watching the news this morning, who should i see but Guardian writer Zoe Williams, who i usually agree with, and find generally lovely, suggesting the term chav should be avoided as a term of class abuse. now obviously as someone who hates Chavs, but considers themselves on the left politically, i was a bit vexed. i read Zoe's article on the website (link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/16/thinktanks?commentpage=5&commentposted=1), and responded as follows (though i've corrected the odd typo that evaded my censor):
Whilst there is undoubtedly some class prejudice in the term Chav, certainly among myself and my friends it's use is more culturally specific than that. Which would be my argument for it being a suitable term of abuse, if not a nice one (but hey, we're not gonna pretend to be completely without annoyances, are we?). i also see a limited number of middle-class chavs, and most working-class people aren't chavs at all. The term amongst people i know is used for those who are roughly as follows: aggressive; tasteless (culturally, and sartorially; which isn't so much a poverty issue, as most of the clothes worn by them are as expensive as our own); contemptuous of manners, learning, and anything involving bookishness. The Chav is nearer a subculture like the mods or rockers, than a class-based term of abuse. Certainly, to view them as passive, poor, victims is inaccurate; part of the attack is based on them being loud, obnoxious, and unavoidable. Furthermore their attitudes are often tending toward the racist, and homophobic; in this they have more in common with the skinheads of the eighties. Undoubtedly our society is to blame for them, but i wouldn't be too quick to feel sorry for people who're more likely to start a fight from a small offence (ie bumping into them, or looking near them). maybe a nicer society will stop producing people who shout abuse at me for merely reading a book.
Whilst there is undoubtedly some class prejudice in the term Chav, certainly among myself and my friends it's use is more culturally specific than that. Which would be my argument for it being a suitable term of abuse, if not a nice one (but hey, we're not gonna pretend to be completely without annoyances, are we?). i also see a limited number of middle-class chavs, and most working-class people aren't chavs at all. The term amongst people i know is used for those who are roughly as follows: aggressive; tasteless (culturally, and sartorially; which isn't so much a poverty issue, as most of the clothes worn by them are as expensive as our own); contemptuous of manners, learning, and anything involving bookishness. The Chav is nearer a subculture like the mods or rockers, than a class-based term of abuse. Certainly, to view them as passive, poor, victims is inaccurate; part of the attack is based on them being loud, obnoxious, and unavoidable. Furthermore their attitudes are often tending toward the racist, and homophobic; in this they have more in common with the skinheads of the eighties. Undoubtedly our society is to blame for them, but i wouldn't be too quick to feel sorry for people who're more likely to start a fight from a small offence (ie bumping into them, or looking near them). maybe a nicer society will stop producing people who shout abuse at me for merely reading a book.
No comments:
Post a Comment