source of "unpleasantness." A frequent subject of discontent in almshouses is the impossibility which exists of main- taining social differences in the levelling atmosphere of a charitable institution Almshouses, of course, confer no stigma upon those who get into them ; quite the reverse ; all the same, the air of charitable asylums is not understood to be socially agreeable. Not long ago the present writer listened to the complaints of a superior woman who deeply resented the pushing propensities of her fellow-inmates, especially the unwarrantable assumption of the neighbour who occupied a room exactly opposite her own. "She comes when she likes and stays as long as she likes, and you can't offend her," sighed the aggrieved hostess, who had evidently done her best in this latter particular. Some forms of charity injure the pride of their recipients and some do not. TO accept the medical assistance of a hospital strikes no one as beneath his dignity, and so far as "the poor in a lump" are concerned this feeling is not to be deprecated; but among persons who would be violently offended at being classed with the poor at all the absence of pride which enables them to take advantages intended, for those who cannot afford to buy them is very regrettable. Not long ago in a big London ec.,ani'sal a patient requested to be moved to another part of the ward because she objected to lie in the next bed to her own cook!
Class jealousy is, of course, common to high and low-,, and a certain amount of resentment is felt towards those who presume even upon an acknowledged position. Social distinc- tiouz, ,.gain. in the lower classes e.nrreanond much more nearly with income than those existing among the educated. Good wages are almost essential to the maintenance of a fair degree of civilisation, especially in cities. " Soap and water are cheap" is a common saying; but a high standard of cleanliness is dear to uphold. It means time, work, and a certain amount of new clothes, and a mind at leisure to think of something besides the actual feeding of the family. Again, a high standard in the matter of decency necessitates apace, and space in London is the most ex- pensive of all commodities. Nevertheless, money is not an absolute criterion of social position. Character—in so far as it is reflected in propriety of behaviour— counts for a great deal ; a rowdy family sink directly, though they may have money to waste, and a respectable widow may retain her superiority in the face of grinding poverty. The acme of good manners—the very badge of gentility—is to be "quiet," never to let the sound of mirth, quarrelling, or lamentation proceed out of your dwelling. This sign of social distinction is appreciated down to the very bottom. A short time ago a doctor told us that he was attending a little girl belonging to a family of labourers, whose mother appeared to him to be unduly anxious about the child's condition, and constantly assured him that she was changed. He himself saw very little amiss, and asked the mother whether she meant that she was thinner. "It's not that," replied the poor woman in evident distress; it's in herself that I see the change. She used. to be so noisy, and now she's right down ladylike. I can't bear to see her." Again, we know of a very poor woman who remarked that she never went out on a Bank Holiday, adding, "I leave that to the poor,"—by which she meant "to my social inferiors." So far as we have been able to observe, birth is among the poor the social advantage which counts for least,—at any rate in London. In a village a family may have been looked up to for generations, and the long habit of respect will cause neighbours to forget in individual instances even the ignominy of parish relief. But many Londoners were not born in London at all, and certainly most of their grandfathers lived in the country, so that practically nothing is known of their antecedents. As individuals, of course, they sometimes cherish a recollection of better days, which may help them to keep their heads above water in bard times. We knew an instance of a woman who based her claim to belong to the aristocracy of poverty on the fact that her family had for generations possessed a family grave; but as a rule tradition goes for nothing.
On the upper rungs of the social ladder, we should say that those social distinctions which can be defined at all rest upon birth, money, and brains. Among the poor they rest upon money and manners, and the latter, alas! are, below a certain wage, woefully dependent upon the former.
Previous page
