Extract 1 (Focus group 3)

Talking of Guy Johnston:

Extract 2 (Focus group 3)

Extract 3 (Focus group 3)

Extract 4 (Focus group 3)

Extract 5 (Focus group 5)

Extract 6 (Focus group 7)

Wealth, education, and higher social status

In the first extract, when talking about Guy Johnston, Fred states that he looks like someone who has been to private school and perhaps lives in a big manor house. His immediate impression of Guy Johnston conjures up associations of wealth and high social status. Liz's reference to Prince William and Prince Harry carries similar connotations, since these two figures are representative of those that have come from a privileged background. The adolescents' discourse implies that this background is one that they cannot relate to, a different category group to which they belong.

The notion of wealth and higher social status is also illustrated in extract 4 in their discourse of Mozart and Beethoven. Fred associates these composers with the upper class and posh people. Fred believes people use classical music ‘in the background’ at parties to impress other people with their wealth and high social status. Through his discourse, Fred uses categories of social class as examples of categories to which he is not affiliated. He places himself in a position that is not upper class, and as such is unable to adopt the ‘privileged’ identity. The adolescents believe that being ‘posh’ is an undesirable characteristic that is an inevitable consequence of having money and high social status.

This positioning by the adolescents suggests the categorical notion of ‘Othering’. The adolescents are presenting a category or group to which they themselves are not members. Kitzinger and Wilkinson (Reference KITZINGER, WILKINSON, Wilkinson and Kitzinger1996) argued that in order to explore ‘Othering’ we need to ask, who is the other? And who are ‘we’? In the extracts above, the adolescents are positioning the privileged as the ‘Other’. It is important to note, however, that ‘Othering’ is socially constructed and that ‘Others are constructed by those who do the Othering, by those who reflect upon that Othering, and by the Others’ own representations of themselves’ (p. 15). So, in the case of the adolescents, how is ‘Othering’ being achieved?

In a study that looked at discourses surrounding the Royal Family, Billig (Reference BILLIG1992) argued that when individuals are imagining what a royal life must be like, they are doing so only in relation to their own experiences, that is, what they know to be a non-royal life. This therefore relates to Kitzinger and Wilkinson's (1996) notion that ‘Othering’ is achieved through an individual's representation of his or her self. Thus, according to Billig and Kitzinger and Wilkinson, the adolescents' representation of ‘the Other’ is achieved through their own experiences of not being privileged (and rejecting characteristics they view as associated with privilege such as being ‘posh’), rather than through experiences of being privileged.

The privileged identity is also constructed by the adolescents in their discourse of Robbie Williams, and it is in these accounts that the adolescents are able to negotiate an alternative identity. In extract 5 Robbie Williams is talked about as a role model because of what he has achieved. The fact that they make reference to his drinking and drug problems implies that he has struggled and that he has made a come-back by working hard. In extract 6, the adolescents' reference to him coming from a normal background implies he is not from a privileged background and this is something that the adolescents can relate to. The fact that Robbie came from the same area as the adolescents also suggests this. In the adolescents' discourse of privilege, they use a device that Billig (Reference BILLIG1992) refers to as ‘double-declaiming’. Billig posited that often in talk, individuals make more than just one single claim, which can be unintentional or intentional. He further argued that when individuals make a claim about another, they might also be making a claim about themselves. Thus, when the adolescents made claims about Guy Johnston and Robbie Williams, they were also ‘double-declaiming’ in that they were inferring something about their own background, in this instance, an unprivileged one.

Widdicombe and Wooffitt (Reference WIDDICOMBE and WOOFFITT1995) argued that one of the primary ways of claiming authenticity of one's own category membership is to undermine the authenticity of an individual's motivation for joining another subculture. They stated that one resource that helps achieve this authenticity is through the use of labels, as labels provide the opportunity to say something specific about the individual that they are labelling. Thus, according to Widdicombe and Wooffitt, Diane's labelling of ‘posh little gits’ (extract 6) allows her to undermine the authenticity of those in the privileged category, thereby increasing the authenticity of her own group in which she is affiliated.

The analysis may also be interpreted using social identity theory and the notion of in-groups and out-groups. Drawing on social comparison theory, Abrams and Hogg (Reference ABRAMS, HOGG, Abrams and Hogg1990) stated that social identity is clarified through social comparison, which generally occurs between in-groups (where an individual has membership of a group) and out-groups (where an individual does not have membership of a group).

Through the adolescents' accounts of Guy Johnston, and the reference to Prince William and Prince Harry, the adolescents construct an in-group and an out-group, where membership of the in-group of musicians is determined by wealth, education and higher social status. The adolescents therefore place themselves in the out-group. This exclusion from the in-group has important implications for the adolescents' social identity. Abrams and Hogg (Reference ABRAMS, HOGG, Abrams and Hogg1990) stated that generally, one group is perceived to have more resources, power, status and prestige. Individuals who belong to more subordinate groups are therefore more likely to develop a negative social identity. However, it is possible to negotiate this negative identity in order to maintain a more positive social identity. The extracts show that the adolescents did attempt this negotiation. They achieved this by drawing on the negative characteristics that they associated with this particular in-group, such as not being liked and being spoilt. The adolescents indicated through their discourse that there was not any value or merit in being a member of the in-group, and as a result, were able to protect their own social identity.

‘Posh’ versus ‘common’ accent

The notion of being privileged is also implicit in the theme of ‘Posh versus common accent’, and is explored through the discourses surrounding Robbie Williams and the region in which they live. Whilst the adolescents did not discuss the posh accent per se, it can be argued that this is one aspect associated with having a private education. The notion of being well spoken is also associated with the reference to Prince William and Prince Harry – two individuals who are likely to be considered well spoken as a result of their upbringing.

This provides a contrast to their discourses of Robbie Williams, as it is in this context that the discourse of owning a common accent emerges. In extract 5 Carol, who, in response to Carol's comment that he has a good voice, replies, ‘yeah but the Stoke accent does come through at times, which is a shame’, first makes this apparent. She explains further, ‘we've got such a common accent, it sounds awful’.

For Carol, she equates the sound of her accent with being or sounding common. Carol does not like the consequences that may be associated with her accent. The accent is a form of identity, a label in which she can be identified and located by others. Carol's reference to being able to hear Robbie's accent as a shame may also be interpreted as something that she herself is ashamed of, the shame experienced as a result of where she lives. Through the use of the pronoun ‘we’ (‘we've got such a common accent’), Carol makes relevant her affiliation and identity with the other adolescents that come from Stoke, and as a result adopts what might be interpreted as a ‘Stoke’ identity.

Age and opportunity

Within the privileged status theme, the adolescents also make reference to the opportunities that are available to those who are privileged. Particular reference is made again to Guy Johnston where they discuss the opportunity that he has been given to learn to play the cello. This they associate in particular with how young he started to learn the cello. For example, in the second extract, Lucy suggests that Guy Johnston would have been playing the cello since about the age of six, although there is no evidence for such an assertion. Not only does this statement imply wealth (being able to afford to learn to play the cello from early on) but also the fact that he had the opportunity to learn the cello when he was young, which is necessary if aiming to become a good musician. By making these assertions, the adolescents again position themselves in the out-group. Even though three of the group members were currently learning to play an instrument, they do not talk about their own opportunities in the same way. Thus, the adolescents suggest that because they did not have the opportunity to learn an instrument from the age of six, they have already missed out on the chance to become a good musician. Although this does not mean that it is not too late for them to learn an instrument, it implies that the opportunity to become an expert or successful musician has been denied them.

Lucy's comment that Guy Johnston has been playing the cello since the age of six appears to have certain consequences for subsequent discussions, as this age is then adopted by the rest of the group. For example, in the third extract, Liz states that ‘if you're playing the cello when you're six it just seems like you know, you're really posh’, in which Fred responds ‘because going on how expensive cellos are it's like’. For Fred, ‘posh’ is used to symbolise wealth rather than other aspects that are associated with the word posh, for example, dress and accent. Thus, his reference to the cost of the instrument suggests that money is a determinant of the kinds of instruments that can be chosen to learn to play. However, Liz affirms more the notion of privilege in her use of the word ‘posh’, stating that ‘got whatever you want you're really spoilt and everything’.

By referring to ‘posh’ in this way, Liz excludes herself from the group membership that is afforded by wealth and privilege. It is a category in which she feels she does not belong. It is of interest to note that Liz was one of the three adolescents that played an instrument at the time of the group interview, and previously played another instrument. Because she has previously given up an instrument, she has already given up her chance of becoming a talented musician with the instrument she now plays. As such, she does not belong in the same privileged category as musicians such as Guy Johnston.

The adolescents' discourse suggests that being given opportunities is not a position that they are familiar with, and instead are required to construct an alternative identity. By implication, this identity is that of unprivileged or disadvantaged. The ‘disadvantaged’ identity suggests that the opportunities are not readily available to the adolescents in the same way as they are for those that are affiliated with the privileged category. However, they suggest that their lack of opportunity may be overcome through hard work. This idea is supported in extracts 5 and 6 where the adolescents refer to Robbie Williams as someone who has worked hard to achieve such privileges. Through their discourse the adolescents are also placing those in the privileged category in a position of power by virtue of the fact that opportunities are available to them. Those in the disadvantaged category are powerless in the sense that they have limitations imposed as a result of financial constraints and lack of resources, which may only be overcome through hard work. This notion of power is supported by Carabine's (Reference CARABINE, Wilkinson and Kitzinger1996) claim that the ‘Other’ (in this instance, the privileged) is often a feature of power relations.

The adolescents do however attempt to manage this alternative identity by interpreting opportunity in a negative way; that is, by associating it with being spoilt. Thus by doing so, the adolescents imply that there is no value in belonging to the in-group of opportunity as they would not want to be perceived as spoilt in turn. As a result, the adolescents are able to protect their own social identity.

Family values

The reference to a musician being ‘spoilt’ did not necessarily mean being spoilt financially. The adolescents discuss the notion of being spoilt within the context of the family unit, which takes on a slightly different meaning. This is the first time that a member of the group (Fred) moves out of the collective identity of disadvantaged to an individual identity of one who is spoilt. However, this identity is one that is imposed upon him. For example, in response to Liz's comment (extract 3) that if you were like the cellist you would be really spoilt, Fred responds with ‘Yeah, maybe either an only child or loads of brothers and sisters’ with his rationale being that only children tend to get spoilt more.

Lucy places Fred in a position of someone that is equally spoilt by stating, ‘from personal experience Fred’. Fred adopts this position through his admission of ‘yes, I'm spoilt’. By positioning Fred as such, he temporarily resists the disadvantaged category by taking up the categorical identity of privileged. By being placed in the position of privilege the adolescents form new constructions of the in-group and out-group. Now, it appears that Fred is in the out-group by being someone who is perceived as spoilt, in contrast to the rest of the adolescents who are in the in-group, whose membership is determined by being disadvantaged. Billig (Reference BILLIG1996) argued that when contexts change (as in this instance) the individual can be described as ‘taking the side of the other’, in other words, ‘positions which were previously assumed to represent the other side are advocated as one's own side’ (p. 271). According to Billig this does not mean that the individual has changed their membership, indeed in this case, Fred was positioned in a way that resulted in him taking the side of the ‘Other’. Billig argued that when this change occurs, the individual, in order to justify themselves, might take justifications from the ‘Others'’ repertoire. Fred attempts this by continuing to talk about the cellist looking as though he has had private lessons, thus resisting having to take the side of the ‘Other’. As Fred has not had the opportunity of having private lessons, he is able to disassociate himself from the out-group of privilege and thus rejoin the in-group by taking on the identity of someone who is disadvantaged.

The privileged identity is also resisted as the group negotiates the position that Fred has been placed in by suggesting that being spoilt might instead be about getting attention. Lucy states that if you are in a big family you try to be individual. Kath states that, ‘Yeah he could also succeed if he was in a big family because he'd want more attention’. Her reference to succeeding implies something slightly different when placed in the context of the family. Kath's comment suggests that the cellist has already been successful because of his perceived wealth and privileges. However, in a large family it is perceived that there will be more financial strains, as Liz notes, ‘but if you were in a big family you wouldn't have as much money to spend on each person’, to which Fred responds, ‘well it depends if it was a big rich family’. Thus, success in the context of the large family may be seen in terms of his musical ability, receiving attention because he stands out from the rest of the family as a good player.