Chavs

[Futility Personified]

Ok, so i've found that in general, leftists are very distrustful of this particular word. Why shouldn't they be? It does seem to be a classist pejorative, serving to put down the poorest of our society and depersonalizing them, marginalizing them so that whatever they have to say does not matter.

I once accepted that viewpoint, however, I think it is important to accept that the stereotype has a basis. For every leftist that states that the word chav is discriminatory, and puts people down, there is someone who has actually lived in close proximity to those who are not in possession of work, who live in awful conditions, and who are prone to violent actions and behaviours in the name of acting out their anger on others or to prolong drug habits. Obviously, any word used as a stereotype to another group is wrong, we don't want to perpetuate stereotypes. But why is it that some leftists are so adamant on banning the word when it is an adequate description of some individuals? Surely, this behaviour is counter-productive. If we deny the problem of anti-social individuals on benefits, who are unable to try and better themselves exist, then how can we truly engage with working class or unemployed people who have to put up with this shit?

Frustrating is not the word for it. If we ban the word out of popular discourse for that sake, when plenty of people understand the connotations of it, that it clearly does not have a meaning to everyone on jobseekers, or everyone in a council house, or everyone who is poor, then why ban it? It does have a meaning to regular people that I think is easy to understand, and anyone who has grown up in a deprived area gets it. If you grow up in a council house, fair enough, you are working class. If you grow up in a council house, go out robbing people, causing other people problems for amusement, and perpetuating lumpenprole stereotypes willingly for the sake of being perceived as a "hardman" or a "badman" or whatever you want to call it, you are a chav. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Anarpest]

Maybe the problem is that, I don't know, 'chav' isn't just a neutral, descriptive word? It seems a bit like saying, 'Well, 'fag' just describes people who are sexually attracted to their own sex, and these people exist, so what's wrong with using the word?'

[Offbeat]

I agree with OP. In my experience this word is used to refer to people who dress a certain way, listen to a certain type of music, act a certain way, etc. I still hear people use it from time to time, and 9 times out of 10 they are referring to what they see as a certain style and way of behaving, almost like a sub-culture. It's true that chavs tend to be working-class, but not all working-class people are chavs; it's the same with other working-class sub-cultures like the skinhead or punk movements. Maybe the rich use it in a classist way, but in my experience it seems fairly harmless.

[ed miliband]

i think chav is a complicated word that can't simply be reduced to the owen jones' narrative of it being a word used to attack the working class

in short imo: it's what rich people use to describe poor people and poor people use to describe dickheads

[Left Leanings]

I watched a programme just the other week, on which the term 'chav' was discussed. It's called 'Free Speech', and it's kind of version of the topical debate show 'Question Time', only for younger people.

One commentator made the point, that the term is more often than not, applied exclusively to younger working-class people, especially if they are unruly, drunken etc.

He made the point that the same kind of riotous behaviour, is NOT applied to kids from more prosperous backgrounds. He quoted the example of the Bullingdon Club, an elite society associated with Oxford University. They have smashed up pubs, taken drugs etc, but never been deemed 'chavs'.

A further point he made, was that the term chav is applied to working-class people, who have prospered and done well, and made a few quid. He quoted the example of David and Victoria Beckham.

They have come from working-class backgrounds, and have done rather well for themselves. And they have been referred to as 'the king and queen of chav'.

It's a way of saying, okay you may have money, you may be talented and have moved up the ladder. But you know what. You are not one of us. You are and will always be, chavs - rubbish.

I am not saying David and Victoria Beckham are role models. But what I do think is that it's used quite often as a discriminatory, derogatory and classist term.

It's a way the privilieged from birth say to workers who make good, you will never quite be one of us.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I've encountered working class Brits who use "Chav" to describe other working class people who are anti-social towards the rest of the working class, so it's more complicated than just being a tool of class oppression by the rich, but at the same time, like the term "ghetto" in the USA it's an easy way for people to blame a person for their shitty cultural values without ever questioning how socio-economic circumstances led to those values arising. The people who robbed that Malaysian student during the London riots were anti-social dickheads, but saying it happened because they are "chavs" is a convenient way for people to lay blame without questioning the system that creates the material conditions which these kids grow up in.

[ACAB]

Working class people use it to describe the people who are anti social and are violent and intimidating to working class folks, many resent so called chavs near me who get council flats fully furnished and never work while they work hard, have worse housing and come away with the same kind of lifestyle as someone who does no work and has no idea of how shite it is to be a wage slave.

Upper working class people use it as a slur on the working poor, people on the dole, teen mothers and people living on the estate.

Middle class people use it to refer to anyone who rents or bought a council house, wears trackies, listens to rap and house music, drinks with mates and people who speak in a way they deem improper.

It is a word I dislike, but don't mind when working class people use to refer to anti social elements, but despise when the ford focus sunday football mother uses it to refer to a lad she does not even know based on his dress sense and housing location.

[ed miliband]

Working class people use it to describe the people who are anti social and are violent and intimidating to working class folks, many resent so called chavs near me who get council flats fully furnished and never work while they work hard, have worse housing and come away with the same kind of lifestyle as someone who does no work and has no idea of how shite it is to be a wage slave.

Upper working class people use it as a slur on the working poor, people on the dole, teen mothers and people living on the estate.

Middle class people use it to refer to anyone who rents or bought a council house, wears trackies, listens to rap and house music, drinks with mates and people who speak in a way they deem improper.

It is a word I dislike, but don't mind when working class people use to refer to anti social elements, but despise when the ford focus sunday football mother uses it to refer to a lad she does not even know based on his dress sense and housing location.

lots of middle class people wear trackies, listen to rap and house music, and drink with mates

[ACAB]

lots of middle class people wear trackies, listen to rap and house music, and drink with mates

Of course, however I think generally my point still stands, naturally there are anomalies and divergent attitudes, middle class youth often perform cultural gentrification such as adopting clothing and musical trends of the larger social group, it is the older middle class folks who tend to have the attitude I mentioned.

[daft punk]

Ok, so i've found that in general, leftists are very distrustful of this particular word. Why shouldn't they be? It does seem to be a classist pejorative, serving to put down the poorest of our society and depersonalizing them, marginalizing them so that whatever they have to say does not matter.

I once accepted that viewpoint, however, I think it is important to accept that the stereotype has a basis. For every leftist that states that the word chav is discriminatory, and puts people down, there is someone who has actually lived in close proximity to those who are not in possession of work, who live in awful conditions, and who are prone to violent actions and behaviours in the name of acting out their anger on others or to prolong drug habits. Obviously, any word used as a stereotype to another group is wrong, we don't want to perpetuate stereotypes. But why is it that some leftists are so adamant on banning the word when it is an adequate description of some individuals? Surely, this behaviour is counter-productive. If we deny the problem of anti-social individuals on benefits, who are unable to try and better themselves exist, then how can we truly engage with working class or unemployed people who have to put up with this shit?

Frustrating is not the word for it. If we ban the word out of popular discourse for that sake, when plenty of people understand the connotations of it, that it clearly does not have a meaning to everyone on jobseekers, or everyone in a council house, or everyone who is poor, then why ban it? It does have a meaning to regular people that I think is easy to understand, and anyone who has grown up in a deprived area gets it. If you grow up in a council house, fair enough, you are working class. If you grow up in a council house, go out robbing people, causing other people problems for amusement, and perpetuating lumpenprole stereotypes willingly for the sake of being perceived as a "hardman" or a "badman" or whatever you want to call it, you are a chav. Why is this so hard to understand?

Pragmatic Punk, nice to see you on here, cousin!

Trust me. Your post is politically naive and wrong. Please go away and think about it and why I might be (am) right. Try to think statistically rather than simply looking at one individual or family. Try to look at the bigger picture. Do some research. You will change your mind. Forget about the word chav, I'm not debating that, I'm talking about your personalising of the political. This is what right wingers want you to do.

Just ask yourself, that kid with the hoodie nicking cars, what would he be like if his dad was a lawyer and he lived in a nice posh suburb?

[ACAB]

Trust me. Your post is politically naive and wrong. Please go away and think about it and why I might be (am) right. Try to think statistically rather than simply looking at one individual or family. Try to look at the bigger picture. Do some research. You will change your mind. Forget about the word chav, I'm not debating that, I'm talking about your personalising of the political. This is what right wingers want you to do.

Just ask yourself, that kid with the hoodie nicking cars, what would he be like if his dad was a lawyer and he lived in a nice posh suburb?

This is the exact view I have, however, it is rather tedious when political people berate hard working people for hating kids who nick their car and burgle their house.

When I was younger I fucked over working class people, did lumpen shit and now I work and know how shit and horrible it is to not be able to afford nice things and to have to work hard for such meagre shit, I feel like I deserved to be called scum.

Also I had amazing parents, very supportive, a secure house with both parents working, so I think the liberal trap of excusing anti worker lumpen behaviour on upbringing is often a straw man.

I just remember thinking why work hard like my dad when you end up with a shitty little house, a car and a love of texas hold'em to show for it, I had this idea that criminals made money then realised they have fuck all because you might be able to twoc a car but you sure as hell can't sell that shit :lol:

[dodger]

Used 1st as a means of degrading. Chav . Redneck....OKE all these term are spat back in the faces of their tormentors. Like an electronic tag , worn now with pride.

[ColonelCossack]

I'm pretty working class and I call arseholes "chavs". Not used to describe income. Most "chavs" I know are richer than me!!!

[Left Leanings]

Used 1st as a means of degrading. Chav . Redneck....OKE all these term are spat back in the faces of their tormentors. Like an electronic tag , worn now with pride.

Good point, comrade. Peeps do often appropriate the terms of abuse used against them, and turn them around, and use them almost as a badge of honour.

Same with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). I seem to recall that a group of young teens had taken to having ASBO shaved into their haircuts lol.

On another note, I once read an article in which the term chav was said to have originated from a group of posh school girls at a private school. Based in Cheltenham, it was said they referred to the young working-class lads in town, as the CHeltenham AVerage (CHAV). The headmistress fiercely denied it, saying her girls were both socially aware and concerned, and polite.

[daft punk]

When I was a kid I lived in a weird grey area between the rich and poor.

Our house was on a small private estate on the edge of a massive council estate. My school was in the council estate.

100 yards from my house in the other direction was a big middle class area. I used to go to a youth club there. There were fights between the kids from the council estate and the middle class area. Technically therefore I was from the enemy side. Fortunately I never actually saw any of these fights.

All I can remember was my mate from the posh area saying he had an iron bar on him.

So firstly this illustrates that even middle class areas have kids who go in for violence.

But what middle class kids don't have is a sense of hopelessness all around them. They go to the better schools, they have professional role models. They have a quiet room to study in. They have expectations and self confidence. Yes, most poor people can rise above it and live a decent life, but statistically they are gonna have these people who end up at the very bottom of society. Your environment is very influential.

[Futility Personified]

Daft punk:
Of course environmental factors will shape individuals into who they are, positive and negative. I am not denying this, or the use of statistical analysis and I am certainly not disregarding the big picture, only posting on a certain issue that has recently irked me.
With regards to the personalization of politics, what I draw from that remark is that I know you?(And if you do, you'll forgive me forgetting, awful memory) Because that's all I can draw from it, if you don't it seems a peculiar thing to write.

Regardless, I will defend what I have said. Left Leanings was right to mention that such labels often resurface as badges of honour, and some people will identify with certain behaviours more strongly when they can be given a group to be part of. Whether that's good or bad is water under the bridge, as that is quite simply human behaviour and off-topic.

It is important to always keep in perspective that socialists are on the side of the workers and the disenfranchised, and people you could describe as chavs certainly qualify as the disenfranchised. However, if they are unwilling to care for consequences their behaviour on others, then they should not be spared ire because of their origins. Capitalism has definitely failed these people, but when individuals cause other people misery, they certainly earn linguistic reprisals. We call the bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie, and that word now is a pejorative to those people, summoning ideas of exploitation and greed as it falls out of common lexicons yet remains a lynchpin of marxist terminology. Should we not call them bourgeoisie, exploitative criminals, when they clearly are?

The boundaries of the word chav are quite fluid, which is problematic, but it is more harmful to allow it's usage to demonise ordinary people, than it is to cause hurt to a subculture where exploitation of others, mean-spirited attitudes and violent dispositions are rewarded with praise. The examples of middle-class people using the word to slag off people like the Beckhams is just an old money vs new money conflict, and as such a bourgeois debate.
Those people who use the word chav to insult ordinary people from deprived areas are going to be against us anyway, so why should we regard their input as relevant? Only an ignorant fool would think that someone coming from a rough town means that you are a bad person, and if we allow them to dominate the discourse of the word, of course it will become a class-wide insult to the poor. Essentially, subvert the word, make the boundaries clear.