The semantics of ‘Chavs’

In 2011 the journalist Owen Jones published a book entitled Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Classes, which was the subject of this withering critique by Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times (12 June 2011):

‘The author, an Oxford graduate from Stockport, has based it upon this demonstrably false premise, that working-class equals chav. And that, further to this, the deployment of the word “chav” is part of a conspiracy by the ruling class and especially the Tories to keep the lower orders in their place. And while he concedes that working-class people themselves do sometimes describe those they despise as “chavs”, this is but part of the “divide and rule” strategy employed by the bourgeoisie to maintain their economic and cultural hegemony. Yes, this is a book written by the bastard offspring of Private Eye’s Dave Spart and Sue Townsend’s Adrian Mole, a sustained rant devoid of nuance and wit, one part Socialist Worker editorial and one part undergrad history essay.’

Underpinning the political/ideological critique is an argument about semantics. In Liddle’s view, Jones treats chav as a pejorative synonym of ‘working-class individual’: whereas Liddle himself views the relationship as one of hyponymy: all chavs are working-class, but not all working-class people are chavs. At the time of writing a lively debate was ongoing on internet forums about (a) whether chavs are necessarily white, and if so (b) whether the term is not only pejorative, but also racist. Not everyone, however, even agrees that the term is pejorative: Labour MP Stephen Pound sees it as a term of envy, no different in kind from style labels such as Teddy Boy or Mod, used to identify groups in the past.