TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson, soon to tour Australia after a “controversial” delay, is really not much chop. This is not to say that the mediocre man whose broadcast persona was lifted from an imaginary chip shop in the last days of empire is powerfully evil. It’s more to suggest that his appeal is almost solely down to his act as a defender of a particular class of men. If Clarkson is at all interesting — and, intellectually, he really isn’t — it is as how a social species can monetise its own endangerment.
As far as automotive entertainment goes, Top Gear was, at one point, not too bad; not as good as Pimp My Ride but certainly better than Monster Truck Garage. But, of course, as everybody said at the peak of the program’s success, “it’s not about the cars!”. Clarkson’s charm was not so much fuelled by his knowledge of high-performance vehicles as it was by his irreverence. Just as his best mate A.A. Gill never really wrote centrally about food, Clarkson never really spoke centrally about cars. Both men were talking about themselves. And, of course, their dwindling cultural relevance as derisive grammar school twats, a decline that first served to amuse them, and us, and then became a source of anxiety and brought forth a salvo of unfunny racial slurs.
To be fair, there was a time that Gill, from whom Clarkson has received exacting tips on media performance, was very, very funny. “There’s only so much you can do for lasagne in the looks department. The only garnish that would improve it would be a power cut”, Gill wrote in the Times before copying the career of Christopher Hitchens, as Clarkson has tried to, and leaving behind the difficult work of making British newspaper readers laugh at the weakness of the bourgeoisie for the better-paid pastime of taking the piss out of the underclass for American glossies. With few exceptions, Englishmen of letters tend to lose their wit, and their socialist wisdom, in the Atlantic.
Clarkson never made the continental move entirely, but he certainly became, as Hitchens did, a prize fuckwit. As success encroached, so did his need to hang onto it. He built his persona on a self-awareness of life as a useless middle-class duffer. He has tried to sustain it by defending himself and his “rights” as a middle-class duffer. He’s now achieved the opposite of the thing that made him famous. Once, he asked us to laugh at the white, middle-class Englishman in all his endangered primacy. Now he demands that we respect him.
There’s more than a whiff of the white male victim about Clarkson, who has said vile things, which I elect not to amplify here. Whether these things are said to make a point, presumably about “censorship” and “political correctness”, or because he genuinely believes them is of no matter. The only thing that does matter is that Clarkson, for a brief period a refreshing presence, now offers us no more surprises than that other, nicer middling middle-class entertainer, Michael Palin. What he offers is a fear that power is disappearing from his grip, and that of his kind.
In his travel programs, Palin offers disgust masked as fascination. He holds these “other” countries up to the camera with a pair of friendly tongs, never any mention that these delightful and curious places are drowning in malnutrition and debt. Britain gave the world ironic detachment as surely as it did bad food and partitioning — a process that led, in large part, to the poverty Palin ignores. But, Palin, just a little older than Clarkson, can afford to continue the relaxed fantasy that he is an important man. Clarkson feels his importance slipping and abandons his ironic detachment in favour of just being an out-and-out prick.
When the powerful feel themselves failing, they do tend toward brutal, stupid acts. In recent years, Clarkson has revealed himself to be not only as frightened as a minor official of the British Raj in 1947 but also as a wit of only limited erudition. Like a Kyle Sandilands who has half-read the collected works of Auberon Waugh — and Richard Hammond in this scenario is the obsequious Jackie O — he shows us that the Empire has no clothes. Naked and empty of any inspiration save for his need to be loved, Clarkson is now doing less for the England of the historic imagination than the Beckhams.
Clarkson has nothing left to say beyond “Believe me, I’m very important”. His appearance and demeanour led us to believe for some years that there was something more than self-regard propping up the act. But there is even less left in him than there is in England and the 20th-century middle-class Englishman who falsely became a global symbol of erudition and restraint. He has become an angry, underdone bully wailing for his lost privilege. If he’s not careful, he’ll be crushed by a hybrid car.


41 thoughts on “Jeremy Clarkson and the obsolescence of middle-class white men”
adams smith
April 3, 2015 at 7:22 amWanna hookup with someone in real tonight in your local area??? Go to ( findmore.website ) .
Absolutly free no fees no credit card just signup to have fun tonight.
adams smith
April 3, 2015 at 7:25 amFind someone real to hookup with absolutely free in your local area.
Go to ( findmore.website ). No card or subscription needed.
TwoEyeHead
April 3, 2015 at 8:13 amOh Dear
AR
April 3, 2015 at 8:39 amI usually find your prolix verbosity tedious & pointless but this was short, straight to the point and a good outline of the oaf’s persona and thereby the saddos to whom he appeals.
There is less to Clarkson that meets the eye.
Helen Razer
April 3, 2015 at 11:29 amMorning, @old greybeard. As you seem genuinely troubled by what I have written and are not employing your membership as, ahem, some others do to simply say “Helen Razer is pretentious! Bring back that nice chap who draws animals!”*, I will answer you as best and as politely as I can.
Working backwards: you say that you are “stuffed” in seeing how this piece “helps women”. As a writer, it is neither my obligation nor concern to “help women”. Of course, if you are familiar with my writing, you might have detected that I am a woman and that I have some views that could be described as creditably feminist. Nonetheless, this does not consign me to the labour of “helping women” in everything I write. My colleague Mr Keane will often write, in the views of some, outside his apparent freedom-of-expression stance and my colleague Mr Rundle will sometimes say things that are, again in the views of some, not obviously Left. Certainly. Both of them write things that are not in the interest of their own social or cultural classes at times. As do I. One hopes—or, at least I hope—for the version of “truth” as an opinionated correspondent sees it and not as the product of responsibility to one’s gender, class etc.
Having said this, I don’t see how this piece would not “help women”; not that this is my intention or responsibility just because I am a woman as per above.
What I intended this piece to be about (and I did discuss it with a midlife middle-class tertiary educated white male colleague before I wrote it) was the dwindling power of a great twentieth century figure, the middle-class Englishman. I tried to weave a little international relations in there between the television personalities to show how he (he the symbol) has changed in the person of Jeremy Clarkson.
If we look at Palin and how relaxed he is in travelling around Brazil etc, we see a man who no longer really exists. Don’t get me wrong, here. When I was young I loved Waugh (the elder), Greene, Orwell and any number of English middle-class voices. Between you and I, Auden remains my favourite poet of all time and I actually stammered when I had the opportunity to talk to Hitchens a few years before his death. There is absolutely no doubt that 20th century England produced some great stylists (not great thinkers, though. They were all continental) but I just wanted to talk about, in a concise way through the medium of television, how these voices have changed as they have become less powerful.
So, Palin is here to show the confident Englishman still sure of his nation’s power. I really believe his shows are horribly imperial. This is not to say he is not amusing. It is, however, to say that he is quite Anglocentric (some would say racist, and have) in the way he looks at Adorable Brown People.
So, Palin is the man confident of the Englishman’s imperial power. Clarkson is the man sure it is disappearing. And while Palin can afford to be, due to his age, all “Look at these charming natives!” Clarkson has, out and out, said terribly offensive things about them. One could say to him “I am stuffed how you think you are doing the cause of men any good, here, Jeremy”, perhaps.
Perhaps you are unaware what Clarkson has said in press and during his program. I didn’t really want to repeat the things he has said here as that is just to amplify the offence. But I think it is reasonable to assume that most readers would know what I am talking about. Let’s just say he has been overtly racist; and rather silly about homosexuals and ladies as well.
I wanted to ask: why is he doing this? I have seen a lot of English chaps do the same. Hitchens is a great example. He went from being a very decent scholar to someone who said the most inane stuff about the Iraq war (he loved it) to women (echoed in the comments here; apparently I have failed my gender again by failing to be funny in a piece that was never intended to be funny) to any minority.
Now, I do understand how “political correctness” is a genuine and noxious force among liberal progressives. Many writers will not say certain things or write on certain topics for their cowardice. I am not, nor have I been for years, “politically correct” and I am not being “politically correct” in this piece. I am just looking at how the popular Englishman has changed and how Clarkson has really killed the idea of the detached gentleman.
Just as I do not write on behalf of all women or an Aboriginal Australian writer does not write on behalf of all Aboriginal Australians etc etc, I am not, in writing about Clarkson, depicting all Anglophone middle-class white men born in the twentieth century. Some of my best friend etc. But, I think it is not unreasonable to say that Clarkson inhabits a tradition of the English gentleman with small hints of cad, such as the other men I have mentioned here and in the piece, and that it is interesting to observe this popular depiction of that imagined creature with Clarkson in the news.
I urge you to maybe have a quick read again thinking of my aims to show how the popular English middle-class pseudo-gentleman of the twentieth century has disappeared and how we can see this in Clarkson. I am not saying that I succeeded completely but I don’t think I failed in the way you think I did, either.
Again. It is not my responsibility to write to help women!
*Hail the First Dog, obviously. A national peach.
Ingle Knight
April 3, 2015 at 11:53 amIsn’t Clarkson the walking embodiment of Murdoch’s ideology?
If only it was in decline.
Jussarian
April 3, 2015 at 11:55 amWell this article, and others like it by Helen Razer, Guy Rundle and, less frequently, Bernard Keane, are exactly why I subscribe to Crikey. Reviewing the news while knowing there are more things in heaven and earth than facts – power, philosophy and cultural inheritance for example – while standing apart from and even criticising modern liberalism’s easiest, sound-bite-sized homilies: reading this is when I know I am getting my money’s worth. Keep up the good work HR, and Crikey.
Helen Razer
April 3, 2015 at 12:16 pmYes @Ingle Knight. The ideology is not dwindling. Just the way it is packaged has changed.
MAC TEZ
April 3, 2015 at 1:25 pmThank you for your comment @ #14 AR, you’ve managed to sum up my feelings about both Razer & Clarkson.
William Marshall
April 3, 2015 at 1:27 pmI’d like to say no shit to this, but that seems rather pointless, as would ragging on the English cricket team!