LOTR - classist?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?