Yes, Ken Virginia, they are there.
After all the expressions of distaste for watching Bogans on the last BB thread (and yes, I know, it was more complex than that), I just wanted to point out what happens when non-Bogans go on BB. They really try to play the game. You can see it with Ben “the law student” right at the moment in Big Brother 2008, you could see it with “Lefty” Tim Brunero (who’s now happy to analyse his own calculatin’ on that floparama, Big Mouth, but I suppose being articulate and having some connection with the Chaser Boys and being a Sydney Uni boy and all gets him media gigs which aren’t a “bikini model” “career”). And we can also see it with “webmate” Nathan, or so Eye on Big Brother thinks:
The difficult thing to decipher, here, is to what extent Nathan is driven by his motives to manipulate his way through the game, utilising that understanding I talk so much of, here, about how the show “works”. I certainly think he does have that understanding, and that it is at play, here - though maybe not in the simplistic way, many are now suggesting.
He has repeatedly said that he “knows” Renee will be one of the finalists. So, the question is obvious: is he deliberately drawn to her, knowing he’s putting himself in the public eye? Yes, he knows he’s perhaps playing a dangerous game; but is he, then, concerned of his flirtation, because he actually knows it could lead to eviction? What’s interesting is that Nathan’s confession to Nobbi actually seems to suggest that Nathan is a bit of a player, and quite likes having his ego masturbated by eliciting affection and obsession that he can enjoy denying. I do think Nathan has some rather unpleasant traits, and I’ve seen subtle, yet vivid, evidence of a man who does enjoy power assertion over others.
The conclusion? You’re better off being a Bogan. More easily malleable to the script BB wants to write for you. The kids who think they’re clever are always too clever by half and never win. Perhaps that’s the answer to the oft-asked question about the background and intelligence of the majority of the housemates.
Ps: Incidentally, the fine distinction Dixie in tonight’s daily show was making between Brigitte’s being a “bimbo” and an “airhead” was hilarious! Although, intriguingly, we heard more about some of these “intellectual” conversations she’s having - all off camera. Maybe, as Eye has also suggested, there was genuinely at one stage an attempt to go a bit upmarket with some of the housemates (but that’s been binned now because of ratings decline and being unable to please two audiences simultaneously) - and it’s always been clear that Dixie has a lot more going on than what’s portrayed - mummy’s girl, obsessed with eating, etc. But I imagine her next featuring role will be when Carson Kressley goes back in tomorrow night - for another Naked cross-promotion - for the inevitable makeover.
And Brigitte, who I suspect is far less of an airhead than meets the eye, may have found the perfect way to “play the game” - stay constantly in character and make that character so stereotypical that you’d never be suspected of “playing the game” - which we all know is the most heinous crime. Because it suggests inauthenticity. And because it takes the game out of the hands of BB - or as the audience/users of BB are incited to believe - us.
Please drop the (complex) Bogan/non-bogan terminology. I’m allergic to the term after hearing one of the prominent Lefty’s at UWA make jokes about bogans whenever he was in a social situation. I think he works at The West Australian now.
I don’t like it myself, Anthony. I’m riffing off others’ putdowns here, as might emerge from the context if you look at the links.
Yes, I agree with Anthony.
Ever since my little sister called me a bogan (a new word to me at the time) in about 1985, due to her horror at my wardrobe deficiencies, I’ve been rather fond of the term.
It merely connotes a state (permanent or temporary lapse) of less than middle-class/middle-aged taste (depending on the standpoint of the accuser.)
But is there any point continuing to doubt that Big Brother is bogan TV par excellence? It’s no scandal if we allow that it is.
I admit, my response to the term is reactionary and unreasonable, but I do think we should work more positively to create an environment where ‘Bogan’ can’t be used even in an ironic sense by priviledged middle class people for effect, comedic or otherwise. (And I think Kim is more at fault for validating that use, rather than initiating it, if that makes sense) How many people use the term (fill in whatever blank you prefer) ironicly these days? Just because ‘Bogan’ is a little more undefined doesn’t mean it is innocent of very serious ideological work, which is far beyond a lapse in taste, when it suggests rascism, stupidity, violence, unemployment or under-employment, crime, alcoholism, etc
Bogan is a term coined by the privileged middle-classes to describe the working classes, whom they hate like poison
Thank god you guys are here to tell us all what words mean. I wish I could get that certificate so that I could also go around telling people what they actually mean when they use certain words.
Bogan means different things to different people. For me, criticising that word because of negative connotations is like criticising the word ‘idiot’ because it makes people sound stupid. That’s the idea.
Maybe we could use dag?
“Bogan is a term coined by the privileged middle-classes to describe the working classes, whom they hate like poison”
Sounds like utter bollocks to me.
Whether it’s true or not, the different terms used for bogan (bevan in parts on Vic, Westie in a lot of NSW, boon in the ACT and surrounding regional NSW) are used by bogans themselves as a badge of pride.
I grew up a boon (still am I a lot of ways) and never had a problem with the word - but to me it doesn’t exactly denote “rascism, stupidity, violence, unemployment or under-employment, crime, alcoholism, etc” Some of those terms were sufficient, but never necessary, if you get my drift.
Quite so…. and I for one feel chastened over my recent anti-bogan activities online.
One can only hope that the non-stop 24/7 Bogan dominance of all commercial TV and Radio may provide …. some small consolation…. in the wake of the terrible cultural marginalisation they have endured on these all powerful blogthreads.
Lefty E - if there were truly 24/7 dominance of commercial radio, there would be a hell of a lot more AC/DC and Metallica and a lot less Britney and Mariah Carey.
I would be happy to go with U and non-U instead.
Anthony:
“I’m allergic to the term after hearing one of the prominent Lefty’s at UWA make jokes about bogans whenever he was in a social situation. I think he works at The West Australian now.”
You know Geeves T? In his defence, at least he is himself of good wog/bogan stock.
Not being a BB watcher, I only get info on the program through this Blog. So I went on the BB website to learn who Ben was. Apart from the usual bio I read comments such as these:
Beny Boy U Cute u smart u no ur freinds show da bstabers wat ur made of!
Undecipherable.
Well, it has to be said, as cartoon cutout elitist character, I do have have certain professional obligations to create mischief on these topics.
Yet, I would make some serious points nonetheless:
You know, I met Ken Livingstone on Australian tour back in 87, and after a few beers, when asked what he thought of Straya, he said “well, it’s like the entire lower middle class of Sheffield moved en masse, and created their own country”.
He was right to some degree. When I speak of Boganism, I talk of the cultures of the great sprawling suburbs of greater Carparkia, of fishtaiing in coles car park for eternity, of the spiritually undernourished, overfed on KFC, affluent, though hocked to the eyeballs, doing circlework as the planet hurtles towards oblivion - and now creating execrable voyeurist cultural forms like BB so we all be fascinated with their worldview.
Its totally mainstream, and not even remotely marginalised. Meet Kyle and Jackie O - representatives of teh working class culture. Gimme a break.
Boganism is in fact the great cultural expression of Menzies historic compact with the new lower middle classes - inevitably creating cultures around car ownership as the suburbs expanded without public transport; petrol junkies on the drip feed of unsustainability and the failures of urban planning.
Thus the association of “Boganism” with the working class is tenuous at best. Our actual underclass tends to be feminised and migrant; the working class not especially more Bogan than the suburban lower middle class; and the organised working class actually less so.
You know who Nelson just pitched at with his populist petrol excise hike? Bogans!! thats who. Do you think he was pitching for a niche vote there? Nope.
In sum, I don’t know about you, but me: I’m not going to get hung up and neutralise my critiques of truly narcissistic and braindead cultural forms sponsored by big money Corporate entertainment juggernauts, because of some utterly spurious association with “popular/ folk kulcha”.
Nor am I going to pretend that Boganism is some terribly marginalsed culture, that cant stand up for itself in an online stoush. Im pretty sure Bogans can look after themselves. Elections are won and lost on their suburban vote, as I see it.
That’s it from me - if anyone wants me, I’ll be fishtailing the Torana.
Well said LE. Your slab of Bundy OP pre-mix is in the mail.
Laura
My very dear friend Nancy Mitford wishes to advise that U and non-U refers more to the ton (upper class) versus the “bedint” (arrivste/nouveau) than to the more banal bourgeois/bogan distintions being made here by our very own 21st century bedint bourgeois left.
Lefty E
Kyle and Jackie-O are both bogans themselves: CUBs - Cashed Up Bogans.
Absolutely Lefty. I am so ‘over’ the wealthy pretending to be ‘relaxed’, about behaviour and attitudes they wouldn’t tolerate it for a second in their own offspring, let alone their employees, being trotted forth as some kind of cultural ‘demos’.
There is nothing wrong with the term ‘bogan’. It is used by everyone I know. It denotes stupidity and general incomprehension in people who can’t afford to be either stupid or incomprehending, but who don’t have the brains or are too lazy to work out which end is ‘up’. Rich stupid people on the other hand, get to be Foreign Affairs Minister in a Liberal/National Party government. The appropriate term for rich and well connected bogans is ‘Downer’. What’s wrong with that?
What are ya? Yob or wanker?
TISM have it, that’s one of the great dichotomies in modern Australian life.
Kath and Kim are bogans, lots of highly paid tradesmen are bogans, there’s no monetary distinction made, it’s entirely aesthetic/intellectual.
Do you read the Age? Wanker, elitist, whatever.
Do you read the Herald Sun? Yob, bogan, whatever.
(OK it’s not as simple as just your newspaper - how about your news - ABC or SBS definitely not bogan, Today Tonight, A current affair, definitely bogan)
So does anyone have, like, any comments on Big Brother?
C`mon Kim we have to work out what a bogan is first:)
Touche!
But Kimmoi, surely BB is implicit in the isshhhooes raised by Teh Great Bogan Debate!
But it has the middle class kidz on it, Lefty E! As I said in the post…
Well, if we can have battlers on $150k, surely we can have middle class bogans!
What about the bogans who escaped,(like me)?
I’m a middle class bogan. I’m wearing a flannelete shirt right now. I drink VB when it’s the cheapest option in the bottle shop (and cardboard-onnay too). I’m guilty of woolies car park burnouts stretching back 23 years. I own a vehicle with a V8 engine. I think Eddie Murphy was funny. I liked “Kenny” whether he was transporting toilets or getting killed every week on South Park. I voted for a PM named Kevin. I play AC/DC too loud on Saturday morning when I’m trying to clean up fridays excesses.
I hate this season of Big Brother though. So. Very. Boring.
Thats the point! A huge proportion of Bogans are middle class - probably the majority. Its a cultural rather than strictly economic category.
Retraining camp Paul.
Leigh @ 31,
You mean university? Done that, Leigh.
Retraining camp? Rehabilitation is more like it. Australians should embrace their inner bogan. Our national costume should consist of a dirty flannelette shirt and $20 Lowes jeans. We should have a national car (the HQ holden presumably). Instead of cute and tasty creatures on our coat of arms, there should be a smashed alcopop and a pool of spew underneath a rear view of a HQ holden with underpants hanging from the rear view mirror and legs sticking out the window en flagrante delicto style.
Big Brother would be more successful if they quit all the elitist social study pretensions and just let all the housemates get hammered on bundy and played drinking games involving nudity and/or dangerous physical stunts. It’d be even better if the house included a poker machine room where the housemates could lose their food money and subsist on toast and cask wine for a week, or had to negotiate their dole live on TV, or spend a week dodging the debt collectors phone calls for mobile phone excesses.
Paul Maybe you could go on the next season of BB,lift the tone of the place.Just a thought.
“Thats the point! A huge proportion of Bogans are middle class - probably the majority. Its a cultural rather than strictly economic category.”
Lefty E is tha winna!!!
PS - for your comments at 15 I’ll pledge undying allegiance to Van Halen (the David Lee Roth years, anyway).
No no no DR. The national car of the bogan these days is a purple 1990s Barina with the back window covered in those fucking frangipani stickers, ideally parked on the nature strip. HQ Holden? Man that’s a car with style.
Me too Jobby! That’s quality gear.
I think of all education that I’ve missed
But then again my homework
was never quite like this!
got it bad, got it bad, got it bad,
I’m hot for teacher!
Liam, I don’t think it really matters what the car is - just as long as it’s been lowered and has mags and tinted windows.
Jobby, that’s another culture of cars entirely, one that involves enthusiasm, interest, and effort. No, the bogan-mobility I’m talking about is quite the opposite of the ohmygodfullysicksubwoofa crowd of Sydney’s Norton St and Melbourne’s Sydney Road, who wash their windscreens, who change oil at the regular intervals specified in the workshop manual, and who’d never *ever* let their mates pull cones in the passenger seat with the windows up.
The bogan’s car isn’t something they’re proud of. The bogan’s car is something that they’ve been given or borrowed money to buy, but don’t really appreciate, always looking aspirationally towards the next car.
But Liam, wouldn’t say a metallic purple (or bright orange pearl) Holden HSV Ute count as a bogan vehicle par excellence?
We all know what bogan means patrickg, it’s a contemptuous term, like nigger, or poofter. The petit bourgeois condemn this sort of abuse generally, but are first-rate hypocrites in choosing their mark. My bottom-feeding pals are unacquainted with ‘Bogan’ because they don’t read at this middle-brow level. But they’re snobs, just like you; we all need someone to look down on. I myself look down on bogan-sayers, they prove their banality. Educated doesn’t mean clever.
Geoff.*
*Not a ‘guy’, a bloke.
I don’t think it is classically bogan, Tyro, no. Just because something’s crass doesn’t mean it’s an expression of bogan culture. Mediocrity is often just mediocrity.
Take a streetscape of identical 40-something men, each washing his identical orange-metallic SS Commodore. The classically bogan one is the one who’s made the effort to slap a southern cross decal on the back windscreen, but never empties the ashtray inside.
I don’t understand, to me that vehicle is a classic tradies car, completely cashed up bogan territory in QLD at least.
Well exactly, Tyro. Just because you’re a cashed-up tradie doesn’t mean you’re a bogan. Like Lefty E I see “bogan” as a cultural not an economic or class category, and for me it involves aggressive, invasive crapness, of which Kyle Sandilands’ toxic personality is the exemplar.
I’m glad Kenny the plumber got a mention: he’s a hard, honest, resourceful worker, he rarely complains and never whinges, he has a self-deprecating sense of humour, he never bullies or judges people, he’s comfortable with his identity and his aspirations involve people he cares about, not things he wants. To me he’s exactly the opposite of what “bogan” is all about.
Liam, I think we’re going to have to disagree on Kenny. While it’s true there might be sub-species of bogan, Kenny is a pretty classical one and the film is classic bogan entertainment. The sheer number of poo jokes is a dead giveaway.
And of course ‘bogan’ is unlike ‘idiot’ which is a diagnostic word hijacked to insult people. Bogan is pure insult, that’s all.
But it’s no surprise, none of this, the bourgeoisie need to laugh at what scares them, or there’d be no Kath and Kim.
Everybody needs to laugh at what scares them Geoff, which is why homophobes tell poof jokes, racists tell racist jokes, the bullied laugh at bullies, and righties want to laugh at lefties, and vice versa. Laughing at something reduces it’s perceived threat.
I’ve got a family full of bogans, and they are bogans alright, and I was one too once. I don’t think you can get more aussie mainstream than a bogan, frankly.
I think so, DR. To me “bogan” is and always will be an epithet, and to apply it to a character as nice as Kenny stretches it beyond all meaning.
He’s definitely suburban working class, if that’s your definition, but I think we both know what Kenny would think about the pathetic striving and urging you see on BB.
So have we worked out what a bogan is?
Really? I suppose if you are a bogan, then calling your mate a bogan doesn’t really matter much (like african americans using “nigger”), but if you aren’t a bogan then it becomes an insult.
I’m happy to be identified as a bogan. Don’t call me a bevan though, that’s just rude.
Forget BB - for a real bogan tragedy you cannae go past our regionally famous No.1 bogan family - the Corbys.
And the Bali 9.
…..Live from the Denpasar Big Brother House.
Exactly, Dave. I wear a beret, live in the inner west of Sydney and have pretty leftish political opinions, so I don’t mind if people who know me call me a bit of a wanker or a luvvie. I wouldn’t take it from someone on the street, though, because the meaning’d be very different.
Heh.
Bevan
Nigel
Keith
Do those outside Qld know what these mean?
Bevan was a Canberra thing too (Westie never really took off, and most Canberrans used to know the Bogan to be a moth that annually invades houses in large numbers).
(I should explain that - the moth is of course the Bogong moth, but try to find a Canberran who pronounces it with that clarity).
It depends who’s saying it; it’s a Class word, real bogans would never cop the sneer. There’s a difference, Paul Hogan for instance played the ‘ocker’, celebrating it in a way that encouraged lots of blokes to act ocker. These were the ‘real dinkum Aussies’ no airs, no graces, no bull at all. No refinement too of course. And no big words, no fine palate, no sniffing at a glass of plonk as if you’re gonna piss in it.
No politics, fuck politics, and art?- what’s that? -a lot of poofs standing around looking at paintings! Christ! And literature, books? -get out! who’d wanna read a bloody book!
So you don’t like them. Bogans. Well you don’t have to mix with them, that’s the nice thing; there’s no bogans along latte strips, and you know the places to avoid. But be honest, own up to it, it’s a schism word, an apartheid word, separating Classes. Education is the schism, the basis, the ticket to material success, or why would mothers bother.
So what`s your opinion of BB Geoff?
I agree with you Tyro, except I don’t thing victims laugh at their bullies.
Ive never seen it Leigh, never seen a full episode, I think it’s funny for all the acting, I try to work out where society is at with the popularity of all these humiliation shows: singing, dancing, losing weight ect, it’s a commercial decision of course, a way to sell products, which is the most frightening thing about it.
I know what you mean about the humiliation aspect Geoff.
Yes. Do we want to see people putting on a smile, when we know they’re devastated. Gives us a thrill maybe. Horror movie.
Geoff I keep hoping it’s a hoax and we’ve all been had.
“But be honest, own up to it, it’s a schism word, an apartheid word, separating Classes. Education is the schism, the basis, the ticket to material success, or why would mothers bother.”
A lot of false consciousness around these parts, eh?
I don’t mind it: it mixes well with hyperbole.
Note to self: avoid all contentious expressions when wishing to provoke discussion of television show in future!
Kim is onto something deep and meaningful here.
The working-class ( or ‘Bogans’ for short) are supposed to attain consciousness as a class-for-themselves!
Then roll out the revolution against the historical-materialist Big Brother.
Unfortunately for this thesis it appears to amount to ‘pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die’ at current rates of proletarian consciousness accumulation*.
We must all thank comrade Kim for drawing this to our attention.
* Recent indigenous revolts and Westie suburbs revolts don’t count as they are by peasant and lumpen elements, not proletarians.
Leyton and Becs (AKA Posh and Becs)
(how to get clothes from the catwalk to KMart)
(or old argument about how celeb/sport incomes implicitly justify $50,000,000 CEO payouts)
See what happens, Kim, when you blog BB
I must say, I think Bogan is now such a familiar phrase, it means different things to different people. The lines between all elements blur - so it is a class thing. But it’s also a geographical thing (many city folk think of “bogans” as mainly regional or rural Aussies… and interesting to note that while there are no “bogans” in the city, there are certainly lots of lower to middle class; but, admittedly, there are lots of rich people in “bogan” areas that aren’t bogans). It’s an educational/intelligence thing, in some ways (but class affects this, of course). But, to me, it’s a cultural thing. I grew up raised by, and surrounded by, bogans! And to me, it was a question of culture. I think it does range from lower to middle (lower-middle) class, but as a young, trapped boy in a bogan town, I resented it, culturally. Culture embodies all components - it’s affected (or a manifestation of, depending on what side you look at it from) by the class thing, the education thing, the geographical thing. When I refer to a “bogan”, I’m certainly not just referring to a class (because, to me, it can cross a class line - though, not go too far over it, it must be said).
Bogans are plugged into their culture, no more or less than anyone else, and so it reflects them and indulged them in equal amounts. The problem with BB is that in it, we see the less desirable traits of The Bogan. Wee see his or her penchant for sadism, for sexual gratification (that is generally quite sexist), for group bullying and social outcasting. We see the phobia and ignorance of Bogan World. Kath & Kim are funny and all, but for me, it was never that funny, growing up in the real thing.
And Kim is quite right in making the observation - a telling one - that BB is certainly made FOR Bogans, but not BY them. Is it okay, then, that rich city pricks in suits design something to deliberately exploit the bogans, and their less than ethical qualities? Isn’t that, surely, more offensive than a bunch of lefties sitting around going, “Oh, that’s a horrible, offensive word”? And not all the housemates are even bogans (but the bogans sure enjoyed watching the little rich bitch crumble. She’s… you know… funny, and stuff).
I’ve always wanted to see a BB / Paranoia cross-over show
“Note to self: avoid all contentious expressions when wishing to provoke discussion of television show in future!”
No way, Kim. This is infinitely more interesting than Big Brother.
I gotta say, I think it’s extremely clear that ‘bogan’ (and associated terms) mean *very* different things to different people.
Statements such as ‘there are no Bogans in the city’ and ‘it’s a contemptuous term, like nigger, or poofter’ seem utterly ridiculous to me - but I suppose that’s because me and mine use the term in a very different way.
And Geoff, Bogan (and related) is not ‘pure insult’ at all. It might be used in a derogatory way by some, but it’s also used by bogans to describe themselves (mostly in a comfortably self-conscious fashion).
Yeah, there is no doubt a lot of class snobbery about the term, but as Lefty E pointed out, it’s a cultural rather than an economic category. I know bogans who are comparatively wealthy, and bogans who are comparatively well-educated.
Leigh @ 34.
Too paranoid/shy/self-conscious/agoraphobic/social phobic etc. etc.
BUT
Bogans throw really good parties.
Didn’t you open a can of worms with your use of the term ‘Bogan’ Kim?
I think that BB has put ‘bogans’ and non -’bogans’ (using the term advisedly in the sense that Kim does in putting up this post)together quite deliberately in order to create conflict of the sort seen in the demise of Brigitte and the conflict with the audience - with characters they love and (love to) hate, and which ones they can/can’t identify with. I haven’t watched the show but I know lots of guys like this
“Nathan is a bit of a player, and quite likes having his ego masturbated by eliciting affection and obsession that he can enjoy denying. I do think Nathan has some rather unpleasant traits, and I’ve seen subtle, yet vivid, evidence of a man who does enjoy power assertion over others.”
I don’t think that ‘non-bogans’ would be less malleable to BB’s manipulation than ‘bogans’. Witness Brigitte, but someone like Nathan who is used to being a player can still be played, cos BB can pull more strings and controls what the outside sees, so whatever he ‘plays’ on the inside is sabotaged by BB’s editing and manipulation and creation of situations.
Paul maybe a stint in the BB house could cure you of your social ills?
I find most Australians can throw a good party.
Rayedish, Brigitte has been targeted within the house as a stuck up rich girl!
Here’s where the term becomes offensive, in that these traits are ascribed to Bogans, while they’re actually very common in exactly the kind of people who would use the term in a derogatary manner, who share none of the qualities often associated with Bogans(little education, lower class, driving Toranas and drinking VB) In fact, using the term Bogan can be an example of the social outcasting that you suggest is a Bogan trait.
Not too their faces, of course. (although the best anti-bully reaction I got at high school was this time a school yard bully punched me square in the face, I remember thinking ‘is that all there is?’ and I starting laughing at his ability to make himself ridiculous, or maybe his inablity to inflict pain, and he freaked out and left me alone after that.)
Australian reality shows offer specific types of humilation and transformation that are very different from those overseas.
Australians are usually really averse to humilation shows where the humiliation is inflicted by an ‘expert’ directly onto the subject’s self-image. British shows like What Not To Wear, How Not To Decorate, generally involve ‘experts’ who humiliate the subject’s quite directly and achieve outer transformation (new clothes style, new house interior) through inner transformation. Australians prefer not to have their inner being transformed - for Australian versions/equivalents of those programs generally focus on “crimes against style”. The English ones are effectively asserting “you dress ugly because you feel ugly” and attempt to humiliate and transform the latter.
With programs such as Laddette to Lady and Australian Princess, these are also crucial differences. Laddette is a class-based femininity which is pitched to the middle class - you can laugh at both the Ladettes - who are totally berks - and the upper crust twits who curse them. They are also foccussed on their skills that they learn toward servanting style skills - training them to be house servants (in season 2, the prize was a season as a maid in a swiss ski chalet!) .
Australian Princess is more of an aspirational ‘princess mary’ type social mobility. It’s not as extreme as Ladette - there’s more of a spectrum of contestents - from rouseabouts to bogan chicks to suburban princesses and even a doctor in one series. It also tends to allow in its framework a more critical reaction of the contestants towards the vast arcana of Georgian-era table-manners (which are accepted uncritically in Laddette In Lady).
Laddette to Lady is a spectacle of what can NOT be changed - in the new Britain its up to you to change yourself and obtain social mobility, but look here, there’s a bunch of lower class yobs who can’t be changed anyway, thus reinforcing to the middle classes who it’s pitched at, that social mobility is only for THEM, not for those working class girl yobs drunkenly flashing their tits at the lads in the local.
But Anthony (#78),
Once the collective of Bogans is established as a categorisation, the Bogans can possess both good and bad qualities, as each subjectively sees it. So why does the term become offensive if I use it in reference to bad qualities? It’s simply using language to communicate a reference that most understand, in the same way as if I said, “The problem with children is that they have poorly developed theory of mind, and are therefore actually unable to empathise with others.” Does that make the term, “Children”, offensive?
Of course, many groups possess negative qualities - I think everyone has their positives and negatives - but these traits are culturally-specific, in many ways. I think Christians are also bigoted and socially outcast and victimise people. But I don’t think the nature of that bigotry comes from the same place it does with the Bogans. So, can I not discuss what’s wrong with bogans, just because other groups have similar problems?
This site openly uses the term “lefties” a lot - it’s a fair enough label that I suppose most people here would subscribe to. But what if a bogan (and they certainly do this!) says, “Lefties are all too lovey about the world and don’t understand how it really works”, does the term then become offensive? There’s a point where one can be so hung up about the language, it distorts what is being communicated, and changes the focus. I’d rather discuss whether you agreed or not, or whatever, about the comment of mine you referenced, rather than the fact that I used the term, “bogan”.
Leigh @ 72,
Na. I’d go mad (I think).
Sorry, I meant “But Anthony (#74)”, not 78…
The difference is that the term ‘children’ is a much more objective term, and it is reasonable to make a generalised comment about what children are based on easily recognised outward qualities.
The term Christian tends to be something an individual chooses to identify themselves. It’s fairly rare for an individual to be simply dismissed because they’re ’such a Christian’ if they don’t actually use that term to describe themselves.
The difference between the terms children, Christian, and Bogan, is that Bogan is a term often imposed on individuals by others, based on a few traits like little education, or low class, and when used in this way it doesn’t call to mind those positive qualities, but only the negative ones you identified.
Given your observation that you were raised by, and surrounded by Bogans, and similiar comments claiming Bogan status by other LP posters, I’m not sure you can make this claim, unless Bogan has a much more specific meaning than most people are willing to admit.
I’m sure you’re more than capable of being a television producer, despite your Bogan heritage, so who’s to say the ‘rich city pricks in suits’ didn’t grow up with the same ‘Bogan’ credentials as LP’s posters, and BB isn’t an all Bogan production, made by Bogans for Bogans?
Anthony,
“…unless Bogan has a much more specific meaning than most people are willing to admit.”
So what is it that we’re not willing to admit ? I think Bogan does have a specific meaning for me, yes, but I’m not sure what it is I’m not willing to admit.
And yes, when I say something negative about the Christian culture, I’m using a term used by the subjects. When I say something negative about Bogan culture, I’m using a term, yes, that has its origins in an external classification of “the other”. Bogans don’t really call each other Bogans”, no (but I’m interested to see how it develops as this word now takes flight in pop culture). But I’m still communicating from a point of what I am saying about the “other”. Whether the term has a meaning for that other or not that came from them, makes no difference to me, and my use of the term doesn’t have to denote that I carry a discrimination or outwardly negative slant on any sort of unfair grouping. The term “Aboriginal” is an Anglo classification, after all. You say that the term, “Children” is “more objective”. Well, I suppose I would agree that it is “more” (tentatively), but it’s still a concept, a label, that was not derived from children, themselves, and is the product of a collective recognition that there are rules and components that make up what a child “is”. Why is someone who is not 18, no longer a child? Many cultures have a very different line for childhood than we do - so why is ours “objective”? The classification of “children” is based on many things - like age, a perceived capacity (and that’s certainly the culturally subjective element). Ironically, children struggle against the concept of being called “children”… they think it discriminates against them! They think it’s a concept imposed upon them by others. It is, of course. Just like Bogan. But you grant objectivity to the concept of “children”, but not to the use of “Bogan”.
You say:
“The difference is that the term ‘children’ is a much more objective term, and it is reasonable to make a generalised comment about what children are based on easily recognised outward qualities.”
I think when I use the term “Bogan”, I am communicatiung something because of “outwardly recognised qualities”. It’s a new term, in some ways (new in the way in which it is now becoming part of popular culture), so there’s still some dispute over what “makes” a Bogan - but, as I said, there were many disputes over what “makes” a child. In fact, if you look at current scandals around child-modelling, I’d say there is still some discussion about that, complicated by aspects that are not so… “objective”.
“Bogan” has different things like class, location, ideology (it’s a “culture”, at the end of the day, I still say). That’s the same basis of categorising something, as there is for any label.
To me, a bias, or something more offensive, is when because of people’s negative attitudes for this “group”, the word then effectively jumps out of the basis of this categorisation, and carries with it a negativity for the sake of negativity. Such as the term “gay”. Gay is, you would probably say, an “objective” sort of term. Either you like the same sex, or you don’t, right? Of course, gay men love calling themselves “fag”. But what I really hate is when kids use the term, “That’s gay”, when they are not referring to something that literally is. The group then embody a blanket negativity, to the extent it communicates anything inferior or bad. I recently had a young man say to me that “Big Brother is gay”. He simply meant that he thought the show was shit. I have a problem with that. But if he said, “Fags are all drug-addicts”, I wouldn’t address the fact that he used the term - I’d address what he is saying, in regards to his assertion about gay men being drug addicts. So, there’s a line for me, as to when it is okay and not okay, to use a “label”. And I guess we have very different ways of seeing that. Each to their own.
PS: And I actually just read up, and realised that you entered this in reference to using “bogan” ironically for comedy, etc, and perhaps, then, we agree on that level, because it’s similar to my allergic reaction to young kids saying “that’s gay”. But then I don’t say, “well, nobody can use the term gay, because of this one way it is used”, where you seem to say “Well, nobody should use the term, “Bogn”, because of this one way it is used.” So I agree with you in those instances! But still, your “allergic reaction” is projecting it unfairly onto every situation.
Fair point, I guess it was something I was aware of when I first commented.
I think the light-hearted attitude to Bogans, where people refer to their own Bogan tendencies as a way of playing down the more serious side of the term is in contrast to the assumption that the BB producers are not Bogans.
It’s slightly too easy for some people to chuckle about how ‘I’m just as Bogan as the next man!’(Similiar to, ‘Some of my best friends are Bogans!’ while ignoring the downside of being a real Bogan, that it limits your career opportunities because of a lack of education and cultural capital, and the social disadvantage that goes with these things. I find it hard to believe that many of the LP ‘Bogans’ suffer from those things to any major degree.
Admittedly, the way I originally phrased that was snide and unhelpful.
Not true. The other day I was in the City Library and a young man was complaining about the Asians sleeping in the chairs. The chairs are quite comfortable and often readers nod off. He didn’t seem to mind people of European descent nodding off. But Asians, no. He was sporting a t-shirt that proudly proclaimed himself to be a ‘bogan’ with some attendant neo-fascist connection.
.
>
He was a bogan too - spitting image of Col’n Carpenter only younger, angrier and (if possible) stupider.
>
Damn those Asians. If they weren’t here learning to read, working hard, dressing well, being polite, having their hair cut with something not used for the maintainence of lawns and refarining from inhaling industrial solvents on a daily basis then he’d have a job.
>
It’s all their fault y’see. It always is.
Hey on that issue of young kids calling things ‘gay’. My kids picked that term up from school and i had to have a chat with them about why i didn’t think it was fair or appropriate to use. They thought i was being a bit precious, but accepted my point of view and have acquiesced nonetheless.
However, i have been privately wondering if it really is worse than the word “lame” which ‘gay’ now substitutes? Is it possible that “lame” was highly offensive to disabled people when used in a post war, polio ravaged context, yet we think nothing of it now?
Or perhaps its just the next incarnation of the word that formally meant happy, then homosexual, and now just lame?
I’m not trying to justify the transition which no doubt had its roots in denigration, but wonder if its now becoming so ubiquitous its rapidly losing this connotation? Or is like song “Eeny Meeny Miney Moe catch a N*gg*r by the toe..” aussie kids always sang in the seventies utterly oblivious as to what a n*gg*r was (i figured it was something like a Minnow ), that really wasn’t ever going to morph into mainstream language?
It’s now “Eeny Meeny Miney Moe catch a Tigger by the Toe” according to my five year old. The stuff she brings home from that kindergarten! I suspect its full of bogans.
One of my lefty mates at UQ, born in England, had the blithe habit of saying someone had “chucked a Paddy” when they lost it.
Once I got to know to him better, I pointed out it was clearly an Anglo-Imperial slur against my Irish forefathers, probably for having the hide to be the first since 1776 to tip the soap-dodging bastards out.
It’d clearly never occurred to him. Just heard his dad saying it, never worked out it was a slur. What a bogue!
But who hasn’t called something that is pathetic, “lame” ?
When do words cross over into generic (not necesssarily) negative meaning devoid of specific slur?