What is Middle-Class Elitism? And What's Wrong With It?

Thursday, 2nd July 2009

The Guardian is a great* newspaper but also an uncommonly infuriating rag. Take, for instance, this paragraph in what was an otherwise unobjectionable article about Elizabeth David:

Now I should be quite clear from the outset that I've always been a little ambivalent about David. She famously moved food writing out of the dark didactic corners of domestic science and began to write beautifully and poetically about food as a sensual experience, but she also in her early career wrote unashamedly for the posh and focused attention away from British cuisine and on to Mediterranean food. I find it hard to read her work without enjoyment but it also defines a kind of "holidays-in-Provence" middle-class elitism.

Right on! Middle-class elitism is itself a curious concept - paradoxical at best, downright nonsensical at worst. And, of course, absurd when it is condemned in a newspaper read by the middle class. Then there's the sillyness of the supposition that one should feel guilty about enjoying Mrs David's writing as though this were, in its way, awfully infra dig. Equally, complaining that the author of "Mediterranean Food" focused attention upon, well, mediterranean food is as daft as complaining that Ulysses focuses attention upon Dublin, not London. That's rather the point.

For that matter, the "posh" in this instance were people who had visited France or Italy and were interested in cooking at home the food they'd experienced on their travels. The shameful aspect of this quite escapes me. And, of course, "posh" is a needlessly pejorative term; inquisitive or well-travelled would be more accurate.

The author - Tim Hayward - might also consider that, back in the 1950s and 60s, "holidays-in-Provence" (or Tuscany or Rome one might add) were not nearly as expensive as they are today. But so what? What's illegitimate about writing books for Francophiles?

David's books remain fresh - and her recipes timeless - because they're about food and culture, not because they reflect the particular attitudes of a particular caste. While I wouldn't want to be limited to just one cookery writer or one cookbook, if I were I might choose David's French Provincial Cooking. Armed with that book alone, a chap could cook happily for a lifetime.

Still, this paragraph - insignificant in so many ways - is also revealing. It's a snapshot of a trait that is, I think, peculiar to British newspapers: the loathing of the people who read the paper for which you write (the Daily Mail is a regular offender in this instance too) coupled with a blind inability to see the wood for the trees. This, of course, is a Guardian specialty.

*One may consider a newspaper great even though one may be irritated beyond sense by the smug certainties of its worldview and while disagreeing with its view on 90% of issues.

Filed under: Books (83 more articles) , Food and Drink (33 more articles) , Newspapers (204 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Mr Eugenides

July 3rd, 2009 4:27am Report this comment

You cook?

Redvers

July 3rd, 2009 10:17am Report this comment

The Mail's attitude to women reminds me of the BNP's attitude to black people. Outwardly unthreatening - even friendly - but once you dig a little deeper and analyse their attitudes, deeply hateful.

And just as some black people support the BNP, millions of women read the Mail.

Funny old world.

Jeremy

July 3rd, 2009 11:30am Report this comment

"It's a snapshot of a trait that is, I think, peculiar to British newspapers: the loathing of the people who read the paper for which you write (the Daily Mail is a regular offender in this instance too)..."

The thing about the Mail is...you have to take the rough with the smooth. The Mail does feature some very good writers - Melanie Phillips and Peter Oborne are practically worth the price of the paper by themselves. But there is also Max Hastings (on a good day), Andrew Roberts (sometimes), Quentin Letts, the occasional wandering academic and others...

Unfortunately, the Mail also carries some really tawdry celebrity stories and features some quite vicious hacks (who shall remain nameless). As I said, when you buy the Mail you have to take the rough with the smooth.

But I'm interested in this assertion of yours that the Mail also exhibits, or partakes in "...the loathing of the people who read the paper for which you write..."

How does this tendancy show itself? Or is it simply a contempt - shared amongst certain journalists - for their readership? I am genuinely curious to know...

C Powell

July 3rd, 2009 1:01pm Report this comment

It's wider than you say: it's a loathing of the whole concept of elitism, something which has bedevilled our approach to education, for instance. We used not to have this approach and other countries (France, for instance) have an unabashed view that elites matter and should be created and nourished. Until we have the same approach - striving for the best in whatever we do - we will continue to deceive ourselves about our importance and achievements and become more and more second-rate.

Tom

July 3rd, 2009 1:11pm Report this comment

The "dark didactic corners" of Domestic Science was actually teachers training to work in state schools to teach about nutrition, essential cooking, and planning meals effectively for price and nourishment. The Guardian writer either does not know what they are talking or they are completely bone headed. DS was not "elitist" it was intensely practical for working class families.

James Hodson

July 4th, 2009 10:12pm Report this comment

Funny how those (OK, that'd be me) who read the Mail daily are generally quite polite when compared to those who read the Guardian.

I'm quite prepared to admit Guardian readers may well be correct on one or two matters (no too many more, though) whereas Mail readers are almost by definition defined as mentally subnormal jerks. (And I speak as one who is mentally subnormal.)

Post comment