LOTR - classist?

[the.landlord]

hey,
i am new.
i wanted to discuss a touchy topic with you. i loved lotr since my father red it to me years ago, when i was 12. when i became older, i learned to love it even more...
when i say that i am an lotr-fan, i alwys have some people saying "well, but it is sexist", "it is racist", "it is classist".
i am pretty sure that lotr is NOT SEXIST or RACIST.... but i am not so sure about classism. i think there may be an amount of classim in it... as for example shown in the relationship frodo/sam. why does he always call him "mister frodo, sir"? it sort of bothers me.
how do you all think about that?
do you have any information about how tolkien thought about class issues?

[littlemanpoet]

According to Tolkien's letters and other sources, he believed in hierarchy. He would have preferred monarchy to any other form of government. Along with monarchy comes inevitable aristocracy and peasantry. I think "classist" is a slightly different thing since it has more to do with modern political philosophy. Tolkien did not much like many developments that occured after the 1500s, nor English literature that was written after perhaps 1600, and deplored modernism.

[Selmo]

Tolkien was born in the 19th Century and grew up in England in the early years of the 20th. His attitude towards the master/servant and empolyer/employee relationship reflect those of the place and the time.

In his letters, Tolkien has written that some of his inspiration for the character of Sam came from the men under his command during the Great War. Even in the 21st Century, private soldiers do not address Officers by their first names. Likewise, it would be unthinkable for me to speak to the head of the organisation in which I work by her first name. I would address her as "Ma'am" or "Vice-chancellor", never "Janet".

Class structures exist in all human societies, whether you like it or not, and were even stronger in the society in which Tolkien was raised.
.

[Aiwendil]

No time for a thoughtful post right now - but I'm afraid I cannot be as dismissive of the charge of 'classism' as LMP and Selmo are.

Yes, Tolkien was born in the late 19th century. He was born into a world that had already seen the work of Marx, a world in which the stirrings of class-revolution were already visible in many places in Europe. The world in which he grew up was a very modern one in many respects; it was certainly one that did not take notions of class-structure for granted. Tolkien was aware of all this and he still chose to portray class-structures as he did. I'm not saying that he was necessarily wrong to do so; but I do not think that the views of class presented in LotR can be put down to it being written a long time ago.

Nor, I think, can one say that Tolkien was not interested in modern political theory and leave it at that. It's true that he did not much care for many things post-1500 or so. But this is avoiding the question. Why did he not like things post-1500? And, specifically, why did he choose to portray and even glorify the class structures that he did? One would hardly excuse a proponent of slavery by saying "he doesn't much like developments since 1865"; and while I think the charge made here against Tolkien is far less serious, it should still not be thus dismissed.

[Selmo]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Tolkien .... was born into a world that had already seen the work of Marx, a world in which the stirrings of class-revolution were already visible in many places in Europe. The world in which he grew up was a very modern one in many respects; it was certainly one that did not take notions of class-structure for granted

Tolkien did not portray the class system of Marxist ideology in his works because he set his story in an earlier time and place where there had never been a Marx.
I assume Tolkien was aware of Marxism/Stalinism/Communism but I doubt whether he ever read Das Capital (he might have done had Marx written in Gothic or Old High German but he doesn't seem to have been interested in modern politics). He was at least inteligent enough to see that all the isms in the world were not doing away with class structure, just replacing old ones with newer ones.

I'm not sure that we should call Tokien a "classist" but he was certainly a hopeless romantic, hankering after a golden age from the past which never existed.
.
.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

According to Tolkien's letters and other sources, he believed in hierarchy. He would have preferred monarchy to any other form of government. Along with monarchy comes inevitable aristocracy and peasantry. I think "classist" is a slightly different thing since it has more to do with modern political philosophy. Tolkien did not much like many developments that occured after the 1500s, nor English literature that was written after perhaps 1600, and deplored modernism.

Tolkien most certainly did like literature written after 1600! He loved both recent and contemporary work, including H Rider Haggard, ER Eddison, Isaac Asimov (yes, he was a sci-fi fan!), Mary Rennault, even 'literary fiction' by Iris Murdoch. William Morris, the socialist and prime mover of the Arts and Crafts movement, was a huge influence. Tolkien also knew his art and was a fan of Burne-Jones. He took newspapers including 'leftist' Sunday paper, The Observer. He was fully up to date with current affairs and enjoyed 'popular' fiction, he was not locked in a Medievalist's bubble, and had even owned a car when he needed one for his family.

Tolkien's politics are ambiguous, as there is an essential conflict between his idealisation of both monarchies (Gondor) and anarchism (The Shire), so we cannot say he liked one or the other; as in many other areas, Tolkien often contradicts himself in his letters so its not entirely possible to fix on what he did think. And nothing wrong with that, it seems entirely ordinary to me to have some conflicting views; bear in mind that Tolkien was not a politician nor was he a Political writer so we cannot expect him to have fixed on one ideology. The only thing we know for sure is that he did not approve of massive machines of State.

But as I was once told, we might not set out to concern ourselves with Politics but as we exist in the world we cannot avoid them. And Tolkien made (maybe unwittingly, but I suspect not) some marvellous satire on the English classes with his Hobbits. Look at this satire and he is anything but 'classist' (and I am particularly sensitive to this ) as he pricks a lot of bubbles.

He makes fun of the 'nouveau-riche' in his portrayal of the Sackville-Bagginses - and allegedly also of the aesthetic, intelligentsia Bloomsbury set of the Sackville-Wests. He shows how bumbling the English country squire could be by showing the 'all lads together' japery of Merry and Pippin, the squires' sons. He makes humour out of the narrow world vision and superstitions of the local farm labourers. And he makes us laugh with his portrayal of Bilbo and all his suburban, Daily Mail influenced paranoia about 'strangers' and keeping up appearances (Bilbo effectively goes on his quest because he is so horribly English and cannot say "clear off!" when the Dwarves arrive at his door).

[Lush]

Oooh, controversy!

I'm not sure that we should call Tokien a "classist" but he was certainly a hopeless romantic, hankering after a golden age from the past which never existed.

You might catch flak for the above statement, Selmo, so I am going to preempt all that by saying I agree. The word "romantic" may be problematic - but I find that Tolkien often longs for the mythical picturesque, particularly within power structures. This is why Sam lovingly refers to Frodo as "Mr. Frodo," and never appears to buckle under the weight of his subservience. When Sam is tempted by the Ring - I almost see that as Tolkien's way of highlighting the potential dangers of threatening the hierarchy. As in, "look at our dear, sweet Sam, look at what he would turn into."

Of course, we must also remember the very nature of the Ring - it implies a tyrannical master of great power, a supremely negative figure.

So I do believe that Tolkien had a distinction in mind - there is "good" class structure, and "bad" class structure in the books. The Orcs serve Sauron out of fear and terror, while Sam, we are lead to believe, does so out of love (right?).

Yes, Tolkien was born in the late 19th century. He was born into a world that had already seen the work of Marx, a world in which the stirrings of class-revolution were already visible in many places in Europe. The world in which he grew up was a very modern one in many respects; it was certainly one that did not take notions of class-structure for granted. Tolkien was aware of all this and he still chose to portray class-structures as he did. I'm not saying that he was necessarily wrong to do so; but I do not think that the views of class presented in LotR can be put down to it being written a long time ago.

Indeed. I believe that Tolkien, like any intelligent man, had a complex perspective on the entire thing. On one side, you had an abused under-class, on the other side, the violent excess of Bolshevik Russia. I'd be fascinated to find out more on his thoughts here (anyone have any letters they can cite? ).

[Boromir88]

So I do believe that Tolkien had a distinction in mind - there is "good" class structure, and "bad" class structure in the books.~Lush

I agree, I would like to point out, Sam does become mayor and is re-elected several times after all.

There may be a hierarchy, you could even make a good argument for class. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is a caste system in Middle-earth. A system where the caste you are born in (or the caste of your parents) is the caste you stay in...there is absolutely no political, social, or economic mobility at all.

Because again if we look at Sam, he rises from a servant of Bilbo's and Frodo's to becoming the Mayor of the Shire. And while it does seem as if the Mayor is more of a figurehead that simply precides over ceremonies and such...I would definitely say that Sam did at least rise in political status. If there was a caste system this would not be possible.

[Lalwendë]

In fact in showing Sam's rise to high status Tolkien shows us how old barriers of 'class' in Middle-earth were broken down after the War of the Ring, in much the same way that WWI saw huge shifts in the expectations and perceived limitations of class in Britain. It was following WWI that we saw women gain the vote and the working classes began to rise into positions of power and influence. The aristocracy in Britain entered into the decline into shabby gentility that continues today, just as the Elves became less exalted as the Third Age ends. A new power takes over, Men, just as the rising power of the working and middle classes in Britain accelerated following the Great War. Aragorn heralds a new age of Hope, the Modern Age.

[the phantom]

Here's a question- does the rise of Sam really fly in the face of a class structure?

You could say it proves that there is an allowance for a rare case of mobility, but it certainly doesn't disprove the notion of upper/ruling class sorts being better than others and deserving to be followed.

Generally the higher ups were the strongest/fastest/bravest and most wise/noble/intelligent. Sam certainly does not disprove that. He is, after all, shown through the course of events to be by hobbit standards extremely brave, resourceful, tough, sharp, and worthy of honor. And sure enough, he ends up being the mayor at the end.

Sam only helps highlight the differences between classes in some ways. The rulers and such were generally superior, and when on rare occasion a superior person was born into a lower class (like Sam), his superiority would lead to him being absorbed into the ruling class. It's a case of circular reasoning- being ruling class generally makes one superior, and being superior generally elevates one to ruling class.

So did Sam really break any barriers? Is he really a common hobbit who rose to the top? Or is he a superior hobbit that was inexplicably born to commoners and rose to take his rightful place among the elite?

Fyi, I'm not trying to promote any argument or another. I'm just thinking out loud.

[Boromir88]

does the rise of Sam really fly in the face of a class structure?~tp

And that is a good question...I would still say he does.

You make a finely argued point that Sam does despite starting out as a servant, does display moments of 'superiority' which in time allows him to rise to a higher class. However, I would still say he did break 'social barriers.'

Because, at least in a caste system, it doesn't matter if you're superior to the 'ruling elite' or not, you stay in that classification for the rest of your life...and your children stay there as well. Members of the lowest caste are even forbidden to be seen in public around the 'upper classes' and other restrictions. So, the class barriers are very rigid and there is no room for mobility at all.

I agree that I think Sam's case was a rare occurence and it's just not something that happens all the time. As much as we would like to believe in the idea that anyone can improve their status. Reality is (even a system that isn't a caste system), the class you are born in is the class you stay in. Because those of the upper ruling class have better oppurtunity and more resources (money) to keep them at the top. While those on the bottom are faced with all sorts of 'barriers' to prevent them from rising up to the next class.

To look at it on a positive side, unlike the caste system, at least there is an oppurtunity to rise. As little as that chance may be, the oppurtunity is there for even the slightest bit of social, political, and economic ability. But last I heard in 2004 in the U.S only 4% moved out of their class (either upwards or downwards). I agree that mobility from one class to the next is a rare occurance (just like we see with Sam), but the oppurtunity is there.

[Holbytlass]

I know things are being discussed about what Tolkien thought about class but the story itself is based on a time when there was class and even sexism.
Not having benefit of the letters, what I've gleaned here was that Tolkien wanted his stories to be of a medeivalish history for England, right?

And even what Selmo brings up Tolkien's own timeframe of not being alot of women's rights and equalities (compared to today) that he had to go on.

I'm sorry but my thoughts are stuttering.

What I'm trying to say is that right or wrong to today's standard the story is based on a time when there was class and sexism. I'm glad to see that the story was not written "politically correct", that would make no sense to that time period. On the flip side I'm glad to see examples where classism and sexism policies were shattered in the examples of Sam and Eowyn otherwise it would be a rather sterile story of everyone in their place.

[the.landlord]

thank you all for your answers. reading them has been very interesting for me.

Originally Posted by Selmo

In his letters, Tolkien has written that some of his inspiration for the character of Sam came from the men under his command during the Great War. Even in the 21st Century, private soldiers do not address Officers by their first names. Likewise, it would be unthinkable for me to speak to the head of the organisation in which I work by her first name. I would address her as "Ma'am" or "Vice-chancellor", never "Janet".

Class structures exist in all human societies, whether you like it or not, and were even stronger in the society in which Tolkien was raised.

of course you are right about most of societies having a sort of class structure... i would not agree on every society having class structures, because i think that there may be some hunter-gatherer societies, which do not.

i am not an expert of class structure... but i think that the society i live in, germany, has not a class structure as shown in lotr. actually i never saw the man, who owns the company i am working for... we only see the headman master, whom we adress by his firstname and sometimes call boss if we like too. i think most people in germany adress the guys they are working with every day by their firstnames.
i think germany is a little bit different then england or the usa... because we call each other by the firstnames most of the time. when i was a pupil, wev even called some teachers by their firstnames. american friends have told me, that something like that would be unthinkable for them.
so probably that is one reason why i am so unlucky with sam calling frodo "sir all the time".
if i would meet the man who owns the company i work for i would adress him by his lastname and call him "Sie" (a respectful form of "you", probably like calling one "Sir")... but if he would take me on a quest, to destroy the one ring and i would go trough thick and thin with him... i would probably stop calling him "sir" very soon... because i would consider him as equal to me than.

[the.landlord]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

He makes fun of the 'nouveau-riche' in his portrayal of the Sackville-Bagginses - and allegedly also of the aesthetic, intelligentsia Bloomsbury set of the Sackville-Wests. He shows how bumbling the English country squire could be by showing the 'all lads together' japery of Merry and Pippin, the squires' sons. He makes humour out of the narrow world vision and superstitions of the local farm labourers. And he makes us laugh with his portrayal of Bilbo and all his suburban, Daily Mail influenced paranoia about 'strangers' and keeping up appearances (Bilbo effectively goes on his quest because he is so horribly English and cannot say "clear off!" when the Dwarves arrive at his door).

i never looked at this that way! but you are right...
nevertheless: i think there is a class he never made fun of at all. the highest class: aricstocratic folks (the elves. to my mind they are sort of aristocrats... at least there is no story of elves working for their money, is there?)

[the.landlord]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But last I heard in 2004 in the U.S only 4% moved out of their class (either upwards or downwards). I agree that mobility from one class to the next is a rare occurance (just like we see with Sam), but the oppurtunity is there.

actually i do not think that 4% are that few... 4% in one year, makes 40% in 10 years, right?

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Who are we to be judgemental of the class values of Middle Earth? Aren't we being biased? Shouldn't we try to understand them and their traditional social structure?


~Beleg

[Mänwe]

“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy.” - (Letter #52)

His personal view seems very much against his portrayal of the races in Lord of the Rings, where each is ruled by Kings or Queens, in a monarchist fashion. However although the system he may believe is flawed those who are part of the system are not and determine whether the system is flawed. For he goes on to mention in the same letter the following;

“The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari1 as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop.”- (Letter #52)

“Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line.” - (Letter #52)

These two passages would immediately point me to Aragorn, who had concealed his identity as a Ranger from the north.

“But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that – after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world – is that it works and has worked only when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way.” - (Letter #52)

However we have characters such as Denethor which “upsets” this balance, someone who was less capable of leading. There will always be men who strive for control; we know Denethor renounced Aragorn’s authority vehemently.

Originally quoted by littlemanpoet

“According to Tolkien's letters and other sources, he believed in hierarchy. He would have preferred monarchy to any other form of government.”

So if not a monarchy, a dysfunctional monarchy, one that has no complete control over the entire kingdom, ruled by a character that did not look to take power. Which I would suggest is very much his belief in the real world.

Originally posted by Aiwendil

“Nor, I think, can one say that Tolkien was not interested in modern political theory and leave it at that.”

Here, here! Having read through the letters a few passages looked out at me more that others and interestingly enough were all from letter’s to his son.

“People in this land seem not even yet to realize that in the Germans we have enemies whose virtues (and they are virtues) of obedience and patriotism are greater than ours in the mass. Whose brave men are just about as brave as ours. Whose industry is about 10 times greater. And who are – under the curse of God – now led by a man inspired by a mad, whirlwind, devil: a typhoon, a passion: that makes the poor old Kaiser look like an old woman knitting. I have spent most of my life, since I was your age, studying Germanic matters (in the general sense that includes England and Scandinavia). There is a great deal more force (and truth) than ignorant people imagine in the 'Germanic' ideal. I was much attracted by it as an undergraduate (when Hitler was, I suppose, dabbling in paint, and had not heard of it),..” (Letter #45)

Tolkien to me seems to be distinguishing between different social groups here, two different races. Why would he do this if he were not interested, dammit he has a son who would have to live with the possible consequences of the ongoing events.

I think also it goes to support my claim that is the person he believed makes the system wrong. Hitler exploited the “virtues”.

The second again I believe is further evidence to suggest that he had an understanding and interest in the political developments of the era.

“We knew Hitler was a vulgar and ignorant little cad, in addition to any other defects (or the source of them); but there seem to be many v. and i. l. cads who don't speak German, and who given the same chance would show most of the other Hitlerian characteristics. There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you please, they are rattlesnakes, and don't know the difference between good and evil! (What of the writer?)” (Letter #81)

I can’t see fault with what he says here. [My bold]

Yet from understanding and taking an interest is quite different from practising what you preach. For me Tolkien goes further to dispel any “classist” attitude with the following extracts from a tale he was recounting again to his son.

“I stood the hot-air they let off as long as I could; but when I heard the Yank burbling about 'Feudalism' and its results on English class-distinctions and social behaviour, I opened a broadside.” (Letter #58)

I take this to be his stand against the idea that our (British) feudalistic past gave rise to distinct social classes. Whether he was right or not in what he continues on to say still shows however that he believed otherwise;

“I did however get a dim notion into his head that the 'Oxford Accent' (by which he politely told me he meant mine) was not 'forced' and 'put on', but a natural one learned in the nursery – and was moreover not feudal or aristocratic but a very middle-class bourgeois invention.” (Letter #58)

While he may have admitted there was a social divide he himself did not associate himself with being “classist”. His stating that it was “a very middle-class bourgeois invention” is likely proof that Tolkien is as Selmo has stated, a “romantic”, very much in support of the status quo. Technological and political developments were to be disliked.

Perhaps then we could give a certain standing of his political views Lalwendë?

“It was his rather absurd ambition to achieve the rare distinction of being 'head' of two families (he would probably then have called himself Baggins-Sackville-Baggins)” (Letter #214)

The scrabble for social standing by a family inept, I think this compliments Lalwendë’s point nicely.

Indeed Boromir’s point about the rise of Sam to mayor would be further evidence for Tolkien not being classist as he says.

Though I pick up on one point of yours Boromir88,

Originally posted by Boromir88

Because again if we look at Sam, he rises from a servant of Bilbo's and Frodo's to becoming the Mayor of the Shire.

Have I read this wrong, but surely this implies social mobility?

Perhaps then he has shown a progressively attracted nature to social mobility throughout the book. For elements of classism still remain or were present.

“Customs differed in cases where the 'head' died leaving no son. In the Took-family, since the headship was also connected with the title and (originally military) office of Thain, descent was strictly through the male line. In other great families the headship might pass through a daughter of the deceased to his eldest grandson (irrespective of the daughter's age).” - (Letter #214)

Only those born into position will get it, however the Hobbit example here does show “leniency” toward the females of the family. Sexism too is not part of Tolkien too then.

Jumping somewhat haphazardly again, I do think Lush highlights an interesting point about the ring threatening the “hierarchy”. If she is saying that the ring conferred a higher social standing upon Frodo, then I would have to disagree, importance yes but not a higher class. Though I doubt that is what she means, so I will continue by saying (having dispensed with Tolkien’s dislike for allegory) that it too reminds me slightly of the aristocracies’ fear of literate serfs!

Slightly amusing are these passages in the letters I came across, for your benefit Lush

“Even the unlucky little Samoyedes, I suspect, have tinned food and the village loudspeaker telling Stalin's bed-time stories about Democracy and the wicked Fascists who eat babies and steal sledge-dogs. There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as 'patriotism', may remain a habit! But it won't do any good, if it is not universal.” (Letter #52)

Good lord Tolkien, a terrorist, never!

The last sentence for me is a good summation of Tolkien, he is certainly aware of political developments (I know I’ve said that far too often), and is wise enough to know that only universal cooperation will lead to a better world.

the phantom, would not what you say depend upon what type of "system" being discussed?

[Neurion]

There are far too many learned thoughts in Manwe's post for me to address all at once, or perhaps even at all, but I have to take exception to this:

Originally Posted by Mänwe

However we have characters such as Denethor which “upsets” this balance, someone who was less capable of leading. There will always be men who strive for control; we know Denethor renounced Aragorn’s authority vehemently.

Others may agree with this, but I can't. I may be wrong but I really don't think the text supports Denethor's being a "less than capable" ruler.

[littlemanpoet]

What fun. Controversy. To think I sparked it with my off-the-cuff poor-memory post.

Since nobody has mentioned it, I'll remind us all of one of Tolkien's more enjoyable quips having to do with class:

Tipping your hat to the squire may be **** bad for the squire, but it's **** good for you.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mänwe

Slightly amusing are these passages in the letters I came across, for your benefit Lush

“Even the unlucky little Samoyedes, I suspect, have tinned food and the village loudspeaker telling Stalin's bed-time stories about Democracy and the wicked Fascists who eat babies and steal sledge-dogs. There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as 'patriotism', may remain a habit! But it won't do any good, if it is not universal.” (Letter #52)

Good lord Tolkien, a terrorist, never!

Actually, there is possibly a more historically precise term for Tolkien's position: Luddite or perhaps Eric Hobsbawm's social bandit. That is, if we take Tolkien's letter seriously and not simply as hyperbole.

[Boromir88]

Have I read this wrong, but surely this implies social mobility?~Manwe

I think I was a bit confusing...

You can still have a classist society and have social mobility. And that is the difference between class and caste.

A caste system is strictly hereditary (and that determines your social, political, and economic power). The caste you are born in, is the caste you stay in and your children stay in. I think at least within hobbit society there is no caste system (as I would use Sam as proof of this).

However, 'caste' is different from 'class.' With the class system, there is room for social mobility. The boundaries are more fluent and there is room to move up or down from one social class to another. Depending upon who you read (Marx or Weber) your class is defined by your economic standing, your power, and your prestige. Where a 'caste' is determined hereditarily and it is the caste you are born into that determines the amount of money, power, and prestige you have.

Therefor, at least in hobbit society, there it is a classist society. You have a hierarchy of 'power' from the top elites to the bottom of the social ladder. However, somebody can move from one 'level' to the level above or below them. As we see with Sam. If Hobbit society was based upon 'castes' than since Sam was born a gardener/servant, he would forever stay a gardener/servant...and his children would be gardeners/servants.

actually i do not think that 4% are that few... 4% in one year, makes 40% in 10 years, right?~thebastardlord

It's not an accumulating number from year to year like that. Meaning in 2004 at 4% it doesn't rise to 8% in 2005 and then 12% in 2006...and so on. It's not a growth of 4% a year, it was simply 4% per year.

The 2004 study was based upon people born in 1974 (so 30 years before). It took those who were born in 1974, the social class of their parents and saw what their social class was in 2004. Which the studies showed that only 4% changed social classes (up or down), meaning 96% stayed in the same social class as their parents.

Following this pattern, in 2005 (unless if something dramatically changed) those who were born in 1975...around 4% of them would have been in a different class than that of their parents. Hope that clears some things up. It's not a growth of 4% every year, it's 4% per year.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Generally the higher ups were the strongest/fastest/bravest and most wise/noble/intelligent. Sam certainly does not disprove that. He is, after all, shown through the course of events to be by hobbit standards extremely brave, resourceful, tough, sharp, and worthy of honor. And sure enough, he ends up being the mayor at the end.

Sam only helps highlight the differences between classes in some ways. The rulers and such were generally superior, and when on rare occasion a superior person was born into a lower class (like Sam), his superiority would lead to him being absorbed into the ruling class. It's a case of circular reasoning- being ruling class generally makes one superior, and being superior generally elevates one to ruling class.

So did Sam really break any barriers? Is he really a common hobbit who rose to the top? Or is he a superior hobbit that was inexplicably born to commoners and rose to take his rightful place among the elite?

Actually what you're describing is more the theory of Meritocracy. Blair alleged that we now have Meritocracy in Britain, as you do (by and large, discounting families of Kennedys and Rothschilds etc on their Martha's Vineyard estates) in the States, but we don't. This is where class can easily be transcended by those with talent, an almost Darwinian concept.

There is some evidence that Tolkien favoured the more Darwinian Meritocracy concept. Who was mayor when Sharkey came? Will Whitfoot. He was ineffectual as a leader and was one of the first to be locked up. Of course Sam was strong and brave and so he rose to the top because he had 'proved' his superiority. In a way, all systems are like this, as I cannot think of any political system whereby people do not have to 'fight' to be top dog, barring Absolute Monarchy, and a cursory glance at some of Shakespeare's plays will reveal that even Absolute Monarchs had to strategise and posture in order to maintain the throne.

Anyway...class...

Remember Tolkien was English and as such will have had ingrained into him notions of class. Class in the UK actually has very little to do with money or status. You might be Richard Branson but you will never, ever be considered Upper Class. You might indeed be the son of an Earl who grows dreadlocks and lives in a old bus with a dog on a string, but you will never ever be Working Class. In some ways, the caste system still exists in this country, and a person's class may be discovered from the tiniest signifiers, such as what they call their WC, or if they use napkin rings, where they shop for groceries and if they have garden gnomes.

I happen to think that Sam does indeed symbolise a 'new age' where someone who proves their merit can move from one class to another, as other characters symbolise shifts in Middle-earth society (Gimli and Legolas symbolise the ending of racial divisions, Eowyn symbolises the end of gender divisions, etc); and shifts are inevitable after such world changing events as Wars. However, up to that point of War, class divides did indeed exist in Middle-earth, and on a far wider scale than just in The Shire (I shall maybe pick up on some of these later).

The question is whether Tolkien was being 'classist' in showing such divides? I think not, as what he does show us is how they came to be broken down, shook up and changed around, all for the eventual good of Middle-earth.

[Selmo]

Yes, Tolkien was aware of modern political systems and of alternative class structures to his own romanticised view of the English class structure - and he disliked them all.

Tolkien was a "classist" in that he recognised that class structures of some sort exist in all human societies greater than a single family unit. To make his created world believable, he had to include this fact.
However, it's clear from his works that he did not hold the view that different classes should not mix (Merry and Pippin are close friends of the socially inferior Frodo) and Sam's rise shows that Tolkien approved of some level of class mobility.

Sam's rapid rise up the class ladder was not limited to becoming Mayor of The Shire, it went much further. His daughter and son-in-law led the expansion westwards, becoming Wardens of the Westmarch, equal in status to the Master of Buckland. His daughter became Lady-in-Waiting to the Queen, a position reserved for families of the highest rank. Sam himself was appointed a Councillor of the renewed Northern Kingdom, not just as an equal with the Thain and the Master but with Princes and Nobles of the Kingdom.
However, the thing that showes the attitude of hobbits to class movement most clearly occured when Sam was still a servant/gardener at Bag End. It was his relationship with Rosie Cotton. Rosie was the daughter of a prosperous and well-respected farmer, in status far above Sam who at that time had gained no reputation except as a gardener. That her family permited her to fall for, and later marry, Sam without, apparently, any comment, shows that class mobility among hobbits was normal.

Sam's rise isn't of the "poor widow's son makes good" sort. He genuinely grows during his year away from The Shire. When he returns, he is no longer Samwise (semi-wise, half-witted); he has grown in self-confidence, aware of his own worth and potential. Although he cannot throw off the habbit, or the desire, to call Frodo "Mr Frodo", he is no longer anyone's servant; he's his own man.

Tolkien himself experienced class mobility. His father was a bank clerk who rose to be posted to South Africa as a bank manager with a life of relative luxury (big house, servants, etc.). The family lived with poverty after the father's death but Tolkien won a scholarship to an elite school and then to Oxford University. He then became an Officer in the British Army and went on to become a respected academic as a philologist. His work was rewarded with a Professorship at Oxford, at that time perhaps the most socially prestigious University in the world. (Note for Americans: the role of "Professor" in a British University is a much more senior one than that of a Professor in USA).

Tolkien's rise up the class ladder was not as rapid as Sam's, nor did it reach as high but it ensured that his view of class was not as rigid as many of his contemporaries in the first half of the 20th Century.
.

[Lush]

“Even the unlucky little Samoyedes, I suspect, have tinned food and the village loudspeaker telling Stalin's bed-time stories about Democracy and the wicked Fascists who eat babies and steal sledge-dogs. There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as 'patriotism', may remain a habit! But it won't do any good, if it is not universal.” (Letter #52)

That creeps me out a bit, actually.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Selmo

Tolkien's rise up the class ladder was not as rapid as Sam's, nor did it reach as high but it ensured that his view of class was not as ridged as many of his contemporaries in the first half of the 20th Century.
.

Tolkien rose from being lower Middle Class to being Upper middle class, in as far as we can 'escape' our origins. He was a higher level academic, one of the intelligentsia, and went as far as he could up the class ladder as to become Upper Class he'd have had to marry into the landed gentry.

Sam rose as far as he went from being Working Class to being Middle Middle Class (there are two 'Middles' as he would have fallen slap in the middle of the class, remaining without the formal h'education which would make him Upper Middle).

Although whether someone could 'fit into' their new place in the class structure would depend upon many subtle points, and Sam may have remained 'marked' as Working Class anyway (he may even have willingly marked himself that way, as a lot of us do). Tolkien I think may have fitted right in to his new class, as the accessories of the Upper Middle Class are reasonably easy to understand if you have been to University and pick up on the correct signals (though who knows, he may have possessed napkin rings? ). And as proof that class anxiety is still very much a driver in Britain today you only have to look at the books on our bestsellers' lists, tomes by Jamie Oliver telling us all how to cook properly (a key Middle Class skill, and written by a Middle Class icon) and Richard Dawkins' latest Atheist work (a must-have for all Upper Middles, as was A Brief History Of Time, books it's important to have on the shelf when colleagues call round for canapes, even if you never read more than one or two chapters ).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There is some evidence that Tolkien favoured the more Darwinian Meritocracy concept. Who was mayor when Sharkey came? Will Whitfoot. He was ineffectual as a leader and was one of the first to be locked up. Of course Sam was strong and brave and so he rose to the top because he had 'proved' his superiority.

LotR "proves" that Tolkien favoured Darwinian Meritocracy? Really now....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

LotR "proves" that Tolkien favoured Darwinian Meritocracy? Really now....

I say that 'Meritocracy' is a Darwinian political theory, I don't say that Tolkien favoured Darwin's theories, though there's no reason he shouldn't have as he'd have been taught about them in school and seems to have followed the basics in Middle-earth.

Now another thing about Sam I forgot to add. He did indeed rise in his class, but he also grew in wealth. I wonder how much he might have been considered 'nouveau riche' in The Shire? Money is no indicator of class, as seen by our beloved 'Posh' and Becks who might be rolling in Gucci and Ferraris but are still seen as very Working Class. Looking at it from the other side, Tolkien himself as an Upper Middle academic was not well off at all and had to take on extra work as a way of supplementing his income; the lack of money was a constant source of worry while he was bringing up his family. Ironically, he could have passed up University and set up in business and he'd possibly have become exceptionally rich, but he could not have ascended to the level of Upper Middle despite his hypothetical wealth.

[the.landlord]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Anyway...class...

Remember Tolkien was English and as such will have had ingrained into him notions of class. Class in the UK actually has very little to do with money or status. You might be Richard Branson but you will never, ever be considered Upper Class. You might indeed be the son of an Earl who grows dreadlocks and lives in a old bus with a dog on a string, but you will never ever be Working Class. In some ways, the caste system still exists in this country, and a person's class may be discovered from the tiniest signifiers, such as what they call their WC, or if they use napkin rings, where they shop for groceries and if they have garden gnomes.

i think the situation in germany is very much like the situation in england. an friend of mine is from a very rich family. he went to a private school, but left it without abitur (highschool diploma), because he wanted to be an artist.
later on he became a carpenter... now anyone would regard him as an upper middle class person... because of his ways, because he is interested in the arts, in theatre, opera and so on.

as for wc, napkin rings and garden gnomes... let me have a guess. just for the fun of it...
i am not from england, but i have some relatives, who live there.
wcs: i think upper class folks refer to them as "bathroom", middle class folks would say "loo" and they would talk about "spending a penny" and working class folks would say "the bogs'".
napkin rings: i would say middle class (napking rings from copper or decorated plastic) and upper class (napkin rings from silver). if working class folks happen to have napkin rings they use them only on christmas and easter.
garden gnomes: upper working class, lower middle class... like in germany.
did i guess right?

[the.landlord]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I
It's not an accumulating number from year to year like that. Meaning in 2004 at 4% it doesn't rise to 8% in 2005 and then 12% in 2006...and so on. It's not a growth of 4% a year, it was simply 4% per year.

The 2004 study was based upon people born in 1974 (so 30 years before). It took those who were born in 1974, the social class of their parents and saw what their social class was in 2004. Which the studies showed that only 4% changed social classes (up or down), meaning 96% stayed in the same social class as their parents.

Following this pattern, in 2005 (unless if something dramatically changed) those who were born in 1975...around 4% of them would have been in a different class than that of their parents. Hope that clears some things up. It's not a growth of 4% every year, it's 4% per year.

oh, i see! i thought, that in 2004 4% of people where in a different class than they had been in 2003. i got you wrong.

[Lalwendë]

It's hard (maybe impossible?) for someone to descend lower than the class of their parents as upbringing is so important, though their own children may one day be considered of the lower class, due to probably not being brought up in the same environment or having the same opportunities. Although Upper Class people don't tend to be as subject to this as other classes are.

WCs: 'toilet' is Middle Class and lower (definitely not Upper Middle), 'loo' or 'lavatory' is solid Middle, 'bogs', 'khazis' and 'traps' are Working though popular words with young men of all classes, 'heads' is Upper. 'Bathroom' will get you puzzled looks from everyone.
Gnomes: Working Class all the way, though those who've clawed into the Lower Middle (see Gerald in The Full Monty) might still have them. Other classes only have them as 'ironic statements'.
Napkin Rings: the downfall of many would-be social climbers, these are only used by Lower Middles who have climbed from Working and actively want to go higher, but alas, using them reveals their social status, as nobody in higher classes would ever use them. In fact, the whole business of having or attending a dinner party is best avoided entirely in Britain as it offers so much potential for committing social faux pas.

This is part of why I love the start of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings so much, as they are filled with cringeworthy moments and social awkwardness.

[the.landlord]

interesting! do you have some other items for me and other people to guess?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Napkin Rings: the downfall of many would-be social climbers, these are only used by Lower Middles who have climbed from Working and actively want to go higher, but alas, using them reveals their social status, as nobody in higher classes would ever use them. In fact, the whole business of having or attending a dinner party is best avoided entirely in Britain as it offers so much potential for committing social faux pas.

interesting! who would have thought so? i always thoughjt that expensive napkin rings from silver would be way classy and ritzy.
but i would not avoid having a dinner party because of that. if i would want to have a dinner party and i would want to have napkin rings i will have a dinner party with napkin rings, no matter what it looks like. i do not care for napkin rings... but when i am having a party we drink wine from tetra paks, which is worse then 1000 napkin rings (i guess).

Middle-earth's "castes" were defined by metaphysical differences in each race from the others; for example, Elrond was greater than Bilbo not because of aristocratic privilege, but because he was inherently mightier and wiser by virtue of his elven nature.

Although I think it is a fruitless exercise--and probably unfair to Tolkien--to try to draw some conclusion about his socio-political beliefs from his highly fantastic fiction, it may still be telling that Tolkien identified himself most with the Hobbits, the "lowest" of all the free peoples.

[Mänwe]

Apart from the Shire Hobbits being an example for the possibility of social mobility in a society as Lalwendë has most aptly shown and still continues to do so. I would put forward that greatest of British sitcoms, "The Good Life" as another good case study.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Cave

Middle-earth's "castes" were defined by metaphysical differences in each race from the others; for example, Elrond was greater than Bilbo not because of aristocratic privilege, but because he was inherently mightier and wiser by virtue of his elven nature.

Now there's the rub. We have all these super-duper Elves swanning around with their superior beauty and superior crafts-elf-ship and superior fighting skills and superior lifespans etc. (they sometimes make me feel a bit sick to be honest, on a superficial level), and so what does this say about Race in Middle-earth? Of course some have said "Whoa! this makes Tolkien a racist!".

Except it doesn't, because right at the end of Lord of the Rings we learn something, and that's that it wasn't an Elf, nor was it a Wizard, nor was it a Dwarf, and nor was it a Man who destroyed the One Ring. It was a Hobbit. supposedly the 'lowliest' of Races. It's at that point of realisation that we realise Tolkien's point that no Race was mightier than any other!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now there's the rub. We have all these super-duper Elves swanning around with their superior beauty and superior crafts-elf-ship and superior fighting skills and superior lifespans etc. (they sometimes make me feel a bit sick to be honest, on a superficial level), and so what does this say about Race in Middle-earth? Of course some have said "Whoa! this makes Tolkien a racist!".

Except it doesn't, because right at the end of Lord of the Rings we learn something, and that's that it wasn't an Elf, nor was it a Wizard, nor was it a Dwarf, and nor was it a Man who destroyed the One Ring. It was a Hobbit. supposedly the 'lowliest' of Races. It's at that point of realisation that we realise Tolkien's point that no Race was mightier than any other!

Yes, isn't it delicious how he has his cake and eats it too.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It was a Hobbit. supposedly the 'lowliest' of Races. It's at that point of realisation that we realise Tolkien's point that no Race was mightier than any other!

And yet, do we see any elves getting really excited that they will travel and perhaps see some hobbits along the way? Or do we hear Merry saying "To sheep other sheep may look different, or perhaps to a Shepard, but we hobbits haven't had time to concern ourselves studying immortal beings"?

I think there was some inherent superiority by the elves, and one isolated case may just be the exception that confirms the rule.
After all:
All women but one stayed at home during the war, in fact it was a very special one that went to fight, not just any woman.
All hobbits but four never did anything "great". As a matter of fact, two of the four did their parts but did not go to Mordor, and the two that did, one was the servant of the other, thus it's only one "leading" hobbit that changed the world.

I think that, in Tolkien's work, there is a distinct class and racial hierarchy. But you know what? that is not a bad thing on itself. In spite of my apparent point before, we are given some examples that show that there is hope even for a hobbit gardener in The Shire. I don't think that these examples belie the very real and very present hierarchical structure of Middle Earth, both between and within races, but at least they show that there is hope for some change.

It's not even Meritocracy, as it doesn't really seem that Lotho S-B was very merit worthy... and yet, he did manage to buy-out many things and eventually become the chief. Sure, he was played by Saruman, but Lotho did raise through the standings of The Shire.

So, as I said before, I think there is a distinct class hierarchy in LoTR, and there is nothing wrong with it. We are talking about a story that takes place in a semi-medieval time, when Absolute Monarchy was the rule and there was no such thing as democracy. How would you feel if you read a book with a story in the medieval ages and the king said "Yo, homie... whadda think we gotta do with those Orcs? I wanna cap them all, but I ain't got no bling-bling to pay for the bang-bang"?

Quite a turn-off, eh? Same thing here, if the Steward of Gondor was elected it'd raise some eyebrows.... and, furthermore, if during the secret council Elrond would spend half a day giving a speech on why they should re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re... elect him as the leader of Rivendell, I think we would all have been mightily put-off.

To say that LoTR is classist because there is a clear class structure is akin to blaming violence in society on the music youth listens to. If anything, that music is a reflection of the violence that is already present, but the point of the music (at least the way I see it) is to provide a non-violent escape to that kind of impulses. Same thing here, the point of the class-system in LoTR (which to me IS a class system) is to show that, even in a class system, there is hope.

So, to wrap up everything I said in a couple words. Are there clear hieararchies both between and within races in LoTR? YES. Is there hope, in the LoTR world, for individuals in any rung of the hierarchy ladder to transcend their 'limits'? YES. Does that mean that the hierarchy structure is any lesser because there is an allowance for the eventual exception? NO.

At least, in my humble opinion.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Lal

because right at the end of Lord of the Rings we learn something, and that's that it wasn't an Elf, nor was it a Wizard, nor was it a Dwarf, and nor was it a Man who destroyed the One Ring. It was a Hobbit. supposedly the 'lowliest' of Races. It's at that point of realisation that we realise Tolkien's point that no Race was mightier than any other!

I can't say I agree with that. Frodo destroying the Ring does nothing to prove the might of any race or another. It proves that hobbits aren't useless, certainly, and that divinely inspired plans always work when tried no matter how insanely impossible they are.

But prove that all races were equally mighty? Surely not.

Here are some quotes to keep in mind.

Elrond-

This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere

This is obviously pointing towards the hobbits. As you can see from what is said, though the task may be accomplished by the hobbits, they remain "weak", not "strong", and are grouped with "small hands" rather than "the great".

And later-

This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and counsels of the Great.

The "Shire-folk" are clearly not "the Great". Elrond's point is that hobbits will impact the world despite not being great.

What I'm trying to say is, Frodo's triumph doesn't, to me anyway, prove that hobbits are as mighty as the Elves. They're not. Elves are taller, stronger, faster, and prettier and make better clothes, boats, weapons, and food. Elves are mightier. And nothing in the story disproves that.

But, the story does indeed prove something about might. Not that all persons are equal in might, but rather...

Might is not always the most important thing.

[Lalwendë]

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding, and it was a Hobbit who took the Ring all the way to Mount Doom and a Hobbit who eventually destroyed it. Men failed. Elves failed. Oh yes, Elves are pretty and have nice bling and things, and can wield a sword and whatnot. But they didn't unmake the Ring. All those material matters are worthless when compared to the simple courage of the Hobbits. Some have surface greatness and superiority, but when it comes to the crunch, its the humblest who give us the goods.

I'm not at all surprised Tolkien wrote something like this after his experiences in WWI, a war fought not by the Lords and Earls with their impressive uniforms and skills with a revolver but by the farmer's boys and coal miners.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding, and it was a Hobbit who took the Ring all the way to Mount Doom and a Hobbit who eventually destroyed it. Men failed. Elves failed. Oh yes, Elves are pretty and have nice bling and things, and can wield a sword and whatnot. But they didn't unmake the Ring. All those material matters are worthless when compared to the simple courage of the Hobbits. Some have surface greatness and superiority, but when it comes to the crunch, its the humblest who give us the goods.

I'm not at all surprised Tolkien wrote something like this after his experiences in WWI, a war fought not by the Lords and Earls with their impressive uniforms and skills with a revolver but by the farmer's boys and coal miners.

Yes, it must have been a Yorkshire pudding or is there a Warwickshire pudding? The Empire might have been lost, but those stiff upper lips and shoulders to the wheel and cold showers still saved the world, no thanks to those effete quiche eaters from the southern regions.