By Melvyn Bragg

Class has not slunk1 away from these islands. It never will. Too many people have an investment in it. But most would now describe themselves more happily by their taste， their private passions， what they like to do， rather than what an ancient three-part hierarchical system decrees that they were meant to be.2 Class is being bypassed3.

We have become keener on being individuals， or at most small tribes in our communities. When we are asked directly about which class we belong to， we reply politely， but wearily，and play the game for old times sake.4 The whole thing is now a bit of a charade5. Snobbery still exists， but it is comical or pathetic and no longer has a cutting edge.6

I would argue that we are now a nation of cultures rather than a nation of classes. If we look at the passion with which people describe what they do in their leisure time， you have a truer picture of our society today. Thats where the energy is； thats who we are now.

How would you really describe yourself？ I suggest it might be through the type of music you like， the sport you follow， the radio station you listen to， the authors you read， the ballet or the opera or theatre you go to， the soaps7 or the galleries—or a mix of all. The old snakeskin of class falls away when we look at what we really do， or are given half the chance to be as we really want to be.8

Who would have thought that opera and ballet， until recently for the very few， would now be broadcast on television？ We have operas live from New York on the radio. The theatre， not long ago a rather expensive luxury for a minority， is now integral9 to our new city centres and is in the ambitions of a wide range of schools.

Drama is becoming a classless national obsession， and the underpinning10 of radio and television has helped make London the greatest city of theatre in the world. The pattern is not so different with school orchestras， while the growth of visitor numbers to our gloriously free museums and galleries has been phenomenal.11 The butterfly is finally out of the chrysalis12.

Divisions of wealth remain of course， and the rich get richer while the poor， relatively， get poorer. Wealth still means greater access and greater choice. Poverty can mean social and cultural imprisonment13. But this is nothing like the scale of difference we saw a hundred years ago， or even 60 years ago. There have been absolute changes for the better， physically， materially and socially， and it is a slur on those who worked for those changes over a hundred years to insist that we are still stuck in the slum/toff land of Edwardian England.14

The power of culture in this country—we have the biggest creative industry per capita in the world—has replaced or reconfigured the class system.15 Having said that， the old class act is still around. Sixty per cent of the present Cabinet went to paying schools， as did about the same percentage of judges， and more than half of the land is still in the hands of the ancient looters from the time of the Conquest to the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the occupation of the common land.16 And the new super-rich， as ever， ape the old， doing up the statelies and padding after the past like the little page following Good King Wenceslas.17

This is all the focus of the new BBC television series， Class and Culture， which starts recently. In the programmes we take 1911 as the starting point. In 1911， men could be ranked in descending order by top hats，bowler hats， trilbies or cloth caps.18 Now we have the equality of the naked head.19 In 1911， the upper classes owned what was called culture—great houses， paintings and gardens. Now much of this is owned by the people.

All of this might have changed much more. Lord Hutchinson， now in his feisty nineties， a public school and Oxford man， a grandee， a friend of No？l Coward and who served with Mountbatten in the Navy during the war， told me that in 1944 he had fully expected， and wanted， public schools to be abolished， so that the whole country could start out afresh on an equal footing.20 He said that this view was widespread among his friends.

It was a Labour Prime Minister， Clement Attlee， a man devoted to his own public school， who decided against it. This tremendous non-act， many think， has been responsible for much of the countrys decline， following its neglect of manufacturing and the cultures of engineering and skills.21

But enough！ We have reinvented ourselves dramatically since the middle of the last century. We have found a way to emerge from the loss of a territorial and an industrial empire， and one of the chief ways we have done that is to swing22 towards the arts and culture.

In the process， we have set up an alternative Britain. It is more democratic， better off for more people， freer， more tolerant， less snobbish. But above all it is more stimulating： it has stimulated an economy of the mind， a stock market of the arts， a trade in cultures， and it is this that is slowly， with setbacks of course，23 bringing a new and richer identity to the place we live in.

One indisputable marker can be seen in the pop music of the 1960s： the intellectual foray of the Who， the promises of general promiscuity of the Stones， but above all the undeniable quality of the Beatles.24 They brought a popular culture， which had been stranded25 outside the class system and outside technology for so long， to the attention of a wider public. Now it was seen that popular music could be considered as an art form alongside classical music； that television dramas could match anything in the West End26； that radio and television comedy from the old working-class music hall could provide the platform for new artists.

Towns and cities were aswarm with young men and women who saw that what they liked could be the watermark of their time.27 People from other countries who came here at first played the class game， but their children saw that society was changing. They saw a bazaar， a souk a new market of cultures28—that was where the action was， and is， and they dived in.

Imitation of the old has been replaced for the intelligent by their delight in the new. Culture has come out of its class cage. There has been a stupendous29 increase in the celebration of the arts in festivals， in villages and cities all over the country. This may be our new great industry.

Yes， yes. This is a partial and optimistic view. And there is much that is unreconstructed in our society， and much that needs to be done to make it better.

But lets not block out one of the great seachanges of our age.30 From being branded as a unit in a class army—at whatever level—more and more people are getting on with what they individually want to do and are defining themselves through their own taste in the widening range of our ever-expanding culture.31 Its a quiet revolution.

1. slink： 溜走。

2. hierarchical： // 等級的；decree： 法令，政令。

3. bypass： 繞過，忽視。

4. 如果有人直接問我們屬于哪個階層，我們會禮貌地回答，但是內(nèi)心會很抵觸，不過是照老規(guī)矩這么做罷了。play the game： 辦事公道，做事講道德；for old times sake： 看在過去的情分上。

5. charade： 顯而易見的作假，明顯的偽裝。

6. snobbery： 勢利，虛榮；cutting edge：發(fā)展前沿，領(lǐng)先位置。

7. soap： 肥皂劇（以一種以家庭問題為題材的廣播或電視連續(xù)?。?。

8. 當(dāng)我們看到自己真正在做的事情，或是我們有一半的機(jī)會去成為我們真正想成為的人時，會發(fā)現(xiàn)階級的區(qū)分已經(jīng)逐漸消失。snakeskin： 蛇皮，此處比喻“外殼，外形”；fall away： 消失，改變。

9. integral： 構(gòu)成整體所必需的。

10. underpin： 支撐，加強(qiáng)。

11. orchestra： 管弦樂隊；phenomenal： 非凡的，顯著的。

12. chrysalis： // 蛹，繭。

13. imprisonment： 禁錮，限制。

14. 不管在體能上、物質(zhì)上、還是社會上，都發(fā)生了翻天覆地的變化。如果還說我們處于上世紀(jì)初愛德華七世統(tǒng)治下的那種貧富分化中，那就是對一百年來為此付出努力的許許多多人的誹謗了。slur： 誹謗；slum： 貧民窟；toff： 富豪；Edwardian England： 英國的愛德華時期，即20世紀(jì)初的10年。當(dāng)時，英國由愛德華七世統(tǒng)治，他對藝術(shù)和時尚十分關(guān)心，倡導(dǎo)了貴族階級的奢靡之風(fēng)。

15. per capita： 人均（地）；reconfigure： 重新裝配，改裝。

16. 現(xiàn)在的內(nèi)閣成員中，60%都來自私立學(xué)校，法官中私立學(xué)校畢業(yè)的，也是這個比例。超過一半的土地依然在過去的剝削者手中，從第一批盎格魯-撒克遜人來到英國，到16世紀(jì)修道院的解散，再到17、18世紀(jì)的圈地運動，一直都是如此。looter： 掠奪者；dissolution： 解散；monastery： 修道院，寺院；common land：公地，公共用地。

17. 而如今崛起的新貴，也學(xué)著過去的貴族，開始修繕古宅，就像跟在仁君溫瑟拉后面學(xué)步的準(zhǔn)騎士。ape： 此處為動詞，模仿；do up： 整修，裝潢；stately （home）： 豪華古宅；page： 舊時騎士身邊的男孩，一邊服侍騎士，一邊學(xué)習(xí)如何成為騎士；Good King Wenceslas： 仁君溫瑟拉（c.907—935），以殉道者的形象成為捷克的圣徒，在一首傳唱他的圣歌當(dāng)中，他后面總跟著一個小跟班，就是前文說的page。

18. top hat： 高頂禮帽；bowler hat： 圓頂禮帽；trilby： 軟氈帽；cloth cap： 布帽。

19. 現(xiàn)在我們平等了，誰都不戴帽子了。

20. feisty： 精力充沛的，神采奕奕的；grandee： 大人物，重要人物；public shcool： 譯作“公學(xué)”，在英國是一種昂貴的私立學(xué)校；No？l Coward： 諾埃爾·考沃德（1899—1973），英國著名的導(dǎo)演、劇作家；Mountbatten： 路易斯·蒙巴頓（1900—1979），曾任英國海軍元帥、東南亞盟軍總司令；afresh on an equal footing： 在平等的基礎(chǔ)上重新開始。

21. 很多人認(rèn)為，正是這種強(qiáng)有力的“無為”觀念，以及對大批量生產(chǎn)、工業(yè)文化和機(jī)械技術(shù)的不屑，使英國逐漸走上了下坡路。

22. swing： 搖擺，改變。

23. stimulating： 有啟發(fā)性的，增強(qiáng)活力的；setback： 失敗，退步。

24. indisputable： 不容置疑的，無可爭辯的；foray： 初次嘗試；promiscuity： 濫交。句中提到的是三個著名的流行音樂樂隊：“誰人”、“滾石”和“甲殼蟲”。

25. strand： 使滯留，使被困住。

26. West End： 倫敦西區(qū)，被認(rèn)為是貴族和高雅文化聚集的地方，所以文中說，現(xiàn)在電視劇也可以匹敵西區(qū)的高雅藝術(shù)了。

27. be aswarm with： 充滿；watermark： 水印，水位標(biāo)志。

28. bazaar： 集市；souk： 露天市場。

29. stupendous： 令人驚嘆的，了不起的。

30. block： 阻擋；sea-change： 徹底變化。

31. 過去，人們像被編入軍隊一樣，被劃分為嚴(yán)格的等級。如今，人們開始逐漸認(rèn)識自己的初心，并用日益豐富的文化中自己獨特的品位來定義自己。

閱讀感評

在筆者看來，說目前英國社會已無傳統(tǒng)意義上的階級區(qū)分，只有閑暇時間的趣味、品位不同，恐怕是有點兒幼稚的想法。同樣地，過于強(qiáng)調(diào)社會上因收入、財富及地位的不同而產(chǎn)生對立的階級與等級，以致引發(fā)人為的社會矛盾與分裂而非我們更愿意看到的社會合作與融合，更會招致普遍的反感與反對。何謂Class？在《牛津詞典》中與本文相關(guān)的釋義為“division or order of society”“a caste system， a system of social classes”，譯為中文即“社會等級，階級，階層；等級制度”。那么，在歷史上這個“階級或階層”是如何劃分并以什么標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來劃分的呢？

說到社會等級與階級，我們可能首先要想到法國大革命（1789）與《共產(chǎn)黨宣言》（1848）。法國大革命時期，法國社會被分為三個等級：第一等級為天主教僧侶，第二等級為貴族，這兩個等級屬于當(dāng)時的封建統(tǒng)治階級，或稱特權(quán)階級；第三等級為資產(chǎn)階級、小資產(chǎn)階級、無產(chǎn)階級前身與農(nóng)民階級，他們屬于被統(tǒng)治階級，處于無權(quán)地位。法國大革命正是處于底層的第三等級起來革了第一、第二等級的命——推翻君主，建立共和！《共產(chǎn)黨宣言》的第一章標(biāo)題即為“資產(chǎn)者與無產(chǎn)者”，第一句話即開宗明義地宣稱“迄今為止，一切社會的歷史都是階級斗爭的歷史”（The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles），接著解釋說，“我們的時代，……整個社會日益分裂為兩大敵對的陣營，分裂為兩大相互直接對立的階級：資產(chǎn)階級和無產(chǎn)階級?！蹦敲矗R克思與恩格斯是如何劃分這兩個階級的呢？他們在這章的題注里已予以明確說明：“資產(chǎn)階級即為現(xiàn)代資本家階級，社會生產(chǎn)資料的所有者，工資勞動的雇傭者；無產(chǎn)階級即為現(xiàn)代以賺取工資為生的勞動者，不占有生產(chǎn)資料，只能靠出賣勞動力為生?！憋@然，法國大革命時期的階級劃分更強(qiáng)調(diào)社會地位，而當(dāng)資本主義發(fā)展到19世紀(jì)中葉，就更強(qiáng)調(diào)經(jīng)濟(jì)因素，而且將階級一分為二，更加簡單化。我們國家在1949年后實施社會主義制度，采取的是列寧主義的蘇聯(lián)模式，將社會階級劃分為比較復(fù)雜的城鄉(xiāng)兩大系統(tǒng)：城市有民族資產(chǎn)階級（資本家）、小資產(chǎn)階級、半無產(chǎn)階級、無產(chǎn)階級；農(nóng)村有地主、富農(nóng)、中農(nóng)、下中農(nóng)、貧農(nóng)、雇農(nóng)。從這些名稱也可以看出，這些階級基本是按照其當(dāng)時擁有財富的多寡（所辦企業(yè)的規(guī)模或占有土地的數(shù)量）來劃分的。

以社會地位與財富多寡為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來劃分階級，是長期以來的普遍做法，但在20世紀(jì)西方社會開始淡化這種劃分意識，階級的劃分出現(xiàn)了更為中性的說法，比較普遍的是三類劃分法：上流社會（Upper Class）、中產(chǎn)階級（Middle Class）與社會底層（Lower Class）。西方世界自“二戰(zhàn)”后的普遍趨勢是中產(chǎn)階級越來越壯大，而兩頭的數(shù)量在縮小，因此被形象地稱作“棗核形社會”。

在“二戰(zhàn)”以后的西方社會，由于激進(jìn)革命已難有土壤，同時中產(chǎn)階級的規(guī)模日益壯大，他們對于傳統(tǒng)意義上的階級劃分越來越缺乏興趣，于是以社會學(xué)方法為基礎(chǔ)，紛紛提出新的更為溫和的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。其中一個典型的范例是美國學(xué)者保羅·弗塞爾的《階層：美國社會地位系統(tǒng)指南》（Class： A Guide through the American Status System， 1983）。該書作者對于美國社會階層的分析，強(qiáng)調(diào)金錢已不再是社會等級分類的主要依據(jù)，更非唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，代之而起的是人的精神生活的品位與追求，成為了階級劃分的重要試金石?？赡苁怯捎谶@個主題，中譯本的譯者將該書名改譯為《格調(diào)：社會等級與生活品位》（2011）。而今，這本書上的主要觀點被原文的作者繼承，并予以了一定程度的延伸，或者說更為激進(jìn)。例如，作者說“今日的英國是一個多樣文化而非多種階級的國度。只要瞧一瞧人們是如何充滿熱情地在閑暇時間從事各種活動，你對今日社會就會有更真實的認(rèn)識。那是我們的精力所在，也是目前定義自我的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。”“這個國家的文化力量已取代或重置了階級體系?！薄斑^去的人們像軍人被編入部隊番號一樣，有嚴(yán)格的階級標(biāo)簽。而今，越來越多的人根據(jù)各自的個性需求，在日益豐富的文化生活中，以自己獨特的品位來定位自我?！庇脗€人的文化品位或者說生活格調(diào)，而不再用財富與地位來定義自我在社會中的位置，這當(dāng)然主要是中產(chǎn)階級的美好愿望，因為中產(chǎn)階級被夾在社會等級的中間，對自我的處境比較敏感，不太愿意用一些客觀的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來定義自我，以免難堪。然而，上面的判斷雖有一定的道理，但畢竟不是整個事實所在。首先，這些文化藝術(shù)品位、格調(diào)的養(yǎng)成是需要社會環(huán)境與家庭條件的，有時往往還要在中上層的“原生家庭”里從小受到熏陶，也就是說高雅、大眾與低俗的品位，并非與經(jīng)濟(jì)與社會地位無關(guān)，常常有千絲萬縷的聯(lián)系。其次，個人在社會上還是被賦予了一定的標(biāo)簽的，而這些標(biāo)簽是一個綜合產(chǎn)物，并非僅由文化品位定義。以大學(xué)為例，大學(xué)就像社會，有從校長、教授到打字員、清潔工等各類工種人等，其中最受人尊重的階層，中外無疑都是資深教授，尤其在中國最好還是兼任行政職務(wù)的教授。一般地說，他們在大學(xué)中的文化品位確實是最高的，但他們的地位與收入在其中更是起著舉足輕重的作用。最后，我們來舉個英國的例子。我們都知道英國有所謂的紳士，那是英國上流社會的標(biāo)簽。但英國的紳士僅僅有穿衣戴帽手持司的克（手杖）、崇尚女士優(yōu)先、為女性開門等騎士風(fēng)度和歌劇馬術(shù)馬球等高雅品位的軟指標(biāo)恐怕還是不行的，還必須要有英國伊頓公學(xué)與牛津、劍橋的學(xué)歷，非同一般的殷實家庭物質(zhì)條件，最好還要有貴族血統(tǒng)這些硬指標(biāo)！