Modern Britain prides itself on placing ordinary, working-class people at the forefront of society since its adoption of a meritocratic social agenda in the late 20th century. It would be ignorant to dismiss the rapid social progression that has followed. However, the popularisation of inclusivity initiatives has uncovered numerous shortfalls, creating an invisible working class.
Inclusivity (or ‘access’) initiatives engage individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds in skills development, which is a commendable operation and should not be rejected by society, although the application processes for these initiatives risk excluding the borderline individual. This is an individual who sits between class lines, traditionally they are working class but certain characteristics are associated with a more privileged background; take, for instance, the individual with parents who attended university but grew up in an economically unstable household, or vice versa. Possessing such blurred characteristics is not uncommon, yet inclusivity initiatives do not wholly accommodate them, thus contributing to the division of the working class. Those captured by the inclusivity system are members of the visible working class, whilst those excluded from such protection are mere invisibles. This is the analogy of the invisible working class.
Whilst this discrepancy is inherent in all initiatives, the likelihood of it manifesting depends on the processes involved in an application. Typically, application processes can be categorised into two types: those that consider mere background and those that balance background with merit. The former is most contestable, as assistance is provided based on need, an agreeable principle if the pivotal issue concerns welfare. However, it does not; rather, it involves social mobility. By incorporating merit in the application process, the exclusion of the invisible class diminishes as contextualisation becomes a tool for recognising achievements, rather than determining whether an individual ticks all the boxes of ‘access’: justifiable on the selectivity of initiatives.
The existence of initiatives that only consider an applicant’s background demonstrates the urgency of improving career services in state education, as initiatives of this kind provide career insights, mentoring, and opportunities for skills development. It is shameful that these necessities have been capitalised into something competitive to attain, only initiatives that provide something more than this minimum standard should be retained. This would create more time-worthy opportunities for individuals, encouraging a proactive approach to career progression.
Overall, the development of inclusivity initiatives should be celebrated; however, there is a danger of dividing the working class into the visible and invisible. This ought to be rectified by improving the quality of career services in state education and modifying the provision of support that these initiatives traditionally provide.