The BBC has created a website on which one can answer a few simple questions that ascertain three basic unscientific elements about one’s class in society.
They use the word “capital” to describe everything within each category, as if one has deliberately accumulated one’s personality and demeanour much in the same way as one might gather material wealth.
Presumably there is the assumption one determines the other.
Firstly, it looks at the amount of money we earn and savings one has managed to accrue, including the value of any pension funds.
This I found surprising, for although my pension pot may seem impressive, the actual value upon maturity is frighteningly low; something that had not been factored into their calculation. Even so, my financial resources are, apparently, higher than the average person, giving me a score of 82 out of 100.
Secondly, it queries the social aspect of one’s life. The people with whom we associate based on their apparent social and economic standing in the world.
I scored reasonably average on this, yet they say that my social network is rather typical.
The reason given for my score is because of the type of work I do, I rarely have the opportunity to mix with others outside of my professional sphere, an outcome I find baffling.
It’s akin to comparing how many friends one might have on a social network with the number and type of friends one may have in the “real” world.
In other words, quantity not quality.
Finally, the survey asks questions on cultural activities and interests.
Theatre, opera, music, books, hobbies.
My result was a clean-sweep, giving me 100 out of 100 as, apparently, my range of cultural interests is broader than the typical person.
Frankly, I can think of better ways to spend our licence fee.