I came across the idiomatic usage, ‘not above doing’ in the following sentence of Jeffery Archer’s fiction, “Kane & Abel.”
Allan Lloyd, a banker and Chairman of William Kane’s trust tells William’s mother Anne:
“Although he (William Kane, the heir of deceased bank chairman) has no
authority over the trust until he is twenty one, we discovered through
sources of our own that he is not above going to an independent lawyer
to find out his legal position.”
No dictionary at hand shows ‘not above …ing’ as an idiom. But according to wordreference com., it means (Someone) will do anything and won't be ashamed to do it. So I understood that the speaker meant William went so far as to consult the lawyer to his trustee’s surprise.
I’m intrigued to find why it is in negative form. i.e. why ‘not’ is necessary in “be not above doing something,” because the subject here, 16-year old William Kane is doing something more than expected. I hope my point of question is clear to you.
Best Answer
We are above something if were are too moral to do it:
If we are too wealthy to deem to do it:
Or if it will make us look bad, or we are of too high a social standing:
In contrast therefore, we are not above something if we are not too moral to do it:
If we don't care about something making us look bad:
Or if we have the money to avoid doing something odious:
Generally, when we are above doing something, it means that we don't do it because we are "better" than the sort of person who would, for some value of "better" (wealth, morality, wisdom, privilege, social standing, esteem, self-esteem). When we are not above doing something, it means that we do do it, because we are "worse" than the the sort of person who wouldn't, likewise by various different criteria.
In most cases, to say someone is above something means that they didn't do it, and we approve their not doing it, while to say that they aren't above it means that they did it and we disapprove. So, in my examples about Jeffrey Archer, I'm saying that I disapprove of his behaviour in each case. (Since you'd mentioned him, and I needed examples of odious behaviour, they came quickly to mind).
Pause before I move onto the exception. Don't read the next bit until you're happy you understand the previous...
Okay, the exception is when the "better/worse" relates to privilege. Here we if we say that a rich man "isn't above working with his hands" or a boss "isn't above helping out on the floor when it's busy" we mean that they aren't using their privilege to shirk such work, and we probably approve of that.
We might also use this "above" idiom in a sarcastic way, so saying "oh, he's above talking to the likes of us" could mean "he thinks he's better than us, but really he isn't". But this is a sarcastic use of irony, so it's a deliberate inversion of the normal meaning.
In the example given, the speaker doesn't approve of the fact that William Kane talked to the lawyer whether because he thinks it sneaky, thinks it bad form that he is engaging a lawyer outside of the family firm, thinks it bad form to enquire so closely after finances (an attitude among very "old money") or some other reason (or no sane reason whatsoever and it was just badly written).