Read on Twitter
I think it is telling they refer to it as free school lunch, not free school meals (the actual name of the scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/free-school-meals-guidance-for-schools-and-local-authorities) https://twitter.com/Chartwells_UK/status/1349050962531528705
The absurd cruelty and profiteering aside, the peculiarities of the English language and British class system make this whole debacle ripe for class analysis
See for example the variations on lunch vs dinner and tea vs dinner vs supper in this piece from the Guardian https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/03/tea-with-grayson-perry-supper-dinner
The divide is blurred now, but I think we see in the responses from many MPs that there is assumption that this a "lunch" provision not "dinner"
The divide is blurred now, but I think we see in the responses from many MPs that there is assumption that this a "lunch" provision not "dinner"
Analysing this murky space of discourse - of class, wealth, language, and power - won't feed kids. The simplest explanations for the paltry offerings from Chartwell's are profiteering and the in-built cruelty of capitalism. But analysis of discourse has it's value
The place of this analysis is in looking at the language used by those defending Chartwell's (and who refused the extension of the meals initially). What does this tell us about the current ruling class? How do they see the world and how do they use language to shape it?
Let us consider for example, Pauline Latham MP's defence of "it's only their lunch". What can we learn from this? " Only" is doing a lot of work here, obviously but I think "lunch" is just as telling
Only suggests a failure to comprehend what food poverty actually entails. As Westwater notes in this article for The Big Issue for many children school dinners could be the only guaranteed hot meal they get each day. This is what FSM replaces
( https://www.bigissue.com/latest/food-poverty-in-the-uk-the-causes-figures-and-solutions/#:~:text=Sustain%20UK%20estimates%20that%208.4,and%20older%20people%20worst%20affected.&text=In%202019-20%2C%20a%20record,according%20to%20the%20Trussell%20Trust.)
( https://www.bigissue.com/latest/food-poverty-in-the-uk-the-causes-figures-and-solutions/#:~:text=Sustain%20UK%20estimates%20that%208.4,and%20older%20people%20worst%20affected.&text=In%202019-20%2C%20a%20record,according%20to%20the%20Trussell%20Trust.)
I'm writing about this from a safe and (somewhat) dispassionate perspective, but you only need to head over to Jack Monroe's Twitter to get a sense of food poverty actual means. That it can mean choosing between heating and eating, of skipping meals to feed a child
Monroe has also explained the difference between living frugally and surviving in poverty. The "only lunch" I think is indicative of a trend to confuse frugality and poverty (and that's a generous interpretation
Being frugal, tightening your belt. That's something you do if you're temporarily hard up, you're on your uppers. You are being careful with money, but are still financially secure
This is not what poverty is. It's not about saving money, it's about trying to make not enough money stretch to just enough money. This isn't actually possible.
Thinking about FSM as "only lunch" frames them as a cost saving, supplemental bonus when for many it's the difference between eating and not eating
And doesn't "cost saving, supplement bonus" just about sum up what so many in this country (and elsewhere) think of benefits as?
Discourse analysis won't feed kids. As much as I may indulge in a hyperbolic celebration of Foucault and the power of the humanities that's not really how this works. That's not to say this sort of analysis doesn't do SOMETHING though
Naming a thing is powerful. It's the difference between a riot and process, a revolution and a coup. We need to be alert to the fact that language isn't neutral
What's in it for Chartwell's in calling this "lunch"? I see this as damage limitation, as a PR move. Perhaps there are those who will be less outraged if they imagine this contemptuous offering is "only lunch" , a stop gap between the sugary cereal and Turkey Twizzlers
What I would love to see is a greater attention to language. We focus so much on figures, but language is where the power is. Journalists need to start challenging what politicians MEAN when they say something
I don't really have a conclusion beyond that, but I do have a question for the government - what about those working class boys you care so much about?
