1.   People distinguish rather glibly between the privileged and the under-privileged, as though there could be only two categories.  But I find it makes more sense to divide the privileged into two categories standing respectively in between the over-privileged and the under-privileged, as one might call the upper- and lower-class extremes, with the privileged divisible, in typically middle-class fashion, between those who play more than work and those who work more than play, who work to play or play to work, without being identifiable, therefore, with those who, as over-privileged, live to play and those who, as under-privileged, live to work - the former effectively playboys and the latter workmen or, in equivalent terminology, workgirls.

2.   Therefore I shall distinguish the over-privileged from the under-privileged on the basis of an upper-class/lower-class dichotomy which could be said to flank, above and beneath, the middle-class privileged, who are neither so typified by play that they could be described as playboys nor so typified by work that they could be described, in like terms, as workgirls, but come, somewhat professionally and/or vocationally, somewhere in between the more and less than privileged classes.

3.   Therefore the working class are, by logical definition, under-privileged compared to their lower-middleclass counterparts, who have more time or inclination for play without ceasing to be characterized primarily by work, whereas the leisure class are, by contrast, over-privileged compared to their upper-middleclass counterparts, who have more time or inclination for work without ceasing to be characterized primarily by play. 

4.   In fact, between the extremes of a play-only upper class and a work-only lower class come the great playing/working middle classes who, in their professional and/or vocational responsibilities, are neither so over-privileged nor so under-privileged as to be either blessed with play or bereft of play and effectively cursed by work.

5.   Strictly speaking, one should contrast psychical (mental) play with physical (manual) play and psychical (mental) work with physical (manual) work, allowing for distinctions between the psychical play of what is genuinely upper class, the physical work of what is genuinely lower class, the psychical play coupled to psychical work of what is genuinely upper middle-class, and the physical work coupled to physical play of what is genuinely lower middle-class, so that one is left in no doubt that there is as much of a psychical/physical distinction between upper-class play and lower-middleclass play as there is a physical/psychical distinction between lower-class work and upper-middleclass work.

6.   The classes no more play (where applicable) in the same way than they work (where applicable) in the same way.  Lower-middleclass play, being largely physical in character, will differ not only from upper-class play but from upper-middleclass play, while upper-middleclass work, being largely psychical in character, will differ not only from lower-class work but from lower-middleclass work.

7.   I have long believed and maintained that play appertains to the self and work to the not-self, as though in a sort of church/state or male/female polarity.  Yet I now see that one must distinguish not only between physical play and psychical play in respect of the lower middle-class and their upper-middleclass and/or upper-class counterparts, but also between physical work and psychical work in respect of the lower class and/or lower middleclass and their upper-middleclass counterparts.

8.   Therefore it seems to me that physical play stands to psychical play as anti-self to self, or being anti-self to being pro-self, as though in a diagonally rising bureaucratic-theocratic axial orientation in which the chief representatives of physical play were lower middle-class and the chief representatives of psychical play either upper middle-class or upper class.

9.   Likewise it seems to me that physical work stands to psychical work as not-self to anti-notself, or being pro-notself to being anti-notself, as though in a diagonally falling autocratic-democratic axial orientation in which the chief representatives of physical work were either lower class or lower middle-class and the chief representatives of psychical work upper middle-class.

10.  Therefore whereas the bureaucratic-theocratic axis would signify a diagonal ascent from the anti-self sinfulness of physical play to the pro-self gracefulness of psychical play, as from lower middle-class to upper middle-class and/or upper class, the autocratic-democratic axis would signify a diagonal descent from the pro-notself criminality of physical work to the anti-notself punishingness of psychical work, as from working class and/or lower middle-class to upper middle-class.

11.  Clearly it makes a lot of difference whether you work or play, whether you exist in relation to the not-self, whether physically or psychically, or in relation to the self, whether physically or psychically, and if you do both, as in the case of the middle classes, then it seems to me that one will have a bias towards either work or play of one sort or another, without being exclusively given to either.

12.  Therefore just as I have described the upper middle-class as being characterized by a bias for psychical play at the expense of psychical work without, however, being exclusively partial, in upper-class vein, to psychical play, so I have described the lower middle-class as being characterized by a bias for physical work at the expense of physical play without, however, being exclusively partial, in lower-class vein, to physical work.

13.  Therefore it may be inferred that whereas the upper middle-class will be more partial to being pro-self than anti-notself, their lower-middleclass counterparts will be more partial to being pro-notself than anti-self without, however, the one being either exclusively pro-self like the upper class or the other exclusively pro-notself like the lower class, the classes which correspond, after all, to what has been described as the over-privileged and the under-privileged - the former of whom do no work and  the latter of whom have no play, or time for play.

14.  Therefore being privileged is not to be exclusively pro-self, like the upper class, but rather to be either predominantly pro-self and subordinately anti-notself, like the upper middle-class, or predominantly pro-notself and subordinately anti-self like the lower middle-class, who in comparison to their upper-middleclass counterparts would be less privileged in respect of a physical approach to play which, besides being subordinate to a physical approach to work, appertained rather more to the sphere of sin than to that of grace.

15.  If, therefore, one is still privileged in physical play, no matter how inferior to psychical play it may happen to be, or how subordinate to physical work, it follows that the under-privileged will be such only because they have no time or inclination for play but spend the greater part of their lives working, and working, moreover, in a physical context such that leaves something to be desired even from the standpoint of psychical work, the sort of work more congenial to the upper middle-class, who are, as often as not, an executive class.

16.  When we take the above findings literally, it would appear that the bureaucratic-theocratic axis is primarily characterized, on the basis of both the lower- and upper-middleclass biases coupled to upper-class criteria, by physical work and psychical play, while the autocratic-democratic axis is likewise primarily characterized, on the basis of both the lower-class and lower-middleclass biases coupled to upper-middleclass criteria, by physical work and psychical play. 

17.  And yet I have consistently argued, in the past, that whereas the one axis is commensurate with sin and grace, the other is no less commensurate with crime and punishment, meaning that whereas the bureaucratic-theocratic axis should be divisible between physical play and psychical play, its autocratic-democratic counterpart should attest to a division between physical work and psychical work.  How, then, are we to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory conclusions?

18.  The answer, it seems to me, is really quite paradoxical but, for that reason, nothing new to my work, having been dealt with in more than one recent text.  For anything bureaucratic, which should attest to a female hegemony, has to be qualified in relation to the existence of theocracy when once we have established the existence of a bureaucratic-theocratic axis, and theocracy, being male, tends to twist the terms of male/female relations in respect of bureaucracy towards itself, so that instead of a relatively criminal emphasis upon physical work, as in respect of a predominating lower-middleclass bias for the not-self, one finds a sinful emphasis upon physical play which stems from the graceful attributes characterizing, in psychically playful fashion, theocracy, so that, compromised from above, the bureaucratic mean is twisted towards an emphasis upon anti-self behaviour which owes more, in sinful vein, to males than to females.

19.  Hence the bureaucratic-theocratic axis attests to a church-hegemonic situation in which theocratic male criteria condition the lower-middleclass reality of a bias for physical work at the expense of physical play towards an emphasis upon physical play in terms of the sinful paradox, attributable to male subversion, of anti-self behaviour, which, from a theocratic standpoint centred in grace, is of course something to be repented of in the interests of self and therefore the possibility of psychic play.

20.  Likewise, anything democratic, which should attest to a male hegemony, has to be qualified in relation to the existence of autocracy when once we have established the existence of an autocratic-democratic axis, and autocracy, being female, tends to twist the terms of male/female relations in respect of democracy towards itself, so that instead of a graceful emphasis upon psychical play, as in respect of a predominating upper-middleclass bias for the self, one finds a punishing emphasis upon psychical work which stems from the criminal attributes characterizing, in physically working fashion, autocracy, so that, compromised from above, the democratic mean is twisted towards an emphasis upon anti-notself behaviour which owes more, in punishing vein, to females than to males.

21.  Hence the autocratic-democratic axis attests to a state-hegemonic situation in which autocratic female criteria condition the upper-middleclass reality of a bias for psychical play at the expense of psychical work towards an emphasis upon psychical work in terms of the punishing paradox, attributable to female subversion, of anti-notself behaviour, which, from an autocratic standpoint centred in crime, is of course something to be wary of in the interests of not-self and therefore the actuality of physical work.

22.  How paradoxical, therefore, are these contrary approaches to life which divide societies - and sometimes the same society - in terms of an overall male hegemonic control in the case of the bureaucratic-theocratic axis and an overall female hegemonic control in the case of the autocratic-democratic axis, the former making for the possibility of the graceful redemption of sin, as of physical play in psychical play, the latter making for the actuality of the criminal wariness of punishment, as of psychical work from the standpoint of physical work.

23.  And yet, no matter how paradoxical, the redemption of sin in grace remains provisional and subject to the extent to which bureaucracy permits male criteria to operate at the expense of a context which, by its very lower-middleclass nature, is more characterized, in respect of a (feminine) female hegemony over (masculine or, more correctly, antimasculine) males, by physical work and thus pro-notself behaviour the existence of which precludes anything but an anti-self stance on the part of sinners, effectively if not literally male, and therefore renders their prospects of authentic grace in the psychical play of pro-self behaviour virtually non-existent, which is why, after all, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of the bureaucratic-theocratic axis par excellence, expects sin and forgives it in terms of verbal absolution for penitential contrition, rather than rejects it outright in the name of a genuinely free or, rather, transcendental  theocracy.

24.  Likewise, no matter how paradoxical, the punishment of crime remains provisional and subject to the extent to which autocracy permits female criteria to operate at the expense of a context which, by its very upper-middleclass nature, is more characterized, in respect of a (masculine) male hegemony over (feminine or, more correctly, antifeminine) females, by psychical play and thus pro-self behaviour the existence of which precludes anything but an anti-notself stance on the part of punishers, effectively if not literally female, and therefore renders their prospects of authentic crime in the physical work of pro-notself behaviour virtually non-existent, which is why, after all, the Monarcho-Parliamentary State, the State of the autocratic-democratic axis par excellence, expects crime and punishes it in terms of bourgeois justice, rather than rejects it outright in the name of a genuinely free or, rather, republican democracy.

25.  No more than the Roman Catholic Church can do away with sin, can the Monarcho-Parliamentary State do away with crime, for the one, though theocratically led, is hampered by the need to sinfully counter the overriding reality of bureaucracy as a female hegemonic context relatively governed by crime, while the other, though democratically led, is hampered by the need to punishingly counter the overriding reality of autocracy as a female hegemonic context absolutely governed by crime.