Defining Class (Sociology Reference Guide)

SOCIOLOGY REFERENCE GUIDE DEFINING CLASS The Editors of Salem Press SALEM PRESS Pasadena, California • Hackensack, N...

Author: Editors of Salem Press

41 downloads 1549 Views 964KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SOCIOLOGY REFERENCE GUIDE

DEFINING CLASS

The Editors of Salem Press

SALEM PRESS Pasadena, California • Hackensack, New Jersey

Published by Salem Press Copyright © 2011 by Salem Press

All rights in this book are reserved. No part of this work may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews or in the copying of images deemed to be freely licensed or in the public domain.

ISBN: 978-1-42983-460-5 Includes bibliographical references and index. Indexing Subjects 1. Social Classes 2. Class Formation 3. Sociology

First Edition

Contents

Introduction

1

The Class System

4

Social Mobility in the U.S.

18

Social Mobility & the Postindustrial Society

27

Assessing Class: Income

37

Assessing Class: Education

50

The Upper Class

62

Assessing Class: Wealth

74

Assessing Class: Lifestyle Choices

84

The Middle Class in America

95

Contradictory Class Locations

109

The Working Class

119

The Underclass in America

129

Cultural Theories of Poverty

139

Demographics of Poverty

150

Stratification & Class: Income Inequality

161

The Poor & the Working Poor

171

Terms & Concepts

184

Contributors

193

Index

196

Defining Class

iii

Introduction

The study of economic social arrangements served as an early field of inquiry in nineteenth-century sociological thought. Leading theorists addressed how the development of a modern, capitalist society influenced the formation of social groups and class systems. Today, class intersects with a range of social, cultural, and socio-political factors in a multi-disciplinary field of study. The Sociology Reference Guide series is designed to provide a solid foundation for the research of various sociological topics. This volume offers an introduction to contemporary class issues in the United States, with an overview of economic issues and challenges specific to populations across a range of class levels. In the opening essay, Geraldine Wagner provides an introductory review of class stratification, a recurring topic that is addressed in some form throughout the volume. Wagner’s essay is followed by two essays that discuss the relationship between income and education, which further defines how class advancement is achieved. The remainder of the essays follows three general categories in class stratification. The first group assesses the formation and indicators that define the upperclass, while the second and third sections present a wide body of work on the two major groups that often define class in America: the middle and working classes. The first group of essays presents a discussion of contemporary trends that determine the stratification of class systems and a review of localized Defining Class

1

issues in education and income, as well as more global issues on worldwide social mobility. These essays capture some of the changing economic and social conditions that distinguish the study of class as it appears today. Social mobility, which Michael P. Auerbach defines as “the pursuit of better life,” is explored in his two essays on the phenomena of a rapidly changing global society. Sociologist Barbara Hornick-Lockard argues that the changes in “labor market and household composition” will require researchers to conceive of innovative income analysis methods in order to “create new models for understanding new economies” represented in the U.S. today. By first correcting the belief that education promises social mobility in an increasingly stratified society, Sharon Link and Alexandra Howson claim that the revision of interpretive models in sociology may confront the prevailing notion of an “ultimately classless society.” The remaining essays turn to a range of topics in three commonly identified class levels in America: upper, middle, and lower class. As many of the authors agree, these general classes are often difficult to delineate, even though the history of sociology is founded on developing models to effectively measure class stratification. Jeff Klassen and Jeremy Baker explain that “there is considerable debate about how best to measure class and how various measurements translate over time, place, and societies.” The essays on wealth and privilege define the leading approaches to these studies. The middle class may represent, for the casual observer, the most visible class in America. Jeff Klassen and Jennifer Kretchmar explore how the roles of civic life and voting help to distinguish the middle-class from others, and suggest that Eric Olin Wright’s 1970s work on “contradictory class locations” is useful in defining a growing middle-class. The remaining essays provide a deeper look into the factors that underlie poverty and social stratification in America. Geraldine Wagner’s essay examines the emergence of the “underclass” in the 1980s and the causes that influence the growing number of women and ethnic minorities in this group. Michael P. Auerbach turns to culture as an indicator of poverty, arguing that beyond political or economic factors “sociological forces are at work, many of which have cultural underpinnings.” Auerbach’s contention that class stratification does not emerge directly from economic realities alone is supported by PD Casteel, who identifies the “growing feminization of poverty” in the Latino population. In her essay on income 2

Sociology Reference Guide

inequality, Jennifer Christian examines how the working poor suffer the adverse effects of health and criminal victimization. These factors, also identified by Casteel and Christian, are among a host of characteristic issues that represent the growing disparity between rich and poor. The final essay by Geraldine Wagner provides both an overview on the subject of poverty studies and a review of arguments for the resolution of poverty in America. Modern sociology is founded upon a study of social differentiation and specifically the foundations of poverty and inequality. The arguments posited by the authors of this volume reveal the diversity of approaches to the study of class issues and the ongoing significance of class inequality in America. Included in this collection are complete bibliographic entries, which follow each essay, and a list of suggested readings that will locate sources for advanced research in the area of study. A selection of relevant terms and concepts and an index of common sociological themes and ideas conclude the volume.

Defining Class

3

The Class System Geraldine Wagner

Overview In the late 1970s, the U.S. experienced an economic downturn and the beginnings of post-industrialization, whereby many manufacturing jobs began leaving America for low-income countries and for workers willing to accept much lower wages than U.S. workers. These changes caused economic inequality to increase dramatically, and Americans began to wonder whether there was a way to reverse the trend for themselves and their own families. Was education the answer to turning the income tide? College became a huge industry with more and more people seeking not the traditional liberal arts education, but college programs that would translate into job skills. What about the people who lagged behind them in education and still cannot catch up or those who cannot afford to enter the world of computers and high technology? Will they be able to compete with those other segments of the population that have been able to stem the low economic tide? If they cannot, what will happen to them in this land of the rich, where poverty exists, but is often hidden behind mass market clothing, easy credit, and cheap consumer items (Neckerman, 2004)? In order to begin examining these issues and more, some background in the sociology of stratification is needed.

4


What is Stratification?

The United States is divided into social groups, or classes, with the divisions based on the wealth, prestige and power of members of each group. Because these groupings are hierarchical, with the top categories receiving more of the life chances available in America, it is said to have a system of stratification. This hierarchical system puts those with the most wealth, power, and prestige at the top of the hierarchy, and those with the least, at the bottom. The Major Stratification Systems: Slavery, Caste & Class

There are three basic, historical social systems in use in the world: • Slavery, • The caste system and • The class system. Each of these systems is subject to erosion as technology and industrialization become central to a country’s economy. In the southern United States, during the 17th century, slavery was an important part of the plantationbased agrarian economic system. But with advances in technology, the plantation system that required human toil was eventually replaced by agribusinesses utilizing machinery that could do the work of hundreds of people. Some might even argue that in the U.S., there is more of a caste system than a class system, because there is less upward mobility for some social groups than people might think. Indeed, the class system is a stratification system based on birth, like the caste system, as well as on achievement (Macionis 2007). Two closed systems of stratification are slavery and the caste system. The caste system, as well as slavery, should begin to erode with the advent of industrialization. India is an example of a country where the caste system is slowly dissolving as education and employment become more universal. Slavery involves the ownership of some people by other people. Slaves are considered property and so they have little or no control over their own lives and often over the lives of their offspring. Historically, there have

Defining Class

5

been only five western slave societies: ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the U.S., the Caribbean and Brazil (Engerman, 1995). Another closed system is the caste system whereby people’s social status is decided at birth, usually because of their parents’ status. Others are placed in caste based on the type of work they do, or based on their race. Many have argued that a caste system exists in the United States, where poor children tend to remain poor and fail to experience upward mobility into upper strata. Others point to the Guest Worker program recently suggested for Mexican immigrants. These legal and illegal immigrants, whether they are living and working in the U.S. with or without proper paperwork, are necessary to the nation’s economy. Through their labor, their taxes and their consumerism, they contribute to the wealth of the American middle class, but their own status as second-class citizens, it is argued, would be institutionalized through the guest worker program. With the current system, undocumented workers become exploited. They work for low wages in poor working conditions. If they complain, employers can threaten to have them deported. Entire industries, like meatpacking, use many undocumented workers making up a critical mass of employees and threaten the livelihoods and standards of other American workers who end up competing with those immigrants who accept less. With U.S. jobs offering lower pay and benefits, the exploitation of immigrants could be undermining American workers as well (Traub, 2007). As a society moves from an agrarian economic base to an industrial one, people must be placed in a variety of jobs requiring various skills and abilities. This process of sorting people, leads to a class system, at least in the workplace. Some elements of the caste system exist in a class system. For example, the importance of the family unit in a class system society provides the stability and requirements of duty and loyalty that a caste system produces. The class system is defined as the most open, allowing people in one class, through social mobility, to have the opportunity to move to a higher class, or with downward mobility, even to a lower class. Even though birth affects one’s social class, through achievement and mobility, a person can end up in a different class from other blood relatives (Macionis, 2007). The class a person occupies determines his or her life chances, or ability to receive 6


more and better resources from the system. Within the class system, inequality among classes levels off when industrialization establishes itself, and then begins to increase during a post-industrial phase. This could be caused by the plethora of service-related employment, which takes the place of manufacturing jobs, and which often pays much less. Meritocracy

An industrialized society needs people with a variety of abilities, and thus, develops a system of rewards in the manner of better life chances, wealth, power, and prestige and quality goods. People in a class society come to expect that hard work, talent, and ability will lead to more rewards for some and fewer for others. This is a system of meritocracy. In a caste system, one receives reward for being obedient and dutiful. The class system uses meritocratic methods to increase productivity and efficiency in the work place, but relies on caste system qualities such as the institution of the family to keep control and order in society (Macionis, 2007). Status Consistency

Class systems offer greater mobility than other systems, so there is less status consistency. For example, someone with a college degree in the U.S. might make far less than a factory worker in an automobile manufacturing plant, where one would expect the opposite. Class Differences in the U.S. Based on Income & Wealth

At some point in our development as human beings living in the United States, we begin to realize that some people have more than others: more material goods such as houses, cars, nice clothing, toys, and easy ability to obtain those goods. It seems that some people have all the latest “stuff” that arrives on the market, while others struggle to simply put food on the table for their families and others sleep in church dooryards. That ability to obtain certain goods and the quality of those goods is generally linked not just too personal preference, but to social class, part of a system of stratification. Stratification means institutionalized inequalities in the distribution of resources such as power, wealth, and status between categories of persons within a single social system. Thus, stratifications are a trait of society and not simply individual determinations (Macionis, 2007). These inequalities tend to run along race, class and gender lines and help to deDefining Class

7

termine the ownership and control of resources and the type of work that people perform. To compound and perpetuate the problem is the fact that the U.S. economy is blind to the needs of people who have fewer resources than others. Thus, a large group of Americans are not only poor, but also less able to participate fully in society (Koepke, 2007). Differences in the ability for some to accumulate more than others have historically led to conflicts between groups that have achieved it and those who feel that they have not received their fair share of society’s wealth. This inequality continues to exist today in the United States. In fact, among the wealthy nations of the world, the United States receives the distinction of being first in a list of societies with inequality of income distribution (Rothchild, 1995).

Further Insights Why Does Stratification Exist?

Sociologists use the accepted theoretical perspectives to look at and explain social class differences and how they relate to social inequality. The Functionalist Perspective

Functionalists look for the things in society that make it stable and help it to run smoothly and efficiently. Their perspective finds that inequality must exist and is not harmful. Certain positions in society are more important than others and they must be filled by the most qualified people. These people must have the ability and the talent to perform these jobs and therefore, must be compensated with a higher level of income, wealth, prestige and power. One example might be a heart surgeon who must spend years in school and in training and who has the welfare, if not the entire life, of an individual in his or her hands. This system of rewarding people for their work with wealth, power and prestige for jobs that are unique and demanding is called meritocracy. A meritocracy rewards people based on their abilities and their credentials. It is a hierarchical system.

8


Davis-Moore Thesis

This thesis by two prominent social scientists, argues that stratification is necessary and beneficial for the smooth operation of a society. The greater the functional importance of a person’s job, the more he or she should be rewarded for it. This makes others want to strive for the same rewards and thus increases productivity. Equality among all people would essentially make them lazy and not motivated to achieve (Macionis, 2007). This is an argument that is often used against the idea of implementing a socialized medicine program in the U.S. The Conflict Perspective

The conflict perspective in sociology argues that stratification does not simply reward some people for their extraordinary effort; it gives them an unfair advantage over others that is difficult to overcome. The Marxian Perspective on U.S. Class Structure

The most well-known conflict perspective regarding social class is the work of Karl Marx, who believed that our wealth and position in society is based on how we fit into the system of production as either the owners of the means of production of goods, such as the factories, or we sell our labor for an hourly wage. Marx recognized only the two classes: the capitalists, or bourgeoisie who owned the land, capital, factories, and mines and the working class, or proletariat, who worked for the capitalists to earn a living wage. Marx explained that exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists occurred because the excess production produced, which did not go to the workers, but became profit for the capitalists, made for an unequal distribution of the accumulated wealth produced. When this occurred, the workers felt a sense of alienation, or powerlessness within the equation of capitalist over proletariat. Exploiting the workers would lead to class conflict and an overthrowing of the capitalists and a more equal distribution of wealth overseen by a more or less just government. The Weberian Perspective on U.S. Class Structure

Another prominent social scientist, Max Weber, pointed out that the relationship between the haves and the have-nots was not as cut and dried as Marx would have it. He identified three dimensions of stratification, wealth, prestige and power, which determine a person’s social class. Defining Class

9

Wealth is identified as one’s assets such as property and income. Those who have a similar level of such assets are included in one social class. The more wealth one has, the higher the social class to which he or she belongs. A case in point is Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, who enjoys not only wealth, but also two other dimensions, prestige for his accomplishments and his philanthropy and power for his ability to affect the lives of others using his wealth and prestige. One can also be in a higher social class even without a lot of wealth if he or she commands prestige: the respect of others based on life work or position. For example, Mother Theresa, a nun from Macedonia who won the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize (Nobel Foundation, 1979), spurned the accumulation of wealth, and chose to live in poverty, but she was courted by the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world because of her prestige as a champion of the poor. A third dimension of Weber’s notion of social class is power, where a person can obtain his or her will despite the objections of others. An easy example of power would be the President of the United States, who can make very unpopular decisions and remain unaffected by the will of the people. Many Americans believe that one must stand behind the decisions of the President, whether he is right or wrong. Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

While functionalist and conflict sociological perspectives take in the “big picture” of society and look at large groups of people, called a macro level analysis, the symbolic interactionist perspective takes a micro level view of topics such as social class and stratification. A symbolic interactionist would then study the effects of poverty, for example, on a group of high school students and their grades and their ability to attend college. Or, the symbolic interactionist might study the language used in the work place to identify workers, noting that those with less prestige are often called by their first names, while those with a higher office might be referred to with a title and last name (Rollins, 1985). Social Classes

Social classes do exist, says journalist John O’Sullivan. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have a need for etiquette books which teach us how to behave 10


in social situations, because “...there is no need for advice on etiquette in a society in which people remain fixed in the circumstances in which they were born. Everyone knows how to behave at home” (O’Sullivan, 2001, p. 1). O’Sullivan’s flippant observation of the existence of social classes aside, there is hard evidence that social classes do exist and that they can profoundly affect the lives of the people who inhabit those classes. Several classes, or groups, have been identified in American society, beginning at the top, with 1% of the population belonging to the upper-upper and the upper classes. These people have accumulated wealth over long periods of time due to inheritance, or have come into a great deal of money through investment. Others in the upper class tend to be sorts or entertainment figures. People in these classes tend to have a great deal of influence on the economy and society, despite the fact that there are few of them (Gilbert, 2003). The upper-middle class makes up about 14% of the population and includes highly educated professionals such as physicians, attorneys, and stockbrokers, and those in upper managerial positions. While most Americans consider themselves part of the middle class, only about 30% of the American population, including white collar and skilled blue collar workers, actually falls within this category. The working class makes up another 30% of the population and includes factory, clerical and retail sales workers. The working poor, about 20% of the population, include laborers and service industry workers. These people are called the working poor because while they work full time, they do not earn enough to support themselves or their families. Many single mothers belong to this class as do people of color (Gilbert, 2003). The underclass, about 5% of the population, is made up of temporary, seasonal, or part time workers, many of whom also receive some form of public assistance. This group is generally under-educated and does not work consistently (Gilbert, 2003).

Defining Class

11

What Inequality Means for Some People Cross-National Income Inequality

With massive changes in the American welfare system, the welfare poor have now become the working poor. Poverty rates have not gone down with the welfare rolls. Rather, the U.S. has the dubious distinction of having the highest poverty rates in the world. U.S. public policy is often blamed for the situation. Several years ago, the British government instituted a policy, promising to end child poverty in England. Since then, that goal has reached a level of accomplishment, with the child poverty rate reduced from 25 to 13%. A working tax credit was established for parents working at least 16 hours per week, and another tax credit helped pay up to 70% of childcare fees. These types of policies are not in place with the current U.S. administration. Under George W. Bush, the number of poor children has increased. It seems that policies make the difference; if a nation wants to reduce, or eradicate poverty, it can be done, but if a nation chooses to keep people poor, it can also do that (Smeeding, 2004). Family Income Mobility

Despite a favorable economic climate in the past decade, and the fact that the mean family income level in the U.S. is substantially higher than that of other industrialized countries, its poverty rate is one of the highest. The reason, researchers argue, is a higher than ever inequality in family income and family income mobility, the ability for a family to increase its income over time, or compensate for a low income one year, by accumulating a higher income the next year. In the years since the early 1970s, there has been sluggish growth in family income and rising earnings and continual income inequality. Although “there is substantial income mobility, the extent of mobility has not increased over this period, resulting in a larger gap between those at the top and those at the bottom” of the economic stratification system (Gottschalk & Danziger, 1997). To counteract the negative impact of the increase in inequality over the last two decades, the labor market must be improved with supplementation 12


policies available to bolster the incomes of those who have not experienced any benefits from economic growth. This includes less-educated workers and inner-city residents (Gottschalk & Danziger, 1997). Incarceration, Health Inequality, & Un- or Under-Employment

Although their numbers are large and ever-increasing, the poor are invisible in America’s affluent society. Poor people are seldom depicted in movies or on television, especially during periods of economic prosperity. By the year 2000, unemployment rates dropped to historically low levels, but still there were large numbers of working poor, employed in minimum wage jobs. Simultaneously, the stock market boomed and the rich grew richer; the poor, whether rural or urban, young or old, were forgotten. Some things have changed for the demographics of the poor. The elderly have pulled out of poverty through social security benefits. But poor urban blacks remain the most isolated both physically by congregating in cities, and economically, since the lowest paying jobs are in those same areas. This underclass, which resides outside the class structure, displays high rates of unemployment, crime and family deviation. They are avoided by Middle America and thus, ignored. Not until the economic problems that plague the underclass begin to filter into the middle classes as happened during the Great Depression of the 1930s, does anyone notice urban poverty. To compound the invisibility of the poor, the increase of the likelihood of imprisonment further conceals offenders by removing them from the poor communities from where the penal system receives most of its population. Nor are their numbers reflected in any government account of economics, joblessness, or poverty. This exacerbates the inequality caused by incarceration. When the inmates of America’s prisons and jails are taken into account, it seems obvious that racism and poverty, while over the horizon of high walls, is not far from reality (Western, 2004). Health Inequality

According to Deaton (2003), “richer, better-educated people live longer than poorer, less-educated people.” According to the National LongituDefining Class

13

dinal Mortality Survey, which tracks how long people live, those whose family income in 1980 was greater than $50,000, putting them in the top 5 percent of incomes, had a life-expectancy at all ages that was about 25 percent longer than those in the bottom 5 percent, whose family income was less than $5,000 (Deaton, 2003). Not only are wealth, income, education, and occupation projective of one’s ability to live longer, but so are several more interesting indicators. For example, one study discovered that the larger the gravestone, the longer that person’s life-span; another study points out “that winners of Oscars live nearly four years longer than those who were nominated but did not win” (Deaton, 2003). Pink Collar Work for Women

Americans are being convinced that more and more families are “dual career families.” Yet studies have shown that married women in such situations, those who are lawyers, doctors, or college professors, are a small minority of working women. The fact remains that women are still earning less than men and are still represented in smaller numbers in top level professions (Benenson, 1984). At the turn of the 20th century, only one fifth of women were in the U.S. labor force. Today, the numbers have tripled to 59%, with 71% of these women working full time (Macionis, 2007). These women are often married with children under the age of six years old, while widowed, divorced, or separated women with children reach levels up to 74% of working women (Macionis, 2007). Yet societal attitudes change slowly and women are often perceived as unqualified for some types of work, which tend to pay better, and they too, are still held primarily responsible for the care of home and children. Even the women who work full time, do what is called a “double shift” of work in the workplace, and then work at home. Look around and notice that men dominate many job categories such as the building trades, heavy-equipment mechanics, police officers, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and corporate managers. Women tend to be relegated to so-called pink collar jobs such as administrative assistants, secretaries, child care workers, health care and food service workers.

14


Society defines some work as masculine and other types of work as feminine. Women are often not viewed as qualified for the masculine jobs. This translates too, to a variance in income. In 2006, the median income for full time working women was $31,858, while for men it was $41,386. Even in the upper strata, men were two and one half times more likely than women to earn more than $75,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Conclusion The Future Class System

Americans have always believed in what Hertzler calls a “mobility orientation,” (Hertzler, 1952, 1) that the U.S. class system is open and flexible. But we also know that the system is imperfect and allows some people to succeed who don’t deserve to, often referred to as The Peter Principle (Clark, 2008) while at the same time, leaving behind those who deserve better. Obstacles such as racism, discrimination and unequal opportunity still exist and will be joined in the future by new obstacles. Social positions are becoming more rigid, with stricter boundaries, thus offering less vertical mobility. People have also become complacent with their lot, believing that their lives are acceptable. It has become much more difficult today to get ahead, or launch a new business in the U.S. Those who have already started out with a parent in the highly technically trained fields have an advantage over those who want to try to move into those positions from lower social strata. It costs more for the training and the apprenticeship necessary to gain professional status in certain fields. Even unions may be keeping some people out of jobs by requiring membership in the organization in order to be hired. When people try to change jobs to better themselves, being tied to the benefits offered by the current job may prevent them from making the change. Workers become dependent for some of the securities of life, especially health insurances (Hertzler, 1952). The U.S. educational systems does the same type of sifting as the workplace, with 80% of upper and upper middle class children getting a college education, while only 20% of middle class children, and 5% of lower class children gain access. Some of this may be caused by teacher preference for upper class children, with reputations established by the fifth grade for most children (Hertzler, 1952). Defining Class

15

But perhaps the most important element of the future class system and its tendency to begin closing rather than remaining open, is that people crave security and they are not willing to take risks as people once did, to get ahead, or to make a name for themselves in a business or enterprise (Hertzler, 1952). Thus, the American Dream is becoming less real for more people. Americans are willing to settle for less, and the social strata are becoming more rigid. The loop holes that allow some people to break through the barriers from one social class to another are closing. Those who have attained a certain social and economic status are holding on to it and cleverly managing to pass it on to their children. The potential contributions to society of the many people in the lower social strata could be lost in the future because of these tendencies.

Bibliography Benenson, H. (1984). Women’s occupational and family achievement in the U.S. class system: a critique of the dual-career family analysis. British Journal of Sociology; 35 (1). Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5298821&site=eh ost-live Clark, J. (2008). How the Peter Principle works. Retrieved August 13, 2008 from http:// money.howstuffworks.com/peter-principle.htm Deaton, A. (2003). Health, income and inequality. National Bureau of Economic Research. Research Summary, Spring 2003. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from http://www.nber. org/reporter/spring03/health.html Engerman, S. (1995). The extent of slavery and freedom throughout the world as a whole and in major sub areas. In Julian L. Simon (ed.) The state of humanity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Gilbert, D. (2003). The American class structure in an age of growing inequality. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Gottschalk, P. & Danziger, S. (1998). Family income mobility—how much is there and has it changed? Retrieved August 12, 2008 from Boston College http://fmwww.bc.edu/ ec-p/wp398.pdf Hertzler, J. (1952). Some tendencies toward a closed class system in the United States. Social Forces 30 (3), 313-323. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s ih&AN=13535883&site=ehost-live

16


Koepke, D. (2007). Race, class, poverty and capitalism. Race, Gender & Class, 14 (3/4), 189-205. Retrieved July 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=31792793&site=eh ost-live Macionis, J. (2007). Society: The basics. New York: Prentice Hall. Mother Teresa. (1979). Retrieved June 29, 2008 from The Nobel Foundation. http:// nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html Neckerman, K., ed. (2004). Social inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. O’Sullivan, J. (2001). Head of its class(es). National Review, 53 (6), 24-26. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4223689&site=ehost-live Rollins, J. (1985). Between women: Domestics and their employers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rothchild, J. (1995, Jan. 30). Wealth: Static wages, except for the rich. Time Magazine, 145 (4), 52. Smeeding, T. (2004). Public policy and economic inequality: The United States in comparative perspective. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series, #367. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from http://www.lisproject.org/ publications/LISwps/367.pdf Traub, A. (2007). Guest-worker caste system. Retrieved August 11, 2008 from TomPaine. com. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/16/guestworker_caste_system. php U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Historical Income Tables-Families. September 15, 2006. Retrieved August 13, 2008 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/ histinc/incfamdet.html Western, B. (2004). Incarceration and invisible inequality. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from http://www.russellsage.org/publications/workingpapers/ incarcerationinvisibleineq/document

Suggested Reading Dolbeare, K. & Hubbell, J. (1996). U.S.A. 2012: After the Middle-Class Revolution. New Jersey: Chatham House. Hinshaw, J. & LeBlanc, P. (eds.) (2000). U.S. Labor in the 20th Century: Studies in WorkingClass Struggles and Insurgency. New York: Humanity. LeBlanc, P. (1999). A Short History of the U.S. Working Class from Colonial Times to the Twenty First Century. New York: Humanity.

Defining Class

17

Social Mobility in the U.S. Michael P. Auerbach

Overview Political campaigns, particularly presidential election campaigns, can be extremely delicate and volatile. Any negative image or misconstrued comment can be turned into political fodder for opponents and become a death knell for a campaign. Some comments cut very deeply and leave an indelible mark on the American electorate. In the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan stood at a podium opposite the beleaguered incumbent, Jimmy Carter, and asked voters a simple question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” With a stagnant economy, high inflation, an embassy hostage standoff, and an energy crisis, the question was purely rhetorical (Wirthlin, 2004). More than two decades later, the advisors who helped Reagan write that question into his debate presentation are realizing its impact on future presidential elections: Today, voters by and large believe that the country’s leadership is responsible for making their lives significantly and quantifiably better (Wirthlin, 2004). This desire for improvement, or upward social mobility, is part of what drives American society and the American dream. However, many Americans also experience horizontal or downward social mobility as they move into lateral or lower social strata. Whether upward, downward or horizontal, social mobility is an integral part American society. This paper casts a look at many of the permutations of social mobility, and as a result, offers a detailed portrait of social mobility as it functions in American society. 18


Social Mobility

Sociologists define social mobility as “the movement of individuals and groups between different class positions as a result of changes in occupation, wealth, or income” (Giddens, 2007). They also identify six types of social mobility, two of which are structural mobility and circulation mobility. Structural mobility refers to movement between social classes that occurs as a result of a change in a society, such as an economic expansion. Structural mobility, as the name suggests, is not attributable to factors particular to individual people or groups, but rather to environmental conditions that affect an entire population. Circulation mobility, on the other hand, is more individual in focus. It refers to movement between social classes that is attributable to factors particular to individual people. With circulation mobility, no class is enlarged or diminished, rather the class structure remains stable while individuals rise or fall within it. Circulation mobility is also called exchange mobility because, in it, individuals simply exchange positions with one another, rather than rise or fall as a group. Oftentimes, this type of mobility occurs as a result of an individual’s talents, efforts, or opportunities, or lack thereof. Societies which have a high degree of circulation mobility are said to have a high degree of equality, since, in these societies, individuals can move into higher social strata. Sociologists continue to debate whether or not these two concepts should be treated separately in the study of social mobility. As an individual’s social status changes due to social mobility (in other words, because he or she set out to achieve this status), he or she may or may not find usefulness in taking advantage of structural changes. For the purposes of this paper, this author adopts a more progressive perspective of social mobility, at least in terms of its occurrences in the United States, allowing for an overlap between social mobility and structural mobility to be taken into account in a larger paradigm of mobility in American society. Job Prospects

In any capitalistic society, one of the first steps in achieving upward social mobility is the pursuit of gainful employment. Most Americans believe that a well-paying job and a better life can be obtained through drive, Defining Class

19

ambition, and skill. When one views the number of available jobs in the US in comparison to the number in developing countries, it appears that the American dream is viable. Certainly, many people do move upward into better jobs and higher social strata when economies enlarge and diversify. However, there is reason to question the United States’ reputation as the “land of opportunity.” Social mobility is dependent not just on the number of well-paying jobs, it is dependent on the number of individuals who move into those higher-paying positions as well. If growth is widespread enough to ensure that a large cross-section of the population is able to move upward, then upward social mobility is considered at a high. Conversely, if only some of the population is moving upward and others remain at the same level, then upward social mobility is stunted. This key point is of interest when one reviews the last century of American history. Twenty-first century America is currently experiencing growth in a number of important industries, such as technology, research and development, health care, and even government. Because many of these industries require a certain skill set or educational background, not every American can take advantage of this prosperity. When one takes this factor into account, a different picture of American social mobility takes shape. In fact, although there have been many economic booms in America during twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the period during which upward social mobility reached its highest point was immediately following the Great Depression. When the US finally emerged from the doldrums, a tremendous number of Americans seized on countless professional opportunities and found themselves immediately moving into a higher social and economic standing (Beller & Hout, 2006). The point to be gleaned here is that social mobility as a general concept does not simply review the accomplishments of one or even several samples of the overall society. Rather, it acts on the premise that all individuals operate on an equitable plane – if they are able to move upward or laterally in large numbers, then sociologists see an appreciable growth in social mobility. The US has experienced such growth, due in large part to its diverse industrial composition and ability to recover relatively quickly from economic crisis.

20


Geographic Positioning

Over the course of the twentieth century, much has occurred in the United States that has encouraged movement to different locales. Many baby boomers, for example, have traveled extensively throughout the world, while their parents either curbed travel before and during World War II, or only travelled through combat deployments. Throughout human history, men and women have traveled to different geographic regions in pursuit of better opportunities to increase their incomes and reduce their cost of living. For example, people have often migrated to cities because jobs were more plentiful, it was easier to travel to their workplaces, and more resources were available to ensure a comfortable lifestyle. Then again, the technological advances that have occurred over the last several decades in the US and elsewhere have added a new dimension to the traditional view of social mobility. Many individuals still physically move to regions where job opportunities are more plentiful. However, the fact that so much of business in the modern American economy can be conducted from thousands of miles away means that a new distinction must be made between movement and mobility. The first of these terms is indicative of physical transmission, while the latter may not necessarily entail any sort of relocation (Kaufmann, 2006). In a country that has helped create and integrate the global economy via modern technology, the US seems poised to serve as an interesting case study in the divining of these two terms which, at one time, seemed clearly one in the same. Economic Opportunities

If one were to ask a sample of American citizens the top reason they would like to move upward in society, the vast majority would cite higher income. To some degree, social mobility is dependent upon an individual’s actions. Those seeking to move into higher social strata must develop and hone their skills, receive career training, take advantage of available government services, and work diligently to move upward in their chosen industries. Still, it isn’t uncommon for these resources and opportunities to be available to some, but not others. Inequity is an ongoing issue in the US, one that often prevents individuals from moving into a higher stratum and Defining Class

21

achieving the same dreams as others. Some individuals may attend better public school systems or attend private schools. Others may have access to better public services, or even find themselves in a geographic area that is more conducive to social mobility than other areas. Indeed, researchers studying intergenerational mobility have found that families’ social statuses tend to remain the same over time in the US (Mazumder, 2007). That is, as children grow-up, they tend to attain the same social status as their parents and grandparents. Other studies suggest that in more recent decades, children may even attain lower statuses than their parents in the US (Mazumder, 2007). These findings have led many comparative sociologists and the media to call into question the idea of the US as a true “land of opportunity” (Mazumder, 2007).

Further Insights Comparing Generations

One of the most effective ways of assessing social mobility in the US is by comparing the status of individuals with that of their parents. In this sense, President Reagan might have asked, “Are you better off today than your parents were at your age?” Indeed, much has happened in modern US history, and these changes are important indicators of the evolution of the American experience. In the twenty-first century, Americans are living longer and having fewer children than past generations of Americans. At the same time, there are fewer government services available now than in decades past, largely due to a much more complex socio-economic environment (Antonucci, Jackson, & Biggs, 2007). To understand intergenerational mobility in the US, one must understand the generations themselves. Americans of the twenty-first century are as diverse as the situations and incidents that defined them. Baby boomers, born in the early 1940s through 1960, are the products of parents who fought in World War II and whose post-war dedication to raising a well-groomed, well-heeled family inadvertently gave rise to a spirit of independence and rebelliousness. Baby boomers’ children, born in the 1961-1981 timeframe, are also the products of the Cold War, a roller coaster-like economy, and a 22


resulting lack of government assistance programs (Howe & Strauss, 2007). Even the economic conditions for each generation created singularities that distinguished the varying ages being compared. Those who lived in times of economic growth and prosperity have a different outlook on life than those whose lives developed during periods of stagnation and negative growth. Even though each generation is in many ways unique and incomparable, the common traits of each generation can be used to review the changes (or lack thereof) that have occurred in the passage of time. This article next looks at some of the changes that have occurred between generations and their impact on social mobility in the United States. Intragenerational Mobility in the U.S.

Thus far, this paper has discussed social mobility in terms of how an individual takes action to move into a different stratum. In the previous section, the reader gleaned how social mobility is gauged by comparing the position of a parent and his or her children, taking into account the number and quality of opportunities and resources that are available. In essence, this paper has focused until now on how individuals move into higher, lower or lateral strata. Next, however, this essay turns its attention to the “why” concerning some forms of social mobility. “Intragenerational” mobility refers to how an individual’s changing personal attitudes and interests over a lifetime may prompt that movement. It may also impact the economy, especially when one individual representing a certain age group comes into contact with another. For example, an individual who has worked his whole life, paying into a retirement system so that when he retires himself, he and his family will be comfortable, may be surprised to know that retirement benefits have been curtailed as he is about to leave his work. His dedication to the company may not ever be questioned, and he may have even applied himself to keeping a tight company budget. His attitudes about those benefits would likely shift away from the company and toward receipt of those benefits in a move into a different socio-economic class. Adding to the challenge of the situation, he might have to fight for those benefits with a corpoDefining Class

23

rate leader who demonstrated the exact same dedication that he did at the leader’s age (Spitznas, 1998). Intragenerational mobility has long been an interesting facet of the larger framework of mobility. In the US, which has throughout its history demonstrated a great predisposition to evolve industrially and economically, the changing perspectives of the individuals who comprise this nation’s economy provide a very clear illustration of this important concept. Conclusion

Social mobility is not just a discipline utilized for academic pursuits. It is a gauge that is useful for answering the question then-candidate Ronald Reagan asked of voters in 1980: “Are you better off now than you were before?” Indeed, social mobility is an interconnected series of indicators of social stratification and economic performance. By studying these components, a society’s populations can be better understood in terms of what they seek in making a better life for themselves. The United States is well-qualified to serve as a case study in this pursuit. After all, the US is hardly a homogenous society, whether in terms of social stratification, workforce composition, cultural diversity or regional distinctions. It is also one of the more dynamic of the world’s national systems, in that it seizes upon industrial, technological, socio-economic and political developments that occur in a constant evolutionary frequency. Social mobility is based on a number of factors, many of which were outlined in this paper. In a general sense, however, it relies on two major forces: Individual choice and initiative in one hand, and systemic change in the other (the latter of which is known as structural mobility). The focus of social mobility is on movement upward, downward and laterally. This essay has focused on the goal of social mobility as a mechanism that ensures a better way of life for the individual. In American society, that better way of life begins with an optimal job and economic condition. There may be opportunities that become manifest, social services and programs that may provide a boost and better job potentials in other geographic regions. Individual initiative, in these conditions, is paramount to accomplishment of upward or lateral mobility. 24


Additionally, there are environmental conditions over which the individual may not have control but are nonetheless critical to upward social mobility. Structural mobility is at the core of the industrial changes that entice job applicants as well as the economic environment that fosters the opportunities that inspire individuals to seek ways to better their lives. A growing school of sociological thought connects social and structural mobility, and evidence from the United States experience lends credence to this theory. American history has also given appropriate examples of two important methods of studying social mobility trends in a given system. The first, intergenerational mobility, provides an illustration of the comparative social and economic situations of mothers and fathers and the statuses of their children. This field has indeed proven useful for demonstrating how far a society has come in terms of movement into higher strata. As demonstrated in this paper, mobility does not necessarily depend on opportunities, but on the system that creates those opportunities for mobility. On the other hand, intragenerational mobility casts a light on another important aspect of growth. Just as the playing field may change, so too does the individual. He or she may have a change in perspective, one that can ultimately contribute to the varying directions and degrees of mobility. Social mobility (that is, the pursuit of a better life) is a central theme in any modern society, and yet is critical in capitalistic environments in particular. As the icon of international capitalism, the United States has long provided exceptional examples of how stratification and the pursuit of upward mobility can occur, and will likely continue to do so for generations to come.

Bibliography Antonucci, T.C., Jackson, J.S. & Biggs, S. (2007). Intergenerational relations: Theory, research and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 679-693. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27629855&site=ehost-live Beller, E. & Hout, M. (2006). Intergenerational social mobility: The United States in comparative perspective. Opportunity in America, 16(2), 19-36. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22466157&site=ehost-live Defining Class

25

Kaufmann, V. (2006). On transport history and contemporary social theory. Journal of Transport History, 28(2), 302-607. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct= true&db=a9h&AN=27638706&site=ehost-live Mazumder, B. (2007). Trends in intergenerational mobility. Industrial Relations, 46(1), 1-6. Retrieved March 21, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23481422&site=eh ost-live Spitznas, T.J. (1998). Generation gaps: How the different generations affect individuals in the national economy. Westchester County Business Journal, 37(45). Retrieved March 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Regional Business News. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=1284596&site=ehost-live Teixeira, R. (2006, October 26). What the public really wants on jobs and the economy. Center for American Progress. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www. americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/public_wants.html. Wirthlin, D. (2004, August 18). The quadrennial question. The New York Times. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E3D7103 FF93BA2575BC0A9629C8B63.

Suggested Reading Coleman, J.S. (1991). Matching processes in the labor market. Acta Sociologica, 34(1), 3-12. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6245388&site=eh ost-live Deasy, L.C. (1955). An index of social mobility. Rural Sociology, 20(2), 149-151. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13212824&site=ehostlive Guest, A.M. (2005). Frontier and urban-industrial explanations of US occupational mobility in the late 1800s. Social Science Research, 34(1), 140-164. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15665308&site=ehost-live Krymkowski, D.H., Sawinski, Z. & Domanski, H. (1996). Classification schemes and the study of social mobility. Quality and Quantity, 30(3), 301-321. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9948461&site=ehost-live New evidence on US mobility. (2006). Monthly Labor Review, 129(1), 50. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21294877&site=ehost-live

26


Social Mobility & the Postindustrial Society Michael P. Auerbach

Overview In 1992, one of the world’s largest and most well-known companies was on the ropes. Hemorrhaging money, laying off thousands of workers, and rapidly losing business to its competition, IBM had no strong leadership, long-term goals, or strategies. When Louis Gerstner arrived as Chairman of that company in the early 1990s, IBM was considering splitting into smaller, independent units, signaling an end to the company’s long, storied history. Gerstner, however, had other plans. One of his first acts as chairman was to undertake an extensive tour through the company, soliciting thoughts and ideas not just from employees but from clients as well. When asked by one of his colleagues for his vision of IBM, Gerstner replied somewhat flippantly, “The last thing IBM needs right now is a vision” (anecdotage.com, 2008). Gerstner famously led IBM, an icon of the industrial age, into the twentyfirst century with a combination of entrepreneurial flexibility and openmindedness. His accomplishments with the company in the face of a changing business environment are the stuff of legend. In many ways, IBM’s reemergence coincided with the Western world’s transition from an industrial and manufacturing economy into an economy of service and information. Sputtering machine plants and factories are not nearly as prevalent as they once were in the United States as blue-collar jobs have been Defining Class

27

increasingly replaced by web-commerce, consultancies, and other whitecollar jobs. In the US, as well as across the industrialized world, the “postindustrial” era has officially begun. And as developed nations’ economies have changed, so too have their labor bases. These societies have experienced a need to adjust their focus on the industries of the latter twentieth century. Although the people within these societies must continue to take advantage of the opportunities available to them, these opportunities are far different from those of only a decade ago. As the post-industrial era is beginning, a change in the nature of social mobility is also occurring. This paper will assess the ways in which social mobility has changed in developed nations over the past few decades. By casting a light on the changes in how people pursue upward mobility in this new era, it will seek to understand how these societies are transforming along with the new political economy of the twenty-first century.

Further Insights The Post-Industrial Era

After two centuries of inventions designed to efficiently increase manufacturing productivity, it is difficult to believe that the Western economy could shift gears so dramatically. Since the mid-eighteenth century, every European and North American economic infrastructure has been industrialized, and the twentieth century as seen the Eastern Asian and Indian economies following suit. Innovations as the cotton gin, the steam engine, vulcanized rubber, automobiles, and airplanes have given billions of people jobs in a variety of manufacturing industries. In the late twentieth century, however, Western economies began to change and become more global. Multinational corporations could now reach virtually every corner of the world, and the spread of the Internet gave rise to a new way of doing business: e-commerce. Because of these changes, service industries like research and development, financial services, software design, and cellular communications have become the dominant economic drivers of the Western world (Hermelin, 2007). Of course, the need for large manufacturing plants and factories has not diminished. International commerce means that a corporation may maintain 28


its headquarters in one country, while large-scale plants may operate in another country where labor is cheaper and the cost of real estate is low. This practice, known as “outsourcing,” has contributed both to business development (as corporations save on operating costs by running factories in less-developed countries) and to local, often impoverished societies (whose labor bases often welcome the opportunity to go to work). In addition, fears that government intervention can hinder successful business has led the post-industrial world to be characterized by a free-enterprise approach in which government controls are removed and the industries that once made significant contributions to the economy are increasingly privatized. Indeed, the world of the twenty-first century is markedly different from the world of only a few decades ago. The industrialized nations of the world are rapidly transitioning from a manufacturing base to a service industry base. Formerly less-developed nations (known as “LDCs”) are becoming heavily manufacturing-oriented, and the majority of their industrial bases now comprise factories and assembly plants. It is difficult to encapsulate or predict the effects the post-industrial era will have. Still, it cannot be dismissed that this evolving order will have an impact on humanity for generations to come. These political and economic changes are already having strong impacts on society. The Worker & the New Order

This paper seeks to focus on the sociological aspects of the post-industrial era. However, it cannot be denied that social behavior in this period is closely linked with the economy. In most modern societies, one’s occupation is closely linked to one’s social status, and since economic changes can have a severe impact on one’s occupation they can also impact one’s status. Post-industrialism has significantly changed society due in part to the shift toward a service-based economy. As the way the industrialized world does business changes, so too does the face of the worker. As US industries becomes more specialized and technological, workers must be more educated and more skilled. Careers in medical research, computer science, web marketing, and international business all call for advanced degrees and specialized training. The individuals who have the education and skills to hold these positions are now considered to occupy the top social Defining Class

29

stratum. Those who are less skilled, however, have fewer opportunities to gain a higher status and may even be pushed down into a lower status. Thus, social status is becoming increasingly dependent on an individual’s occupation and his or her skill level (Sarossy, 1996). In light of this fact, stratification does not necessarily occur on a national societal level – rather, it occurs on an international level. The simple reason for this trend is that people go to where the jobs are: if the job in question, such as a manufacturing position, is sent overseas to a less-industrialized nation, then the individual must either go along with it, or become unemployed. Post-Soviet Russia

In the case of Russia, the post-industrial world has created a new system of social stratification. Previously, the heavily industrialized Soviet Union used its satellites states, such as Ukraine and the Baltic states, as bases for major manufacturing operations. When the USSR dissolved, so too did the countless factories that it had built in those countries. When these industrial complexes closed their doors, thousands of workers lost their jobs. Meanwhile, although the post-industrial era has been increasingly beneficial for many Russian citizens, there is still a need for less-skilled workers in plants and lower-paying jobs. Many of those who are taking these jobs are immigrants from former Soviet countries. Hence, Russian society is experiencing a new form of stratification, with immigrants from such former Soviet satellites as Tajikistan and Azerbaijan entering Russian society as minority groups. Lacking the skills and education necessary to move into higher social strata, these immigrants have very little social mobility. Exacerbating matters is the fact that these extraterritorial workers are being discriminated against by Russian citizens who are either on the same socioeconomic level or belong to strata (Mukomel, 2007). This example raises an important point about social mobility as a whole: as upper and lower social strata become increasingly divergent in the post-industrial era, upward social mobility means not only escape from financial hardship, it can also mean an escape from being the target of prejudice. The Shrinking Middle

The Russian example casts an interesting light on the social changes brought about by post-industrialism. In the industrial era, most societies 30


had three distinct social and economic classes, once again largely defined by the individual’s occupation. Individuals in the lower classes usually had few skills or professional qualifications, little education, limited job growth, and infrequent upward mobility. Individuals in the upper class tended to be well-trained and well-educated, occupy prestigious positions, and have a high degree of financial security. These two classes or strata are, to be sure, polar opposites both in terms of economics and social groupings. The middle class is a much more nebulous concept, however. Members of the middle class typically have at least some postsecondary education, hold white collar jobs, and enjoy a reasonable measure of financial security. Often the target of social policy analysis due to its multifarious and complex composition, this stratum’s social mobility has been rendered even more difficult to gauge because of the economic changes brought on by post-industrialism. This difficulty is created from the fact that the middle class is currently in the midst of two major trends. The first is that middle classes of post-industrial societies are becoming increasingly educated. With many political figures and social policymakers committed to supporting the middle class through scholarships, grants, and other forms of financial aid, a larger percentage of the class is receiving a post-secondary education. Such increases in education mean that the middle class is becoming a much more prominent part of society, and one with a much high degree of social mobility (Van de Werfhorst & de Graaf, 2004). Secondly, many of the jobs that once provided a stable, middle class income have been eliminated as companies outsource them to other countries with lower labor costs. As a result, education has become even more important in the service economy for those seeking to maintain a middle-class lifestyle or move into an even higher social stratum. With a shift toward a postindustrial service economy, members of the middle-class must either take advantage of educational opportunities, or find themselves qualified for only low-paying service sector jobs and be forced into a lower stratum. One result of this shrinkage is that the upper and lower classes are becoming increasingly polarized (Simmie & Brady, 1989). The political and social policies designed to help members of the middle class attain a postsecond-

Defining Class

31

ary education have, by and large, failed to reach members of the lower classes. With lower classes at a disadvantage, therefore, the gap between them and the upper classes has widened (Haycock and Gerald, 2007). This gap, which sociologists believe be fostered by the post-industrial service economy, has been well-documented. Sociologists have theorized in great numbers that post-industrial economies experience a relatively high rate of social inequality because all but the lowest paying service jobs require knowledge-intensive employees. As the labor-intensive manufacturing jobs which once supported the middle class are outsourced, industrial workers who lack the education necessary to hold a well-paying service job are being forced to fill the low wage service sector jobs (Moller & Rubin, 2004). A Change in the Economy, a Change in the Worker

It goes without saying that the service industry is a different animal from the manufacturing industry. This essay has already described one major difference in employment requirements: education and training. Information technology, financial consultancy, and other service sectors call for more educated and specialized vocationally-trained individuals than do manufacturers, which tend to seek those with more limited training. However, institutional and vocational education does not constitute the entirety of the service industry’s demand. The industry also demands that its workers have what are called “soft skills,” or desirable interpersonal skills and personal qualities. Workers in this arena must be able to perform a task not as part of a daily quota, but as a response to a client’s demand. Meeting these demands and fostering positive relationships with clients requires workers to have strong interpersonal, conflict resolution, and communication skills. In the ongoing transition from industrial to post-industrial economic regimes, individuals who seek to achieve upward social mobility by entering into service industry employment must develop and improve upon these personal qualities. Successful transition into this sector, therefore, is dependent on how well an individual is able to adapt his or her personal qualities to his or her career (Bulan, Erickson & Wharton, 1997). In many cases, societies that have been operating in one industry sector find that dramatic change to another industry is extremely difficult to 32


foster. A recent study compared the societies and economies of two of the fastest growing countries in the world: China and India (“Sweatshops and Technocoolies,” 2005). Each country has an economy that is growing exponentially, and doing so through the same service industries that developed nations are fostering. Their methods of entering the post-industrial era, however, create an interesting illustration of the way in which the transition from manufacturing-based economic infrastructures to servicebased economies involve the labor force in a manner that will ultimately comprise their engines (“Sweatshops and Technocoolies,” 2005). Prior to their respective industrializations, both India and China were agrarian societies: their citizens spent the majority of their lives working in the fields. For both societies, the change from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy was not very difficult – neither economy requires workers to engage in comprehensive education or extensive training regimens. However, both countries’ efforts to develop service sectors have proved problematic. In China’s case, society has been moving upward at a slow, deliberate pace, a move which many observers criticize as too timeconsuming. In India, people are being encouraged to move upward toward the service sector as well, but at a far quicker pace. The result for the latter country is that the service industry is but a small part of that country’s economy (only about 4% of the country’s gross domestic product), despite a worldwide reputation as an exporter of information technology and call center outsourcing services (“Sweatshops and Technocoolies,” 2005).

Discourse Fostering Social Mobility in the Post-Industrial System

This paper has thus far paid considerable attention to the economic changes brought about by post-industrialism, as well as how these changes have impacted individuals who seek to move upward into a higher social and economic stratum within its parameters. There is another, critical component of this discussion as it pertains to social mobility, one that becomes manifest in the examples of India and China just provided: how an individual is able to make the upward transition when the economy has shifted from a manufacturing- to a service-based system. There are a wide range of activities in which one may engage in order to move into a higher social stratum. Among them are moving to an area conDefining Class

33

ducive to gainful employment, seeking out financial assistance programs, and utilizing available public and private resources. In the post-industrial environment, however, one of the most vital components applicable to social mobility is education. As stated earlier, however, education is not simply a matter of coursework. In many countries, baccalaureate-level education stresses the basic skills – reading, writing, and mathematics – necessary to pass performance examinations in order to acquire a degree. These skills are, of course, invaluable for any individual, but the service industry also seeks other talents. Among these talents are creativity, risk-taking, leadership, teamwork, and teambuilding. Each of these less-tangible professional traits can be learned in business courses, but likely need to be acquired through additional training courses. If candidates do not have such “outside of the box” skills, they may not be considered viable candidates for employment by the service sector, particularly by a multinational corporation (Fan, 2006). To offset this issue, many multinational corporations have created training courses known as “corporate universities,” in which matriculates can acquire these and other skills relevant to the goals and philosophies of the company in question. In China, for example, Motorola, Siemens, Procter and Gamble, and Ericsson all have corporate universities. Louis Gerstner’s IBM also has an online training program. Each of these training resources help individuals obtain the professional skills and personal characteristics that will help them earn higher salaries and move into higher social strata. Such training also creates loyal, long-term employees for the corporation. In an era of shifting economic and social priorities, stability is key both for employers and the individuals they hire. Conclusion

Louis Gerstner was correct to refute the need for an inflexible perspective about IBM’s direction in 1992. The post-industrial era was taking hold, and IBM, like every other major business, needed to assess the forces driving the changes that were taking place. Indeed, IBM is once again a major leader in the global, post-industrial economy. The switch from a heavily-regulated manufacturing base to a free-market, service base has had profound impacts not just on economies, but also on 34


the societies in which they operate. This paper has shed light on the many ways that individual social mobility can and does occur in this new environment, as well as the ways in which social groups and strata have been adversely impacted.

Bibliography Bulan, H. F., Erickson, R. J., & Wharton, A. S. (1997). Doing for others on the job. Social Problems, 44(2), 235-256. Retrieved April 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s ih&AN=9707156638&site=ehost-live Classic Gerstner. (2008). Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://anecdotage.com/index. php?aid=14578. Fan, Ke. (2006). How can multinational corporations retain their employees in China? CAHRS (Cornell University) Working Paper Series. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1406&context=cah rswp. Haycock, K. &Gerald, D. (2007). Trend: Shrinking opportunity. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, 21(5), 15-16. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24839389&site=ehost-live Hermelin, B. (2007). The urbanization and suburbanization of the service economy. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography, 89(1), 59-74. Retrieved April 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27301005&site=ehost-live Moller, S. &Rubin, B. (2004). Jobs and income: Wages in a post-industrial economy. Conference Papers – American Sociological Association. Retrieved April 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15931576&site=ehost-live Mukomel, V. (2007). Economic and social impact of migration on the recipient society: The case of Russia. Conference Papers – International Studies Association. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26958386&site=ehost-live Sarossy, G. (2006). Social mobility in a post-industrial society. Statistical Journal of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, 13(3), 233-243 . Retrieved April 1, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d irect=true&db=a9h&AN=9703061576&site=ehost-live Simmie, J. & Brady, R. (1989). Middle class decline in post-industrial society. Long Range Planning, 22(4), 52-62. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1 2298059&site=ehost-live

Defining Class

35

Sweatshops and technocoolies. (2005, March 5). The Economist, 374(8416), 9-11. Retrieved April 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16331442&site=ehost-live Van de Werfhorst, H. G. and de Graaf, N. D. (2004). The sources of political orientations in post-industrial society. British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 211-235. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14047396&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Broschak, J. P., &Niehans, K. M. (2006). Social structure, employee mobility, and the circulation of client ties. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 24, 369-401. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18615953&site=eh ost-live Malos, S. B. & Campion, M. A. (1995). An options-based model of career mobility in professional service firms. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 611-644. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9508080332&site=ehost-live Payne, G. (1987). De-industrialization and occupational mobility. British Journal of Sociology, 38(2), 254-265. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= a9h&AN=6789209&site=ehost-live Tomlinson, J. (2006). Routes to part-time management in UK service sector organizations. Gender, Work, and Organization, 13(6), 585-605. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22642643&site=ehost-live Yaish, Meir. (2000). Old debate, new evidence. European Sociological Review, 1 6 ( 2 ) , 159-183. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=4234361&sit e=ehost-live

36


Assessing Class: Income Barbara Hornick-Lockard

Overview A 1988 article in The Futurist (which now appears naïve) predicted that there is, as the title states, “One Giant Middle Class” (Cetron, 1988) which will grow thorough the end of the 20th century. Rising incomes were viewed as stretching farther because people were marrying late and having fewer children then ever before. Lawrence Lindsey, Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard was quoted in the article as defining a middle-class individual as “… someone who expects to be self-reliant, unlike the upper class with its unearned wealth or the lower class with its dependency on society. Far from declining, the middle class is bigger than ever, and its ethic is alive and well” (cited in Cetron, 1988, p. 10). Years later, the promise of a homogeneous middle class may hold some validity, but its continued vitality is less ensured. Income and access to resources are traditional determinants of social class, and given dramatic social and technology shifts, social scientists are beginning to take serious stock of the historical income data from the last forty years that show an inexorable gap in the aggregated incomes of the lowest and top earners. Growing Income Inequality

This conspicuous inequality in earnings has only recently emerged on the research agenda of sociologists. Some sociologists such as KenworDefining Class

37

thy (2007) and Kim and Sakamoto (2008), in their research on income, are surprised that their fellow sociologists have not studied these phenomenon with more intensity. The complexity of these dramatic changes defies classic sociological theory and sociologists are only beginning to make sense of them and are starting to develop new models. In his article, Inequality and Sociology, Kenworthy (2007) expresses a need to understand the rising disparity of earnings and income in the United States. The growth in inequality is an important development in the United States during the past generation and “sociologists have not been able to offer …a class-based explanation for rising inequality …. [and] to the extent they have, the evidence does not appear to fit very well …” (p. 587). Kim and Sakamoto (2008) studied aggregate occupational data to find the underlying source of the differences in wage equality. They asked how occupational structure relates to wage inequality and offered a series of hypotheses, at the heart of which was that most of the recent increase in wage inequality is largely within occupations, and the rising level of wage inequality across this period is mostly unrelated to changes in the distribution of workers across occupations or to mean differences in wages across occupations: “Within-occupational inequality has increased more than between occupational inequality, and the reduction in the explanatory power of occupation is especially obvious after controlling for education” (p. 152). In the early 1990s, sociologists began to embroil themselves in a debate about whether social classes can be identified as old indicators fell away. Clark and Lipset (1991) defined seven societal factors that were shaping dramatic changes in society: • Politics with less class and more fragmentation; • Economic growth that is undermining the hierarchy of class; • Decline of large industries and the spawning of smaller entrepreneurial businesses; • Advancement of technology and the knowledge base; • globalization of the markets; • Decline of the traditional family; and 38


• Less of an impact of families on stratification than of women in the workforce along with greater rewards for education. Gilbert (2008) labels the twenty-five years after WWII as “The Age of Shared Prosperity,” but the last thirty are tagged “The Age of Growing Inequality.” He sees three significant shifts in job earnings: • Men’s earnings have stagnated, on average; • Women’s earnings have risen steadily; and • The distribution of earnings of both have become more unequal. Wages at the top have risen substantially, while real wages of those in the lower half of the labor market have remained unchanged in the time period (p. 57). Classical sociological models of Marx, Weber and others were simple and don’t fit today’s complex societies. As Scott and Leonhardt (2005) remarked, “As some sociologists and marketing consultants see it, the commonly accepted big three – the upper, middle and working classes – have broken down into dozens of microclasses, defined by occupations or lifestyles” (p. 1). Gilbert, however, has not abandoned class models altogether. Although he admits that structuring the classes is an art, not necessarily a science, he stands by the model with six classes that he and his mentor, Joseph Kahl created many years ago, based on typical income and occupation: Privileged: • Capitalist – 1%, Income $2 million + • Upper-middle Class – 14%, $150,000 Majority Classes: • Middle Class – 30%, $70,000 • Working Class – 13%, $40,000

Defining Class

39

Lower Classes: • Working Poor – 13%, $25,000 • Underclass – 12%, %, $15,000 (2008, p. 27). Gilbert qualifies his model by saying that the middle class and working class “… traditionally portrayed by division between office and factory – was long regarded as the critical dividing line in the class structure. But today many office jobs are simplified and routinized like jobs in the factory” (p. 14). He believes that the ldividing line between the capitalist and upper-middle classes and the classes below them has become most significant mainly because the “economic returns on capitalist property and on the advanced education typical of the upper-middle class have grown rapidly in recent years,” while rewards for those without educations and skills are diminished (p. 14). Kenworthy (2007) has conducted comparative analysis with data from other western countries in order to understand the evolution of the class situation in the United States. He studied earning and income on three levels of inequality: • Earnings among employed individuals; • Among households; and • Among households when government taxes and transfers are included. Globalization & Technology

Kenworthy contends that the growing gap of inequality of income among the unemployed may be attributed to technology and globalization, but his analysis shows that other industrialized countries have not realized nearly the same discrepancy in income. He concludes that wage-setting institutions, such as unions, have also helped to account for the change with downward pressure exerted on the wages of the least skilled and upward pressure on the wages of the best. Households vary depending on number of earners, length of employment through the year, and pairing of earners; i.e., high earners tend to pair with high earners, and these factors also have had a tremendous impact on the disparities.

40


He also says that, . . . within-industry shifts in labor demand away from lesseducated workers are perhaps a more important explanation of eroding wages than the shift out of manufacturing … Also, global competition and immigration … [decline of unions] … decline in the real value of the minimum wage, the increasing need for computer skills, and the increasing use of temporary workers (p. 4). Kenworthy believes that the issue of inequality is one of the most important societal phenomena in recent history and must be taken seriously by sociologists. He also implies that tracking it is critical to setting public policy for setting wages and adjusting transfer programs. Neckerman and Torche (2007) review the research on economic inequality including earnings, wealth, and opportunity. They say that as economic inequality was recognized as more than a transitory phenomenon, sociologists and other social scientists began to study its implications. They point to research that separates the transitory from permanent shifts in income. Neckerman and Torche refer to an article by M. Gangl (2005) that shows that the United States “still has the highest income inequality among industrialized countries after accounting for short-term variation” (cited in Neckerman & Torche, 2007, p. 338). Consensus concerning this inequality includes evidence that the stagnant minimum wage has impacted the lower strata, as has a decline in union membership declines. Male incomes have been hardest hit and returns for higher education have had a significant impact. A survey of the research also indicates to Neckerman and Torche that the most challenged rationale for the inequality is the issue of technology. Some researchers have found that disparities were emerging before digital technology became entrenched in the 1990s. They point to others who have studied the institutional shifts in business and labor, including a “… shift from manufacturing to services, deregulation … transformations in corporate governance, a decline in union representation, and a rise in the use of contingent labor …” (2007, p. 338). Inflated salaries for those at the top have also contributed to what they call “upper-tail” inequality. Defining Class

41

Inequality & Mobility

“The American public has always cared more about equal opportunity than about equal results,” says Sawhill (1999, p. 4). This is central to the American belief system. “Socialism has never taken root in American soil,” but how much inequality is too much? Sawhill considers three hypothetical societies: • A meritocracy where society members are regarded for hard work and talent regardless of who they are; • One in which citizens are rewarded by pure “luck,” – a lottery; and • One based purely on the family of birth with no possibility of mobility. Most Americans prefer and believe in the meritocracy model, she says, with even those on the bottom rung, believing that their children will do better than they, but “… for the last 25 years, the top one-fifth … has been improving their prospects while the other 80 percent has lagged behind” (Sawhill, 1999, p. 6). Inequality matters over time if it affects inequality in the next generation. “This raises the issue of equality of opportunity, or social mobility” (Neckerman & Torche, 2007, p. 339). Neckerman and Torche find conflicted research on measuring mobility in the United States. Family genes, income and good parenting give some children a head start, but education is an equalizer. Those at the bottom can move up with skills and experience, with the addition of more earners to the family, or better jobs; those at the top can move down as result of a layoff, divorce, or business failure. “Every year, about 25 percent or 30 percent of all adults move between income quintiles” (Sawhill, 1999, p. 9). In a surprising study on poverty and affluence, Rank and Hirschl (2001) estimate that 51.1 percent of all Americans will experience at least one year of their adult lives between the poverty line, and 51.0 percent will have a year of affluence, with only 20.1 percent of Americans avoiding the extremes. Their definition of affluence is the same as the U.S. Census Bureau; i.e., affluence is 10 times the poverty level. Poverty and affluence are life course events and race and education are “the fault lines that divide Americans into one group or the other” (p. 667). 42


Corcoran (1995) says that “[if] poverty were sufficiently intergenerational, this would violate the U. S. ideal of equal opportunity; i.e., that a young adult’s economic destination should not be predetermined by his or her social origins” (p. 237). Corcoran points out that studies show that schooling is a better predictor of occupation status than demographic backgrounds (p. 238). Income has also been seen as an equal educational opportunity ticket to an education and mobility into a different social class, but the greater the inequality the less fluid the mobility. The decline in economic mobility over the past few decades raises red flags for social scientists and politicians as “… The increase in social mobility and the decline in economic mobility …. Have affected prospects for the youngest generation” (Sawhill, 1999, p. 11).

Further Insights Measuring Income

Income is the most frequent attribute used to determine class status, but it is not the only one and is not necessarily the most relevant in our increasingly complex, post-industrial society. The hierarchical classification of society based on social and economic variables, is traditionally divided into upper, lower and middle classes, and may be further subdivided. The subdivisions are frequently determined by occupation. Household composition also has a considerable impact on measurements of income and resultant class scale. The population trends of the last thirty years, with more individuals living alone, smaller families, unmarried couples comprising a household and so on have challenged old definitions. The Federal government does not define class, but the U.S. Census Bureau does measure individual, family and household incomes and offers relevant reports for use by social scientists and public policy makers. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html). The Census Bureau defines a family as consisting of . . . two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit, while a household consists of all people who occupy a housing unit regardless of relationship . . . a household may consist of a person living alone or multiple unrelated individuals or even a multi-generational family living together. Defining Class

43

Aggregate Income & Gini Index

Although it does not define social classes, the Census Bureau does derive measures that track the distribution of and income inequality. The two more common of these are the shares of aggregate income received by households and what is called the “Gini index.” Aggregate income measurements simply rank households from lowest to highest which are then divided into equal groups, often by fives (quintiles). Data indicate that the share of aggregate household income “controlled by the lowest income quintile has decreased from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent in 1997, while the share to the highest quintile increased from 43.0 percent to 49.4.” (U.S. Census Bureau, “Historical”). The Gini index includes more detailed data into a formula to derive “a single statistic which summarizes the dispersion of the income shares across the whole income distribution.” It is the index of income concentration. Between 1969 and 1997, for example, the Gini index rose 17.4 percent to its 1997 level of .459. “The Gini index ranges from 0.0 when every family (household) has the same income, to 1.0, when one family (household) has all of the income. It is therefore, one way to measure how far a given income distribution is from equality” (U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income”). How do researchers at the U.S. Bureau of the Census account for the disparity of income inequality? Their reports affirm that . . . changes in the labor market and, to a certain extent, household composition affected the long-run increase in income inequality. Wage distribution has become considerably more unequal with workers at the top experiencing real wage gains and those at the bottom real wage losses: These changes reflect relative shifts in demand for labor differentiated on the basis of education and skill. At the same time, long-run changes in society’s living arrangements have taken place also tending to exacerbate household income differences … Nonmarried-couple households tend to have lower income and income that are less equally distributed than other types of households (partly because of the likelihood of fewer earners in them), changes in household composition have been associated with growing income inequality (U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income”). 44


How is Income Defined?

Income implies wages earned from one’s occupation, but it may also include earnings on accumulated assets, as well as what is called transferred income or government benefits, cash and noncash, which encompass Social Security benefits, public assistance allocations, and payments to veterans. Taxes, whether state, federal or payroll reduce household come, which may be counter-balanced by tax credits. The Census Bureau also issued a Current Population Report on “The Effect of Taxes and Transfer on Income and Poverty in the United States: 2005” in 2007, which accounted for those tax and transfer income variables. The report is at http:// www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-232.pdf.

Viewpoints Should Class be an Issue?

If sociologists no longer define class, the popular press continues to try. In a widely read series of articles published in 2005, the New York Times asked whether or not class matters (Scott & Leonhardt, 2005). The authors put forth a quintile class model stratified as lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class. Their formula for determining placement in each of the categories was based on four factors – income, education, occupation, and wealth. Professor Paul W. Kingston describes society as a ladder with rungs – each of which is equalized. He believes that those higher up the ladder have advantages, but doesn’t believe that they define class (cited in Scott & Leonhardt, 2005). His viewpoint conflicts with that of Michael Hout, professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, as class awareness receding as class has reorganized American society, and says, that just because there are a lot of rungs on the ladder doesn’t mean that the issue the situation is any better for those on the lower ones. He finds the “‘end of class’ discussions naïve and ironic, because we are at a time of booming inequality and massive reorganization of where we live and how we feel, even in the dynamics of our politics. Yet people say, ‘Well the era of class is over’ ” (cited in Scott & Leonhardt, 2005). Class is a non-issue when it is evident that those on the low end of the income strata are losing ground. What are the consequences of growing Defining Class

45

disparity in income in the United States and how should society address them? Neckerman and Torche (2007) highlight research by Evans et al. (2004) that delineates the typology of inequality effects: • Mechanical: if individual economic status is associated with a given outcome, then an increase in economic inequality will lead to an increase in inequality of outcome; i.e., if income predicts happiness than income inequality should lead to a rise in disparities in happiness; • Relational Effect: relationship between economic status and a given outcome changes; i.e., if association between income and voting is strengthened, the electorate will tilt toward the affluent; • Functional: nonlinear relation of economic status and outcome; i.e., absolute increase in income creates larger improvement in health for the poor than for the rich; • Externality Effect: contextual; living in high equality may intensify feelings of relative deprivation among the lowincome, leading to higher levels of violent crime (p. 341). There is perpetual debate in this country about tax levels and what proportion of federal and state funds are to be allocated to address pressing social needs. Americans are generous, but have always been reluctant and cautious about increasing social welfare benefits for many reasons, not the least of which are deeply held beliefs about placing responsibility on the individual who should have an opportunity to achieve the American dream. It is acknowledged that social welfare funding in the United States is low compared to that of most other western, traditionally “industrialized” countries. The struggle to raise the minimum wage is a case in point in how difficult it is to attempt to reduce the “inequality gap” with public policy. In his paper on the minimum wage and income inequality, Volscho (2005) studied minimum wages over a forty year period to test his belief that states with higher minimum wages have improved levels of family inequality. His findings confirmed the hypothesis and he even derived calculated dollar figures to maximize the redistribution effect of the minimum wage.

46


Extended income disparity has implications beyond where one fits in the social strata. Swanstrom and others (2002) studied the spatial segregation of income groups in metropolitan areas and theorized that it “promotes rising economic inequality and amplifies its effects in ways that do not show up in the income statistics” (p. 350). The poor may be always with us, but they still need to be integrated in economic, social and political forums – and communities.

Bibliography Clark, T., & Lipset, S. (1991). Are social classes dying? International Sociology, 6(4), 397410. Cetron, M., Rocha, W., & Lucken, R. (1988). One giant middle class. Futurist, 22(5), 10-11. Corcoran, M. (1995). Rags to rags: poverty and mobility in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 237-267. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=sih&AN=9509242608&site=ehost-live Gilbert, D. (2008). The American class structure in an age of growing inequality. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press. Kenworthy, L. (2007). Inequality and sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(5), 584602. Kim, C., & Sakamoto, A. (2008). The rise of intra-occupational wage inequality in the United States, 1983 to 2002. American Sociological Review, 73(1), 129-157. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=28630408&site=ehost-live Neckerman, K., & Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 335-357. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=sih&AN=26613926&site=ehost-live Rank, M., & Hirschl, T. (2001, December). Rags or riches? Estimating the probabilities of poverty and affluence across the adult American life span. Social Science Quarterly, 82(4), 651. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=66 33775&site=ehost-live Sawhill, I. (1999, Spring). Still the land of opportunity? Public Interest. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1854341&site=ehost-live Scott, J. & Leonhardt, D. (2005, May 15). Class in America: Shadowy lines that still divide. New York Times. 1. Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http:// www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?_ r=1&scp=1&sq=Does%20Class%20Still%20Matter?&st=cse&oref=slogin Defining Class

47

Swanstrom, T., Dreier, P., & Mollenkopf, J. (2002). Economic inequality and public policy: the power of place. City & Community, 1(4), 349-372. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10454583&site=ehost-live U.S. Census Bureau. The changing shape of the nation’s income distribution, 1947-1998. Website viewed September 12, 2008.http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/ incineq/p60204.html U.S. Census Bureau. The effect of taxes and transfer on income and poverty in the United States: 2005. Current Population Report. Website viewed September 20, 2008. http:// www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-232.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau. Historical income tables – households. Website viewed September 13, 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h02ar.html U.S. Census Bureau. Income. Website viewed September 20, 2008. http://www.census. gov/hhes/www/income/income.html U. S. Census Bureau. Income inequality (1947-1998). Website viewed September 20, 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/p60204txt.html Weinberg, D. H. (1996). Current population reports: A brief look at postwar U.S. income inequality. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from U.S. Census Bureau, Household Economic Studies.http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/p60-191.pdf Volscho, T. W. (2005). Minimum wages and income inequality in the American States, 1960-2000. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 23, 343-368.

Suggested Reading Grusky, D., & Sørensen, J. (1998). Can class analysis be salvaged? American Journal of Sociology, 103(5), 1187. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=418262&site=ehost-live Hess, B. B. (2001). Income distribution in the United States. In Encyclopedia of Sociology. 2nd ed. (Vol. 4). 1278-1290. New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Hogan, R. (2005). Was Wright wrong? High-class jobs and the professional earnings advantage. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3), 645-663. Retrieved September 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17780488&site=ehost-live McMurrer, D. P. & Sawhill, I. V. (1998). Getting ahead: economic and social mobility in America. Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute Press. Pulaski, J. (1993). The dying of class or Marxist class theory? International Sociology, 8(3), 279-292. Terwey, M. (1987). Class position and income inequality. International Journal of Sociology, 17(1/2), 119. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX

48


with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=102008 01&site=ehost-live Wang, Y., & Yamaguchi, K. (2002). Class identification of married employed women and men in America. American Journal of Sociology, 108(2), 440-475. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Gender Studies. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=fmh&AN=FMH4056453379&site=ehost-live Wright, E. O. (1979). Class structure and income determination. New York: Academic Press. Wright, E. O. (1996). The continuing relevance of class analysis--comments. Theory & Society, 25(5), 693-716. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=9708135530&site=ehost-live Wynn, T. (2003, August 16). Class in the Postindustrial Era: Comparing the attainment and exploitative value of class resources in the Industrial and Postindustrial United States. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, Retrieved September 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15992&site= ehost-live.

Defining Class

49

Assessing Class: Education Sharon Link & Alexandra Howson

Overview Industrial societies are divided into social classes that affect people’s economic and social preferences. Members of social classes have different consumption patterns, political preferences, moral attitudes, social behavior, lifestyle and education experiences and outcomes (Güvali, Need & Graff, 2007). The study of social class—structurally produced economic hierarchies—and how to best measure it is a central theme in sociology and the foundation for scholarship on poverty, inequality and stratification. Stratification—a structured hierarchy characterized by inequalities between social groups—in the United States and around the world is a consequence of the unequal distribution of rewards. Education plays a significant role in one’s social position, that is, to a person’s place in the social hierarchy (Lindemann, 2007, p. 54) and ultimately in stratification. On the one hand, education is seen not only as enabling people to develop their individual potential, but is also viewed as a mechanism for creating equality. Indeed, a notion prevails that the United States is the “ultimate classless society” (Stephen, 2007, p. 28). In part, this view stems from a widespread belief that access to education provides equality of opportunity and contributes directly to social mobility (that is, to one’s ability to move upwardly from one’s social class of origin). Since the midtwentieth century, social mobility has been a feature of Europe and North 50


American societies (Ianelli and Paterson, 2005), as more people enter professional occupations. Social and economic indicators such as income and occupation are typically used to measure social class, and education plays a significant role in determining one’s employability, employment, and income (Danziger & Reed, 1999). Education therefore plays a crucial role in the likelihood of people being able to improve their social class location by moving into higher occupational classes. Moreover, some researchers suggest that education can help to reduce racial and gender inequities and expand citizenship (Cremin, 1988; Gutmann, 1987; Kluger, 1975; Spring, 2000; Tyack, 1974). However, empirical research suggests that the contemporary US “is more stratified politically, economically and socially than ever before” (Stephen, 2007, p. 28), which suggests that education is not providing the opportunities for social mobility that perhaps it once did. Indeed, there is evidence that education—the relationships, material resources, environments and processes associated with delivering and experiencing education—may perpetuate social inequalities. Perspectives on Education: Consensus & Conflict

Education is seen as having different functions. Within a consensus or functionalist perspective, associated with the work of Talcott Parsons, education is seen to have a role in socialization; it contributes to ensuring that children are ‘trained’ to comply with the demands of the social system. Indeed, for many people, education exists to ensure that individuals learn how to be good citizens and thereby maintain an efficient, stable social order. Consequently this view of education emphasizes merit, ability and effort and the needs of society or the economy. Such a view also expresses in the idea that education is about individual opportunity (Raines & McAdams, 2006). In contrast, conflict approaches to education argue that the education system perpetuates existing social divisions. For instance, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (1976) argued that education was an instrument of the state and as such helped to perpetuate capitalism by initiating children into the expectations of the capitalist system, such as the demand for timediscipline.

Defining Class

51

Contemporary Issues

Nonetheless, politicians, journalists and many sectors of the public view education as both the most important solution to inequality and the most important problem for public policy. Education plays a critical role in many aspects of social opportunity: it shapes attitudes, forms political preferences, and plays a key role in determining one’s lifestyle (Baer & Lambert, 1982). It also plays a vital role in forming one’s political values, impacts one’s participation in politics, and ultimately shapes one’s political influence (Verba, 2001). And it is seen as a social leveler that can “turn immigrants into Americans, transform children into responsible citizens, and create and maintain democracy” (Hochschild, 2003, p. 822). To be sure, as Hochschild (2003) notes, there have been advances in public education in the last three decades (e.g. dropout rates are down, achievement is up and resources are more equitably distributed). However, there are stark differences between socioeconomic and racial groups in levels of achievement and dropout rates; urban schools are particularly vulnerable to these differences; and within higher education, which is increasingly important in order for adults to find stable employment and gain momentum within the labor market, there are clear class differences in terms of access, retention and attainment. While there is some consensus that education plays a role in providing equality of opportunity, there is considerable debate about whether education contributes to equality of outcomes.

Further Insights Building on the work of James Coleman (e.g. 1987), research suggests that not only do social class and family background have a major impact on education experience and academic performance, but also, education has a major role in perpetuating social inequalities. Schools demonstrate higher patterns of inequality than other social institutions (Gibbons & Telhaj, 2007) and there is growing evidence that what happens inside the education environment is significant, such as the quality and degree of parent-teacher interaction; the quality of the curriculum; and the location of the school (urban or non-urban). Moreover, social disparities linked to social class

52


continue into higher education, where those who graduate with a fouryear degree are more likely to be in higher income groups and come from families with at least some personal wealth (Raines & McAdam, 2006). Socioeconomic Status, School Readiness & Parental Involvement

Parental involvement in their children’s education is increasingly a focus of the national conversation about education in the US. For instance, the National Coalition for Parental Involvement in Education (NCPIE) cites research that indicates children attain higher grades and are more likely to enter and graduate from higher education if their parents are involved in their education (www.ncpie.org). However, there are differences in levels and kinds of parental involvement. White, middle class parents tend to be more involved and better informed about how to support their children (Lareau, 1987). The higher levels of involvement that are associated with parents of middle class may be a consequence of more flexible work schedules that are enjoyed by the middle and upper classes, allowing more time for contact and teacher interactions. Additionally, middle class parents may be more likely to be informed about what’s going on in school because they occupy deeply entrenched social networks through which such information is circulated and exchanged. Researchers have found that socioeconomic status has a bearing on how ready children are for school. For instance, Crnic and Lamberty (1994) argue that families with high socioeconomic status may have more success in preparing their children for school because they typically have access to a wide range of resources to promote and support young children’s development, such as books and toys to encourage learning activities at home. Also, such families may have easier access to information about their children’s health, as well as social, emotional, and cognitive development. In addition, families with high socioeconomic status often seek out information to help them better prepare their young children for school. In contrast, the challenge of preparing children for school can be formidable for families in poverty (Ramey & Ramey, 1994). Consequently, they argue, children from families with low socioeconomic status are at greater risk of entering kindergarten unprepared than their peers from families with median or high socioeconomic status.

Defining Class

53

Concomitantly, in education settings that service impoverished students, teachers may play a significant role in mediating the effects of poverty in classrooms, by creating classrooms and interactions where students are valued and treated with respect, within a framework of positive relationships that can support academic achievement, performance, and motivation (San Antonio, 2008, p. 74). Urban Schools

Inner city schools are faced with significant problems that perpetuate class inequalities in educational attainment (Olson, 1998) by increasing dropout rates and achievement levels. Urban schools tend to have much higher rates of failure than non-urban schools (Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1998) for a number of reasons. First, urban schools tend to have a higher number of students than non-urban schools and class sizes are also larger (Education Week, 1998). This creates a significant teaching challenge. Second, in urban schools, teachers are less likely to possess appropriate certification or to be “highly qualified” in their subject area. Third, technical problems persist—such as insufficient buildings and classrooms—and technology deficits (Education Week, 1998, p. 21; General Accounting Office, 1995) create teaching environments that are inadequate (Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Mayshark, 1996). As a result of these multiple issues, schools in urban environments experience higher rates of turmoil, violence, and anxiety regarding safety (Education Week, 1998, pp. 18–19); urban student populations underachieve in literacy (Levine, Cooper, & Hilliard, 2000); and urban districts are faced with high dropout rates (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Urban schools are also more likely to experience a high turnover rate of new teachers, which is disruptive and contributes to poor education outcomes. In these environments, teachers are more likely to quit, citing difficult state certification and licensure requirements as a reason (Darling-Hammond, 2001; Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001). Ultimately, teacher turnover disrupts the ability to develop a culture of community and learning (Recruiting New Teachers, 2000). Moreover, “teachers in highpoverty or urban schools are also more likely to report inadequate teaching resources” (Education Week, 1998, p. 21). Therefore, children from socially and economically impoverished backgrounds, who need the most support from the most qualified and dedicated personnel, are shortchanged. For 54


instance, in Raleigh, in North Carolina, a busing policy has been instituted whereby children from disadvantaged neighborhoods are bused to middle class schools. Results show that the test scores of the children who are bused have risen sharply, while those of the resident children have remained static (Raines & McAdam, 2006). Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that educating children with diverse needs alongside more privileged peers, or using the same methodologies as those that are used for the more privileged ultimately improves children’s performance and longterm success (Kahlenberg, 2000; Rubinowitz & Rosenbaum, 2000).

Viewpoints Ethnic Background

While social class contributes to education outcomes and experiences, race and ethnicity also contribute to education inequality. For instance, in many schools that utilize ability grouping to make educational programming decisions, “students from low-income backgrounds and students of color are disproportionately left out of advanced classes” (San Antonio, 2008, p. 76). In addition, poor students, who are most often children of color, tend to be taught by ineffective teachers (e.g. Darling-Hammond, 2000) and schools facing the highest levels of poverty and diversity tend to have twice the number of new teachers in comparison with the “best off and Whitest schools” (Hochschild, 2003, p. 829). Tracking

Tracking, or streaming, may also perpetuate social inequalities within education; that is, “the separation of students into hierarchical learning groups based on perceived or measured ability” (Biafora & Ansalone, 2008, p. 588). Although many educators argue that learning should be tailored to a child’s needs (Ellis, 2007), tracking separates students into hierarchical groups based on their perceived or tested ability on the assumption that “it can offer a curriculum commensurate with students’ current abilities thereby allowing each student to reach his/her potential at his/her own pace” (Biafora & Ansalone, 2008, p. 588). Proponents of tracking view it as a tool used to facilitate teaching and learning in accordance with perceived student ability and argue that

Defining Class

55

students learn more quickly and efficiently in groups with similar others. Moreover, some would argue that tracking allows teachers to meet the needs of a differentiated student population by challenging highly capable students, and at the same time offering remedial instruction to lower achieving students. However, opponents of tracking argue that the selection process “may have less to do with [academic] ability than with other issues such as neatness and dress, politeness, obedience to authority, punctuality, and following directions (Biafora & Ansalone, 2008, p. 591)—arguably markers of social class. Such data suggests the importance of social labels in creating social distinctions that have implications for perpetuating social inequalities. For instance, studies in the 1980s suggested that even where tracking existed in schools in informal ways, labels developed to describe students in ‘lowachieving’ groups. These students subsequently received poorer quality teaching and had fewer learning resources, such as books, available to them (Oakes, 1985). Finally, there is some evidence that tracking may exacerbate stratification in racial terms, by separating groups into racially diverse groups that include African-Americans and Latino students. The Digital Divide

In order to compete in a global economy, it has become abundantly clear that technology, the ability to negotiate the Internet, and the distribution of information are all instrumental. Internet access remains one of the main considerations in separating the middle class from the impoverished. Access to technology provides another indicator of social inequality within education and is becoming increasingly important in debates about virtual learning, access to which is associated with economic affluence. Those who experience disadvantage (especially women and people of color) are less likely to have access to the Internet or computers, and indeed may be “socialized away from recognizing computer-related interests, fields of study, and professions as attainable or desirable” (Clark & Gorski, 2002, p. 32). As a 1997 government report on computer access at school notes, a ratio of 4 or 5 students to one computer is the optimal ratio; yet in the poorest schools, the ratio is about 9 students to one computer. A similar disparity exists in relation to Internet access within schools and the same report found that in schools with large amounts of students participating in free 56


or reduced price lunch programs, fewer classrooms had Internet access (Clark & Gorski, 2002). Therefore, in order to reduce inequalities in digital capital, and enable students from the poorest backgrounds to develop digital and information technology skills, there needs to be extensive investment in the technology infrastructure of education environments. Clark and Gorski (2002) suggest that effective use of and opportunities to develop skills to use the Internet should be supported through the integration and availability of “highcapacity hardware, high-speed access lines, and high-capability wiring, whether in a home, a school, or an entire community” (Clark & Gorski, 2002, p. 29). Current technological infrastructure in terms of digital equity demonstrates that a social class system is being promoted that favors the middle class and diminishes access by lower class students to equal opportunities to interact with technology. Appropriate mandated policies that ensure legislation and funding for continued technology access are highly recommended (Clark & Gorski, 2002). Conclusion

Problems in the education system ultimately manifest as societal problems. Jenkins (1994) reported that 80% of the individuals living in the United States will remain in the same socioeconomic class income bracket into which they were born, while 2% will move up, and 18% will fall below. Moreover, academic scores between the highest and lowest achieving students have either remained static or continued to increase; disparities between highest and lowest achieving students are especially evident students of color and Caucasian students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). These differences in educational and academic outcomes may be attributed both to deeply embedded inequalities in the education system and to the effects of social on learning experiences. Caucasian and middle class students are offered educational advantages and opportunities that are not distributed equally (Hochschild, 2003) and that vary between schools and within districts. Moreover, poorly trained teachers, curricula that may lack relevance, and compromised accountability (Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Ingersoll, 2002) are all manifestations of segregation and stratification. Schools impacted by low socio-economic challenges face a myriad of problems that place students at risk, which ultimately affects the general society.

Defining Class

57

White (1999), quoted the president of the Los Angeles teacher’s union as saying that, in impoverished schools, “We have kids without teachers, teachers without classrooms, and a district without a clue. The system is broken. Students and teachers are a forgotten priority here” (cited in Hochschild, 2003, p. 825). Therefore, in order to ameliorate the shortcomings faced by individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds, society needs to construct policy and structural changes to overcome social and educational inequities (Garbarino, 1995).

Bibliography Argys, L., Rees, D., & Brewer, D. (1996). Detracking America’s schools: Equity at zero cost? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(4), 623–645. Baer, D.E. & Lambert, R.D. (1982). Education and support for dominant ideology. Canadian Review of London. Sociology, 19, 173–195. Biafora, F. & Ansalone, G. (2008). Perceptions and attitudes of school principals towards school tracking: Structural considerations of personal beliefs. Education, 128(4), 588 – 602. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3270899 2&site=ehost-live Clark, C. & Gorski, P. (2002). Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on socioeconomic class background. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(3), 25 – 36. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6895028&site=ehost-live Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16, 6. Cremin, L. (1988). American education: The metropolitan experience, 1876–1980. New York: Harper-Collins. Crnic, K., & Lamberty G. (1994). Reconsidering school readiness: Conceptual and applied perspectives. Early Education and Development, 5(2), 99-105. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1 Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57–77. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1998). The State DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Education Week. (1998). Quality counts ‘98: The urban challenge, 17(17). Washington, DC: Education Week and Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/archives/QC98full.pdf

58


Ellis, C. R. (2007). No child left behind – A critical analysis. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 9(1/2), 221 – 233. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=33309228&site=ehost-live Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. San Francisco: JosseyBass. General Accounting Office. (1995). School facilities:America’s schools not designed or equipped for 21st century (GAO/HEHS-95-95). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. Gibbons, S. & Telhaj, S. (2007). Are school drifting apart? Intake stratification in English secondary schools. Urban Studies, 44(7), 1281 – 1305. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25508651&site=ehost-live Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Güveli, A., Need, A., & Graff, N. (2007). Socio-political, cultural and economic preferences and behaviour of the social and cultural specialists and the technocrats. Social class or education? Social Indicators Research, 81(3), 597 – 631. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24411017&site=ehost-live Hochschild, J. L. (2003). Social class in public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 821 – 840. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1135129 7&site=ehost-live Hochschild, J., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New York: Oxford University Press. Iannelli, C. and Paterson, L. (2004). Social Mobility in Scotland since the Middle of the Twentieth Century.Working Paper 1, Edinburgh: Centre for Education and Sociology, University of Edinburgh. Available at: www.ces.ed.ac.uk/PDF%20Files/Brief033.pdf. Accessed 27th January, 2009. Ingersoll, R. (2002). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Jenkins, M. (1994). Fear of the “gangsta”: Policy responses to gang activity in the city of Boston. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. Kahlenberg, R. (2000). All together now: The case for the economic integration of the public schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2). Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13008171&site=ehost-live Defining Class

59

Levine, D.U., Cooper, E.J., & Hilliard, A., III. (2000). National Urban Alliance professional development model for improving achievement in the context of effective schools research. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 305–322. Lucas, S. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Mayshark, J. F. (1996). Study: Bad teachers put kids at disadvantage. At all ability levels, students suffer when they get a relatively ineffective teacher and make big gains with a more effective on. The Atlanta Journal/Atlanta Constitution, The South. Mickelson, R., & Heath, D. (1999). The effects of segregation on African American high school seniors’ academic achievement. Journal of Negro Education, 68(4), 566–586. National Coalition for Parental Involvement in Education. (n.d.). Building family-school partnerships that work. Available at: http://www.ncpie.org. Accessed 27th January, 2009. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Olson, L. (1998). Failing schools challenge accountability goals. Education Week, 1, 14. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=416707&site=eho st-live Raines, J. & McAdams, C.B. (2006). College and social class: The broken promise of America. Cross Currents. Spring, 46-57. Available at; http://www.crosscurrents.org/ Rainesspring2006.htm. Accessed 27thJanuary, 2009. Ramey, S.L., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). The transition to school: Why the first few years matter for a lifetime. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(3), 194-198. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9411162178&site=ehost-live Rubinowitz, L., & Rosenbaum, J. (2000). Crossing the class and color lines: From public housing to white suburbia. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. San Antonio, D. M. (2008). Understanding students’ strengths and struggles. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 74 – 79. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=32042603&site=ehost-live Spring, J. (2000). The American school 1642–2000. New York: WCB/McGraw-Hill. Stephen, A. (2007). Born equal? New Statesman, 137(4857), 28 – 31. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26150864&site=ehost-live The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the Great City Schools. (2000). Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers. Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 60


Verba, S. (2001). Political equality: What is it? Why do we want it? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Government. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, K. (1999). L.A. Board names CEO with broad powers. Education Week, 3.

Suggested Reading Freire, P. (1990). Education for critical consciousness. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown. Rank, M. R. (2004). One nation, underprivileged. Why American poverty affects us all. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Reed, D. (2001). On equal terms: The constitutional politics of educational opportunity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Defining Class

61

The Upper Class Jeff Klassen & Jeremy Baker

Overview Sociologist’s views on how to define the upper class differ, but most agree that they represent between 1% and 5% of the wealthiest households in the United States. Until the 1980s, the wealthy and the upper-middle class could be distinguished by their respective sources of income: the wealthy often received their wealth from investments and/or inheritances, whereas the upper-middle class earned a salary. Both returns on investments and salary levels among the wealthy have increased significantly in recent years. Investment remains a key source of wealth, but in the US today some salaried workers—particularly executive officers and hedgefund investment managers—can earn million-dollar, and in the latter case, even billion-dollar salaries (Frank, 2007). Despite changes in American tax policies that benefit the upper-class, the wealthy are paying a higher total dollar-amount in taxes than they were twenty or thirty years ago because they are making substantially more pre-tax income (Gross, 2007). In contrast, though the upper-middle class pays a smaller dollar amount than the wealthy, a larger proportion of their earned income goes to taxes (Phillips, 2002, p. 132). Further Insights

It is estimated that since 1980 the number of millionaires in the US has doubled to more than 5 million, and the number of billionaires has in62


creased more than 20 fold to about 300 (Harvard Law Review, 2006; Carey, 2007). It is believed that in the technology sector, as many as 60 new millionaires emerged daily during the boom periods of the 1990s. According to IRS data, income from stocks increased from $75 billion annually to $446 billion annually between 1980 and 1998 (Phillips, 2002). The top 1% of earners have received more than half of the income gains in U.S. since 1980s, while the assets of the richest Americans as compiled in the Forbes 400 have more than tripled (Phillips, 2002) Other, indirect measurements also indicate that the upper class has been growing over the past decade. In the 1990s, there was a large increase in second-home mortgages, a new record level for real estate sales over $3 million, a high level of sales of homes that cost $10 million or more, and an 11% increase in the sales rates of luxury retailers (Bernasek, 2006). In 1998, the national per capita spending on luxuries was $30,000 (Harvard Law Review, 2006). It is believed that the majority of people in the US spent a fraction of this amount, and that a small minority spent a much greater portion of it. The “acceleration point” for lavish spending tends to appear within households with a net worth of about $10 million or more; below that level, spending and savings patterns are often much more cautious (Herring, 2004). In short, the post-1980 period has been the largest period of individual wealth creation and economic expansion in American history. Total net worth doubled to $42 trillion and stock values quadrupled while home values increased by 50% in the 1990s. At the same time, though, bankruptcy rates increased four fold. Personal income rates rose at only half the rate of consumer spending, and investment bankers identified substantial overconfidence in market performance and a correspondingly high level of expectation for returns on investments (Fitch, 2000). Only about 3% of the wealthy are celebrities, and about 10% of the wealthy are considered “old money” Old-wealth families started falling off the Forbes list of the most wealthy after the 1980s as they were replaced by those with far greater wealth. However, those older families have tended to at least double their net worths in the newly deregulated economic market (Phillips, 2002). The “new rich” are frequently lawyers, real estate developers, technology sector entrepreneurs, scientists who have successfully Defining Class

63

marketed their innovations, and small business owners who have taken advantage of private equity and venture capital to sell their businesses to larger ones (Uchitelle, 2007). Issues

While issues of class are not readily apparent in the consciousness of the American people, there are a number of pop-sociological studies of the lifestyles, behavioural patterns, and spending habits of the wealthy. These include studies of the impact of wealth on the behaviour of the ultra-rich, the way the rich actually live their lives behind closed doors, and the philanthropic activities of the wealthy. Anomie & Affluenza

The term anomie was first used by sociologists to describe the sense of normlessness felt by many people in modern society (Durkheim 1897). Durkheim contended that without social support structures, such as those found in small villages, certain religious communities, and close-knit families, individuals would loose their sense of how to behave in society. Contemporary theorists in the fields of sociology, psychology, and economics have taken the study of anomie to its logical conclusion in what they term affluenza. This condition is characterized by feelings of inadequacy and insecurity in the subject’s ability to attain the “American Dream.” Thus, traditional norms have been replaced by those of capitalist economics. This is most often manifested in lavish spending in an effort to “keep up with the Joneses.” Afflluenza affects members of the upper class most commonly by causing them to, despite their wealth, experience feelings of dissatisfaction and anxiety. Upper class affluenza is particularly noticeable among the suddenly wealthy (such as lottery winners), affluent adolescents, and those who inherit wealth. Lottery winners tend to revert to their former levels of happiness about two months after their windfalls (Levine, 2006b). They are likely to experience social or other adjustment problems about two years later due to, for example, a loss of motivation and the changes in lifestyle that accompany sudden wealth. Even more surprisingly, larger windfalls actually increase the winners’ likelihood suffering from these problems. This situation, in which perceived self-worth does not correspond with

64


financial worth, is termed “sudden wealth syndrome.” Sudden wealth gained through stock market investments or an entrepreneurial endeavour can cause similar problems. Madeline Levine (2006a; 2006b) found that upper class affluenza also affects the children of the wealthy. Counselling affluent adolescents, she found that they tended to experience higher levels of anxiety and depression and were more prone to eating disorders and substance abuse than adolescents in the general population and even adolescents in low income households. For instance, she found that rate of depression among affluent female adolescent was twenty-two percent, three times the national rate for adolescent females (Levine, 2006b). Self-mutilation, or “cutting,” was also more prevalent in this group than in the general population. According to Levine, though they were aware of their privileged position, these adolescents derived no satisfaction from it. They also generally lacked creativity, spontaneity, enthusiasm, and even the ability to feel pleasure; generally, they were unable to provide a reason for their condition (Levine, 2006a). Levine attributed their problems to parental over-involvement, arguing that because these adolescents’ parents could and did intervene in their children’s minor, everyday problems, the adolescents did not develop the resources and self-reliance to solve their problems themselves. As a result, Levine said, these adolescents developed a “false self”: they conformed to family and community standards rather than developed an individual identity through a trial-and-error process, introspection, or defiance of parental authority. As a result, their identity tended to become linked with grades and possessions, such as clothes and electronics, while independence, character, and “psychological resources” stagnated (Levine, 2006b). Easterlin’s Paradox

Research has shown that while in developed nations and wealthy clearly report higher levels of personal satisfaction than the poor, increased national wealth tends not to result in greater overall levels of happiness. This circumstance is known as Easterlin’s Paradox (Wolfers, 2008). It states that having wealth above the sustenance level tends not to lead to substantially greater happiness. Moreover, “hedonistic adaptation” to a higher level of comfort requires a person to maintain high level of comfort in order to prevent a decline in happiness (Frey & Stutzer, 2002; Levine, 2006b). An earlier version of Easterlin’s Paradox was developed by econoDefining Class

65

mist Tibor Scitovsky, who argued that human consumption ought to be measured qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Distinguishing between “joyless” consumption and “joyful” consumption, he claimed that we can adapt to some types of consumption, making the pleasure we derive from them fade, but not other types of consumption, which are continually pleasurable. Thus, spending money on items that promote beauty, novelty, or variety is more likely to result in happiness than spending on material comfort. Scitovsky was an early proponent of the idea that wealth can result in an overall loss of contentment. Scitovsky contended that luxurious material consumption causes a decline in the satisfaction one derives from occasional and partial gratifications of the desire for material comfort. An increase in income also tends to result in an increase of expectations, and those expectations are better met through more intellectually or emotionally engaging forms of consumption (Scitovsky, 1992 [1976]; Frey & Stutzer, 2002). In this regard, Scitovsky seems to have anticipated the immergence of affluenza in contemporary society. Subsequent studies have tended to confirm the Scitovsky’s theory. Cross-national studies have shown that although economic productivity in Ireland is significantly lower than in it is Germany or Japan, indicators of personal happiness are significantly higher in Ireland than in German or Japan (Levine, 2006b). Philanthropy

Contrary to what may be assumed upon initial consideration of the affluenza phenomenon, the upper class do not simply spend their resources on themselves. Members of the upper class often turned to philanthropy to augment their professional accomplishments or give back to their communities. The Rockefeller Foundation, for instance, has supported research on healthcare, urbanization, agriculture, and the environment since 1913. Similarly, many philanthropic organizations have been founded to combat poverty and the spread of AIDS, and still other members of the affluent choose to donate to their alma maters (Uchitelle, 2007). Warren E. Buffett is perhaps the most famous living philanthropist today. In 2006, the billionaire-investor announced that he would donate $42 billion to philanthropic causes. And though his giving exceeds that of others, Buffet is by no means alone: according to Slate, in 2006 the 60 largest donations aside from Buffet’s totalled roughly $7 billion (Goolsbee, 2007).

66


Ethnographic Studies of the Upper Class

Ethnographic studies of the upper class have been relatively uncommon due to the highly private nature of elite society. Generally, ethnographic studies intended to provide context-specific information about cultural behavior have primarily involved studies of poverty-related groups. However, Case (1994) sought to test the conclusions of the relatively few ethnographic studies of the American upper class. Her study of New York City’s Jockey Club, though somewhat limited, confirmed earlier findings that members of the upper class are generally affable and accessible to researchers, though it also noted that upper class society is distinctly hierarchical in social, as distinguished from strictly institutional, terms (Domhoff, 1974; Domhoff, 1975; Case, 1994). This conclusion seems to suggest that multiple hierarchies exist within organizations, rather merely across different institutions. New York City’s Jockey Club is a social organization that was initially organized around the goal of preserving the integrity of horse racing. Today, it is largely made up of members of the business elite. The club’s members’ involvement in horse racing has become less common than their participation in educational, medical, financial, charitable, and cultural organizations. However, their meetings still usually occur at race tracks. Membership usually lasts for life and is based on hereditary involvement. Nomination from a club member and the absence of dissent from any member are required for admission (Case, 1994). Although Case emphasized that many members of the Jockey Club were approachable, accommodating, and charming over the long-term interviewing process, she added that, as a non-elite scholar, she felt like a distinct outsider while explaining the study and collecting information. Mutual respect and deference, however, appeared to be the key to her success, and indeed the characteristic traits of her subjects (Case, 1994). Though the club’s chairman declined to participate in the study, Case did succeed in interviewing 20 of the club’s 99 members. Half were over the age of 70, and half were considered to be “old money.” Most owned their own business. Throughout the study, all of the participants seemed to feel obliged to respond politely to any inquiry, and Case concluded that this trait is nearly codified in upperclass society. Further, she found that, within the culture, argumentativeness is impermissible, and deference to age and the male class is expected, Defining Class

67

although the latter form of deference appears to be weakening somewhat. However, criticizing club rules was not uncommon among the participants (Case, 1994). Case (1994) concluded that though it may be true that the upper-class resists interaction with other classes, this resistance can be overcome through patience and good manners. She also found that there were also hierarchical cliques within the club. This finding confirms the conclusions of earlier studies: that the upper class is primarily organized not around institutions but rather around social networks and kinship (Case, 1994).

Viewpoints Functionalism

American sociologists first set out to understand issues of class in the early 1900s. During this period sociology was dominated by a perspective known as functionalism, which contends that all aspects of society exist for a reason. Thus, schools, businesses, families, religious organizations, and socio-economic classes all exist for socially functional reasons. From this perspective, certain individuals are rich and powerful because they have special qualities that make them better able to govern society and others are poor so that the less desirable jobs will be done. European scholars of the same period took a very different approach to understanding issues of class dynamics. They most often adopted a perspective known as “conflict theory” which states that the history of society has been dictated by conflict between the powerful and the powerless. From this perspective, the upper class are most likely to pursue social agendas that will maintain the status quo and, thus, their power and prestige in society. The social tensions in the US during the 1960s caused major theoretical shifts in sociology. Functionalism fell out of favour with many sociologists, and those who remained loyal to the paradigm were forced to change many of their notions. Many sociologists during this period, especially those studying class, shifted from the functionalist perspective to the social conflict perspective. Most studies of class after 1960 have been conducted

68


by conflict theorists. This has resulted in the majority of contemporary sociological studies of class having a distinctly anti-upper class feel. C. W. Mills & The Power Elite

The sociologist C. W. Mills provided perhaps one of the most radical critiques of the upper class with his 1956 book The Power Elite. In it, Mills argued that the business elite essentially controls government at both the national and local levels and, as such, makes important decisions for the nation. Further, he argued that the “meritocracy” is an illusion and that multiple social and political deterministic forces create the elite rather than vice versa (Domhoff, 2007). Mills’ critics have argued that his claims are often exaggerated or even conspiratorial at times, but he has nevertheless had an enormous influence on power structure research. The Power Elite is often identified as the first account of the “structure and distribution of power” in the U.S. in the “postideological” and postmodern era (Summers, 2006, ¶4). In contrast to the Marxists of his time, Mills argued that power resides in organizations as social entities rather than in individuals or in the ownership of private property (Domhoff, 2007; Mills, 1956). Kevin Phillips’ more recent Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (2002) has extended Mills’ work (Summers, 2006). But whereas Mills argued that the growth in power of the business elite, the government, and the military was constant, Phillips has claimed that plutocracy goes through cyclical advances and declines. A probable explanation of Mills’ view is that he died in 1962, before the civil rights movement, and that the power of the elite had grown substantially during his relatively short life (Summers, 2006). Philips, in contrast, takes in the history of the Republican Party and points out that, during certain periods of time, it favoured certain anti-plutocratic measures (Phillips, 2002, p. xvii). He also highlights certain elite politicians like Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt who have acted against the interests of their own class by enacting anti-plutocratic legislation such as the antitrust measures of the 1900s and the New Deal of the 1930s. However, in other areas, Phillips follows in Mills’ footsteps. Like Mills, he has argued that laissez-faire capitalism, the favored doctrine of the business elite, is not a sound economic policy and that a strict governmental system of policy intervention or support is necessary to maintain any complex economic market (p. 93). Defining Class

69

Dumhoff (2006) has taken a somewhat different view, arguing that while Mills’ account the business elite’s influence on the political process is still accurate today, Mills overestimated the power of the military elite by portraying it as comparable to that of the business elite. He has also claimed that Mills under-emphasized or ignored other important trends such as the efforts of white-dominated universities and Northern churches in promoting the civil rights of non-whites and women; the degree to which the media forms public opinion; and the conflicts between unions and civil rights groups. Dumhoff (2006) also claimed that Mills underestimated the influence of Congress and the Supreme Court in shaping public policy, and exaggerated the political apathy and disorganization of “mass society” (Summers, 2006). Also taking up C. W. Mills’ critique of the power elite, New York Times correspondent David Cay Johnston has written extensively on how the business elite manipulate government regulations for their own benefit at the expense of small-business owners and the general public. He cites Wal-Mart as a prime example, saying that the company urges local governments to lease it land until it can buy the land, pay for store construction through tax-free municipal bonds, and allow the company to use sales taxes to pay off the cost of the building. According to Johnston, this scheme hurts local economies by depriving schools and fire and police departments of tax dollars and by putting locally-owned stores at a disadvantage since they have to pay the market rate for their business expenses (Whitehead, 2008). The libertarian Cato Foundation’s finding that about $75 billion in government subsidies is provided to businesses annually would seem to support Johnston’s claims (Phillips, 2002, p. 149). However, like some of Mills’ colleagues, some of Johnston’s colleagues disagree. A fellow New York Times reviewer has criticized him for emphasizing the extremes of corporate profit-making and ignoring the contributions that corporate America makes to the nation’s economic well-being (Chait, 2008).

Bibliography Case, C. (1994). Entree to America’s traditional upper class. American Sociologist, 25(2), 46-59. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9412271421& site=ehost-live

70


Bernasek, A. (2006, August 6). The rich spend just like you and me. New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/business/ yourmoney/06view.html?fta=y Chait, J. (2008, February 3). Other people’s money. [Review of the book Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill)]. New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www. nytimes.com/2008/02/03/books/review/Chait-t.html?ref=review Davis, W. (1982). The rich: A study of the species. London: Sedgwick & Jackson. De Graaf, John, David Wann, and Thomas H. Naylor (2005). Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic. Berkeley: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Domhoff, G. W. (1974). The bohemian grove and other retreats. New York: Harper and Row. Domhoff, G. W. (2007). C. Wright Mills, Floyd Hunter, and 50 years of power structure research. Michigan Sociological Review, 21, 1-54. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=32478858&site=ehost-live Dumhoff, G. W. (1975). Social clubs, policy-planning groups, and corporations. Insurgent Sociologist, 75, 173-184. Durkheim, E. (1997). Suicide. (Ed. George Simpson, Trans. John A. Spaulding). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1897) Frank, R. H. (2007). Falling behind: How rising inequality harms the middle class. Berkeley: University of California Press. Frey, B.S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402-435. Goolsbee, A. (2007, March 1). For the super-rich, too much is never enough. New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/ business/01scene.html Gross, D. (2007, June 10). Income inequality, writ larger. New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E1D61F30F933A 25755C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Herring, H.B. (2004, February 22). Spending habits of the rich and the even richer. New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage. html?res=9C0CE4DE1F3DF931A15751C0A9629C8B63&fta=y Leonhardt, D. (2003, January 12). Defining the rich in the world’s wealthiest nation. New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage. html?res=9401E6D71631F931A25752C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Levine, M. (2006a, June 25). What price, privilege?: Has our overinvolved parenting style created a generation of kids with an impaired sense of self? If so, how can we work to get it back? SFGate / San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http:// www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/25/CMG5EJ6PF71.DTL Defining Class

71

Levine, M. (2006b). The price of privilege: How parental pressure and material advantage are creating a generation of disconnected and unhappy kids. New York HarperCollins. Mills, C.W. (1956) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Phillips, K. (2002). Wealth and democracy: A political history of the American rich. New York: Broadway Books. Scitovsky, T. (1992 [1976]). The joyless economy: The psychology of human satisfaction, (rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Summers, J. H. (2006, May 14). The deciders. New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/books/review/14summers.html Teachout, Z. (2008, May 15). The disappearing upper class. The Nation. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough/321232/the_disappearing_ upper_class Uchitelle, L. (2006, November 27). Gilded paychecks: Lure of great wealth affects career choices. New York Times. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from http://www.nytimes. com/2006/11/27/business/27richer.html?pagewanted=print Whitehead, J. W. (2008, July 17). An interview with David Cay Johnston. The Rutherford Institute. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from http://www.rutherford.org/Oldspeak/ articles/interviews/oldspeak-johnston.html Wolfers, J. (2008, April 22). The economics of happiness, part 4: Are rich people happier than poor people? New York Times. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http:// freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/the-economics-of-happiness-part-4-arerich-people-happier-than-poor-people/

Suggested Reading Allen, M. P., & Broyles, P. (1989). Class hegemony and political finance: Presidential campaign contributions of wealthy capitalist families. American Sociological Review, 54(2), 275-287. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15 471343&site=ehost-live Baltzell, E. D., & Schneiderman, H. G. (1988). Social class in the oval office. Society, 25(6), 42-49. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10867484&s ite=ehost-live Bianchi, M. (n.d.). A questioning economist: Tibor Scitovsky’s attempt to bring joy into economics. Department of Economics and Environment: University of Cassino. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from http://areadocenti.eco.unicas.it/mbianchi/JEP. Scitovsky.pdf Bradley, S. (2003). Volunteerism among elites. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 2003 Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 1-25. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15922998&site=ehost-live 72


Converse, P. E. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 578-599. Dwyer, R. (2006). How segregated are the affluent? The multiple dimensions of high status residential distance. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association , 2006 Annual Meeting, Montreal, 1. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=26642489&site=ehost-live Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 27(1), 35-48. Easterlin, R. A. (2000). The worldwide standard of living since 1800. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 7-26. Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. Economic Journal, 111(473), 465-484. Graham, L. O. (1999). Our kind of people: Inside America’s black upper class. New York: HarperCollins. Lees, L (November 2003). Super-gentrification: the case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies, 40 (Issue (12), 2487-2509. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =a9h&AN=11426222&site=ehost-live McKenzie,R. B., & Lee, D.R. (1998). Getting rich in America. Society, 36(1), 20-25. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebsco host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=1195577&site=ehost-live Mills, C. W. (1948). The new men of power: America’s labor leaders. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Offer, A. (2006). The challenge of affluence: Self-control and well-being in the United States and Britain since 1950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Defining Class

73

Assessing Class: Wealth Jennifer Christian & Alexandra Howson

Overview The study of social class—structurally produced economic hierarchies— and how to best measure it has been a central theme in sociology since the work of Marx in the nineteenth century and Weber in the early twentieth century. Social class is a key concept in sociology and the foundation for scholarship on poverty, stratification, and inequality. However, there is considerable debate about how best to measure class and how various measurements translate over time, place, and societies. Indeed, new methodologies, increasing statistical sophistication, and the availability of large multi-national and longitudinal data sets provide more resources for researchers who seek to uncover not only the best measures of social class, but how wealth, broadly defined, is interpreted and affects the lives of people. Many researchers argue that inequality is a function of class status and the transmission of wealth (e.g. Wilson, 1980). Wealth, broadly defined, refers to the money (e.g. income) or assets (such as property or stocks) held by an individual or a group. It is a key component in the measurement of social class and stratification, which are also impacted by power and prestige. Although power is a contested concept, it broadly refers to the probability of a person or group carrying out their will even when opposed by others (Giddens, 1997). Prestige is defined as the respect associated with a person or group according to their social status. 74


Measures of Class

Stratification in the United States and around the world is a consequence of the unequal distribution of rewards. There are several ways this inequality is measured. The three most common are power, prestige, and wealth. Each measure and definition contributes to our understanding of social stratification and has various consequences for understanding wealth inequality. Power

Power is often described as the ability a person has to get others to do things (Thio, 1992). Those who have access to greater resources (such as income, education, property) also tend to have more power, whether it is the home, industry or politics. Those with fewer resources tend to have less power. Three theoretical perspectives regarding the use of power as a measure of stratification and inequality are: • Marx’s theory of capitalism • Elite theories • Pluralist theories Marxist theories of power focus on the consequences of the social arrangements between those who own the means of production and those who do not. For instance, Marxists argue that the ruling class within capitalism holds not only economic power (because they own the means of production) but also political power, regardless of whether its members hold political office. The ruling class protects its interests through lobbying efforts and political contributions, and thus shapes the political debate in its favor. In addition, the ruling class holds social and cultural power by establishing hegemony, or, ‘manufacturing consent’ through manipulation of the mass media (Herman and Chomsky, 1988). Elite theories of power and its distribution, notably developed by C. Wright Mills (1956) argue that there is a limited few—mostly associated with the government, military and a few executives in large industries—that have shared values and goals which facilitate the preservation of power and thus preserve class divisions.

Defining Class

75

Pluralist theories of power put forth an alternative argument regarding the distribution of power and its relevance to stratification and inequality. Pluralist theories suggest that power is more widely dispersed and equally distributed between various social groups. Pluralists argue, however, that the power of the individual is most evident when people band together to create social change, for instance, via voter participation and social movements (Piven & Clowerd, 1977; Burstein & Linton, 2002; Brooks & Manza 2008; Christian 2008). Prestige

The notion that prestige can be an adequate measure of stratification and inequality is based on the idea that individual occupations have different levels of prestige, which result in pay differentials that form a status system. For instance, for well over 30 years the General Social Survey in the US has collected data from households and asked respondents to rate over 90 occupations based on their perception of prestige. Occupations that have consistently received the highest rankings include physicians, college professors, judges, and lawyers. The occupations with the lowest prestige scores are housekeepers, garbage collectors, and janitors. Research that has tested the relationship between occupational prestige and income has suggested, compellingly, that there is a positive association between occupational prestige and patterns of income inequality (Caston, 1985). That is, occupations that are ranked highly according to socioeconomic prestige are also associated with higher levels of income. However, this picture is complicated by status inconsistencies, where other socioeconomic factors, such as race and gender may result in diminished prestige for minorities and women (Gittleman & Wolff, 2004), and, concomitantly, lower social class. Wealth

The distribution of wealth is another means of measuring class. Wealth, broadly defined, refers to the money or assets (such as property or stocks) held by an individual or a group. Wealth is generally described in terms of accumulated items, including economic resources such as cash and investments, or the possession or control over property and other revenuegenerating industries. Wealth is important because of its relative value: it can be converted into cash and therefore represents a source of consump-

76


tion; it provides collateral to secure credit; and can be passed to future generations (Deere and Doss, 2006). While wealth is central to determining income variation between and within groups, it is distinct from income, which refers to the wages people earn (or income from other sources such as rented property or dividends).

Further Insights Measuring Wealth

It is difficult to acquire information about the distribution of wealth. In the US, data associated with wealth distribution is collected by the Survey of Consumer Finances, while in the UK, such data is aggregated from statistics collected by Social Trends surveys and HM Revenue and Customs. Despite data limitations, several reports and publications suggest that in the US, the wealthiest 1% of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation’s net worth; the top 10% of families owns over 71%; and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 1% (Federal Reserve Board, 2004). In the UK, the top 1% owns 21% of the nation’s wealth (National Statistics, 2006). Current data also not only offer compelling evidence that there is a growing gap between those who are among the richest 20% and those who are among the poorest 20%, but there is a disparity between the capacity of different racial and ethnic groups to transfer intergenerational wealth. This intergenerational disparity affects the capacity of these groups to enhance the next generation’s life chances by passing down accumulated wealth. The inequitable distribution of wealth is of central concern as it affects levels of poverty in the US, inequality, stratification, mobility patterns, education and employment opportunities. This is mostly due to the fact that the top fifth of the wealthiest people in the US has consistently held over two-thirds of the nation’s wealth. Those who have the least amount of wealth make up the largest portion of the population. The middle class has access to roughly 6% of the wealth and the poor and working class has access to less than 1% of the wealth (Thio, 1992). Variants in the Measure of Wealth

While data clearly show inequity in the distribution of wealth in American society, such data tells us little about how the gap in wealth matters to

Defining Class

77

the lives of people. For example, what does it mean to be wealthy and how does wealth relate to class? Are those who are wealthy part of the upper class or do the two concepts describe different mechanisms of stratification? Income alone is insufficient to determine class, given that there are many people who are upper class via means other than occupation, such as celebrities, lottery winners, and others who inherent money. Thus, some researchers have advocated for the inclusion of assets, such as ownership in a company, stocks, bonds, or other investments (Brady, 2003), in measures of class. However, with the availability of credit and financing that plagued much of the 1990s and early 2000s, many people appeared to be wealthy or part of the upper and middle class in so far as they had assets. Yet they owed a significant amount of money to lenders for the lines of credit used to purchase various commodities. Thus, more attention has recently been given to investigating the debt to income ratio, better known as net worth, as a measure of wealth (Campbell & Henretta, 1980). Measuring Net Worth

Campbell and Henretta (1980) have investigated the measurement of class, wealth and social status. These scholars view wealth as net-worth: as a multi-dimensional concept that includes an individual’s income, assets, tax transfers, and debt among many other indices. They used this concept to investigate various dimensions of social class as it relates to net-worth and occupation. Their primary objective was to determine if their multidimensional model of net-worth provides a more accurate picture of individual level status (class) than previous measures of status attainment, including measures of occupational prestige. Using longitudinal data from the Survey of Labor Force Participants, Campbell and Henretta concluded that the best predictor of status is one that incorporates net-worth along with other socioeconomic indices (including occupational prestige). This suggests that status attainment is not only a function of ones debt to income ratio but also of family structure, upbringing, educational attainment, and occupation. Additional empirical studies have attempted to disaggregate the work of Campbell and Henretta by considering how these other socioeconomic indicators influence net worth, the accumulation and transfer of wealth, and social class assignment. In addition, researchers have investigated differences among sub-populations like women and minorities. 78


Viewpoints Variations by Race & Gender

The literature investigating wealth as a measure of social class has increasingly focused on race and gender as the primary factors that contribute to variation in the accumulation of wealth within one’s lifetime and across generations. The inequitable access to wealth of women and minorities translates into an inability to be upwardly mobile and break through class barriers. Race

In the US, there is great disparity between patterns of wealth accumulation, assets composition, and home ownership between blacks and whites (Blau & Graham, 1990; Gittleman & Wolff, 2004; Charles & Hurst, 2002). Moreover, there is a statistically significant difference in the proportion of wealth ownership between black and white families, and white families have a greater ability to transfer wealth to future generations. Arguably, this disparity is most evident in relation to homeownership, personal businesses, and equity. Historically, white people have had higher rates of home ownership than blacks. This is partially due to barriers such as segregation and early legislation that barred blacks from borrowing money. Today however, the disparity is more often attributed to the ratio of mortgage applications between blacks and whites, which favors whites in terms of down payments, and some other economic qualifications. For instance, Charles and Hurst (2002) in their study of minority factors in applying for a mortgage, argue that “black applicants are almost twice as likely as comparable white households to be rejected, even when credit history proxies and measures of household wealth are accounted for” (p. 281, Abstract). Gender

In 1977, Harbuty and Hitchens published a paper on women, wealth and inheritance. The paper sparked a great deal of subsequent research that looked at the relation between women and economic wealth. This work was one of the first to call attention to the variation in personal wealth between men and women. A central question was how women establish Defining Class

79

wealth: through inheritance or entrepreneurship. The data suggested that the majority of women, nearly 60%, accumulated wealth through marriage, while less than 10% accumulated wealth by starting businesses or through other entrepreneurial endeavors. However, more recent research suggests that within marriage and households, the distribution of assets (including economic wealth) is not necessarily equitable. Thus while women may have married into wealth, we cannot assume they have access to it. While there are few studies of women’s asset ownership, even among the most wealthy Americans, women are less likely to be among the property elite than men, and more likely to have their wealth managed in ways that differ from men (Tickerman, 1981). Indeed, recent data suggest that the largest gender wealth gap is found at the very top of the wealth distribution (Deere& Doss, 2006). Women’s capacity to acquire wealth is affected “by the state, the family, the community and the market” (Deere & Doss, 2006, p. 12), in particular, through the gender wage gap, which makes it difficult for women to accumulate wealth through savings. The variation in differences between men and women in their money management, property ownership, and resource allocation puts women at a disadvantage in increasing their wealth compared with men. This variation in wealth accumulation matters because differences in asset accumulation may explain some differences in poverty between men and women. Intergenerational Transfer of Wealth, Life Chances & Social Class

The distribution of rewards in society has for financial well being and security (Keister & Moller, 2000). Given that the ownership of wealth is held by a small percentage of the population, it is no wonder that those who are not part of the upper classes or wealthy are fearful for their financial well-being and security as it pertains to jobs, housing, access to healthcare, and education. Moreover, intergenerational wealth transfer has consolidated the growing gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest (which increasingly include portions of what would be seen as the middle classes) in ways that have impact on educational opportunity, home ownership and upward mobility. Consequently, those with resources are more able to provide future generations with a head start on opportunities and to secure life chances. In contrast, those with limited resources are unable to share their wealth with children and grandchildren, thus requiring each generation to start from the same place as the 80


previous generation. In summary, wealth impacts social class by creating privilege, through which those with access to wealth are able establish lifestyles and “modes of consumption” that exclude those without access to wealth (Scott, 1994) and further divide society into economic hierarchies.

Bibliography Blau, F. & Graham, J. (1990). Black-white differences in wealth and asset composition. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105 (2), 321-339. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Buisness Source Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=5790847&site=ehost-live. Brady, D. (2003). Rethinking the sociological measurement of poverty. SocialForces, 81 (3), 715-752. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9426334 &site=ehost-live Brooks, C. & Manza, J. (2008). Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Burstein, P. & Linton, A. (2002). The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy: Some recent evidence and theoretical concerns. Social Forces, 81 (4), 381-408. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Source Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=8593865&site=ehost-live. Campbell, R. & Henretta, J. (1980). Status claims and status attainment: The determinants of financial well-being. American Journal of Sociology, 86 (3), 618-629. Caston, R. (1985). Dimensions of occupational inequality and Duncan’s Socioeconomic Index. Sociological Forum, 4 (3), 329-348. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Source Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d irect=true&db=aph&AN=11056199&site=ehost-live. Charles, K. K., & Hurst, E. (2002). The transition to home ownership and the black-white wealth gap. Review of Economics & Statistics, 84, (2), 281-297. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=6650421&site=ehost-live. Christian, J. (2008). When does public opinion matter? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 35 (1), 133-156. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=31120717&site=ehost-live. Deere, C.D. and Ross, C.R. (2006). The gender asset gap: What do we know and why does it matter? Feminist Economics, 12(1/2): 1-50. Federal Reserve Board. (2004). Survey of Consumer Finances. Available at: http://www. federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html. Accessed December 17, 2008.

Defining Class

81

Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. Third Edition. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gittleman, M. & Wolff, E. (2004). Racial differences in patterns of wealth accumulation. Journal of Human Resources, 39, (1), 193-227. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ioh&AN=2782633&site=ehost-live. Harbury, C., & Hitchens, D. (1977). Women, wealth, and inheritance. Economic Journal, 87 (345), 124-131. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Business Source Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4 543003&site=ehost-live. Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent. The political economy of the mass media. London: Pantheon Books. Keister, L., & Moller, S. (2000). Wealth inequality in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, (1), 63-81. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=3780365&site=ehost-live. Mills, C. W. (1956). The power eElite. Oxford: Oxford University Press. National Statistics. (2006). Share of the wealth. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov. uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2. Accessed December 17, 2008. Piven, F. & Cloward, R. (1977). Poor peoples movements: Why they succeed and how they fail. New York, NY: Random House. Scott, J. (1994). Poverty and Wealth: Citizenship, Deprivation and Privilege. London: Heinemann. Thio, A. (1992). Sociology: An introduction (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Harper-Collins Publications, Inc. Tickerman, A. (1981). Wealth and power: A comparison of men and women in the property elite. Social Forces, 60, (2), 463-481. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=aph&AN=5294439&site=ehost-live.

Suggested Reading Ehrenreich, B. (2007). The Bloated Overclass. Progressive, 71(8):16. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete, http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26234616&site=ehost-live Moller, S. (2008). Framing class: Media representations of wealth and poverty in America. Social Forces. 86(3):1347. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s ih&AN=31673152&site=ehost-live Ozawa, M. N., Jeounghee K. & Myungkook, J. (2006). Income class and the accumulation of net worth in the United States. Social Work Research, 30(4): 211-222. Retrieved

82


December 30, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=24091621&site=ehost-live

Wilby, P. (2007). The very rich versus the rich. New Statesman, 137(4865), 16. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete, http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26919985&site=ehost-live Wilson, W. (1980). The declining significance of race, blacks and changing American institutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Defining Class

83

Assessing Class: Lifestyle Choices Barbara Hornick-Lockard

Overview Income, wealth, occupation and education are the factors most commonly used to define class, and the more abundant each of the factors, the more expansive are the lifestyle options; however, increased affluence and greater “openness” of society over at least the last three decades allows for many more permutations of life courses. Classic sociological theory showed how those of the same social class pursued the same lifestyles, but in our increasingly diverse, multi-cultural society, it has become impossible to make the same assumptions. What is Lifestyle?

Michael Sobel (1983) defined the word “lifestyle” for sociologists as simply, “… a distinctive, hence recognizable, mode of living” (p. 120). Attempting to characterize and correlate those modes of living to social strata is increasingly complicated. German sociologist, Dieter Bögenhold (2001) says that, “what people ‘are’ and what people ‘do’ can no longer be conceptualized by a simple one-to-one fit.” The concept of lifestyle is linked to social rank and practice, but how people spend their leisure time and incomes “… is not a simple mirror of income level but must be regarded as being embedded in social behavior” (p. 830). Michael Sobel (1983) quotes Edward Shils when he says that “lifestyle reflects ‘a voluntary participation in an order of values,’” and goes on to 84


say that it is very much related to culture and “… is one of the most important bases of prestige because, like occupational role, it is among the most continuous and observable of the various deference entitlements” (p. 116). In his research, Sobel also links lifestyle to “ethnicity …race … age… subcultural affiliation … urban versus suburban residence, and sexual preference.” He also presents the concept of “stylistic unity” by which he means “the patterns of behavior which constitute that lifestyle are empirically common; i.e., similar patterns are shared by a sufficient number of others, relative to all others” (p. 117). He also says that “lifestyle could be conceptualized as a property of an individual, a group, or even a culture. But sociologists, despite the assertions of some to the contrary, typically … use the concept at the individual level.” He avoids ascribing lifestyle to social class and says that “[by] definition a lifestyle is expressive, and thus a lifestyle form is a function of individual choice.” Prosperity in western societies increased steadily through the post-World War II era of the latter half of the 20th century. Economies grew, standards of living rose, and the average number of weekly work hours was reduced. In theory, more time was available for personal consumption and leisure activities. In addition, as educational opportunities have increased, consumer choices have become seemingly limitless, and technology and medical advances continue enhance the quality of life; the configurations of life paths have become diverse and complex. Capital

The theories of Pierre Bourdieu, first presented in the mid-1980s, are frequently cited by sociologists as they build new theories on lifestyles. Many reference Bourdieu’s expansion on the concept of capital to understand how life choices affect one’s advancement in social ranks. Economic capital, generally defined as accumulated resources or another definition of wealth is, according to Bourdieu, only one of three types of capital – the other two are social and cultural (Gilbert, p. 94). Dennis Gilbert (2008) explains that cultural capital, closely linked to lifestyle, is knowledge in its broadest sense including formal education, but also includes manners, sports abilities or other social skills; social capital involves obligations that are components of family and other memberships (p. 94). Further, in an explanation of Bourdieu’s theory, sociologist BöDefining Class

85

genhold describes the metaphor that there is one multi-dimensional social sphere for social position, but there is another for the sphere of lifestyles. “Material distribution … is portrayed in one sphere, whereas in the other sphere the provisions of cultural resources are staked out and manifested in the form of varying life styles” (2001, p. 835). Consumption

Growth of our economy is dependent on increased consumption and consequently Michael Sobel (1983) argues that consumption “is the best single index of lifestyle” (p. 123). He then differentiates the components of lifestyle into four groups: • Prestige acquisition, • Maintenance, • High life, and • Home life (p. 129). Sobel believes that lifestyle “consists of expressive and observable behaviors,” but this doesn’t imply the existence of ‘coherent’ lifestyle forms, or what he calls “stylistic unity.” Stylistic unity implies patterns or combinations of behavior that appear with such frequency as to not be unusual to observers. Stylistic unity, if it exists, he says, “… is clearly the proximate cause of a lifestyle” (p. 124). The economic health of a capitalist society is dependent on the levels of effective consumer demand. The production of goods must find a market and Bögenhold (2001) theorizes that “contemporary discussion of the pluralization of life styles reflects the fact that the level of vertical differentiation in terms of financial resources has little to do with the level of cultural expression as a form of individual life practice” (p. 832). Teen Consumerism

Research studies in sociology and consumer markets have long focused on social groups and their consumption patterns and preferences. As a very well-defined and lucrative market, American teenagers are consequently frequently the subject of that research. Tim Clydesdale (2005), attempts to make some sense of contemporary teenage consumerism. He interviewed a series of teenagers, from a range of social strata, who had part-time jobs to maintain their free-spending lifestyles. Most all worked to fund cars, 86


clothes, entertainment and technology. In response to questions, few understood what he meant by leisure, but instead responded to questions about “free time.” The majority of this interview population responded that they had little of either. Another interesting niche study by Karen Bettez Halnon (2003), explored the phenomenon of “poor chic.” She found irony that young people of all classes were “dressing down” in an age of conspicuous economic inequality. The social phenomenon of “dress casual” among what used to be called “white collar” workers and the trend for the last forty years, where blue jeans, tee shirts and sneakers have been the favored off-work wear of Americans, blur at least the superficial appearance of social classes. Social Memberships

Gilbert also points to involvement in associations as a lifestyle indicator that is patterned by social class. Membership with explicit purposes and rules of membership attract individuals with similar social standing. The most active participants tend to be from the upper income ranges since it is theorized that lower classes don’t have time or energy for them. As an example, Gilbert explains that type-casting of membership in churches continues to hold true. He says that higher status individuals belong to churches with services of “quiet dignity” such as Unitarian or Episcopal; while the middle class are Methodist, Mormon and Lutheran. The lower class favors revivalist and fundamentalist denominations and Catholics participation reflects the timing of their families’ immigration to the United States (2008, p. 116). Lifestyle may imply choices about leisure, but those, of course, are limited by resources and other constraints. Demanding occupations, even though well-paid, do not allow for another scarce commodity of current society – time. Post-war prosperity increased the number of recreational and leisure choices available to Americans as more education allowed the middle class to pursue a greater range of activities, whether participants or observers. Electronic media brought the concert hall (once reserved for the elite) to the masses. High-Status Culture

Erickson (1996) refers to Bourdieu’s theories that “class and culture are both vertically ranked … the culture of the highest classes becomes the Defining Class

87

most distinguished culture” (p. 217). In other words, those at the top are in possession of greater cultural capital. Erickson accepts his theories, but attempts to show that networks are stronger links to cultural variety, and does not buy Bourdieu’s theory about higher-class culture. She cites studies that show that “higher-status people are more likely to consume highbrow culture than are lower-state people, but only a minority of highstatus people consume any particular high-brow genre. There is no one kind of taste profile that advantaged people share” (p. 219). Erickson argues that cultural inequality is not so much a hierarchy of tastes, as it is a hierarchy of knowledge; i.e., someone may know as much about soap operas as operas and have those “cultural weapons can find one to suit the battle at hand…Thus the most widely useful form of cultural resources is ‘cultural variety’” (p. 219). Research by Ningzi Zhang (2003) on high status culture supports this argument. Zhang sees a movement away from cultural elitism to eclecticism. Another study by Garcia-Alvarez and others (2007) studied heterogeneity in American’s musical taste. They differentiate between breadth and level of taste, “two independent dimensions of cultural consumption” and proposed that that modern “high brows” were “cultural omnivores,” but not necessarily elitists. Resources for leisure-time activities have became commodities and filled a huge economic niche. Dieter Bögenhold marvels that we now speak of entertainment and tourist industries, saying that, “due to the rapid growth of social wealth, it is becoming ever more interesting for sociologists to see how disposable time is used and how leisure practices relate to money income” (p. 831). Sports are seen as “useful cross-class coordinating genre, popular in all class levels and widely seen as something in common with others at work. Sports discussions help to build cooperative ties across class levels.” (Erickson, 1996, p. 223,). Health & Lifestyle

Although most modern sociologists struggle to precisely correlate consumer and cultural preferences to social class, issues related to exercise, eating habits, and smoking are more vertically aligned. Socioeconomic status has an impact on health. It is known that those with lower incomes smoke more and are more often obese and exercise less than those in higher 88


income strata. Is this a factor of despair, lack of education, risk inclination as much as a decision about lifestyle? Call for more understanding on how social standing influences health care comes from Stephen Isaacs and Steven Schroeder (2004), who argue that the “wide differences in health between the haves and have-nots are largely ignored. Race and class are both independently associated with health status, although it is often difficult to disentangle the individual effects of the two factors” (par. 3).

Further Insights What are the variables that sociologists use to assess lifestyle? Michael Sobel’s (1983) early study on lifestyle differentiation which he drew from an even earlier data set, the “1972-1973 Survey of Consumer Expenditures.” His analysis led him to develop a matrix of four factors: • “Visible success” or “prestige acquisition” • “Maintenance” • “High life” • “Home-life” (p. 129). His classification evolved from surveys related to research on 19 dependent lifestyle variables. These were: He then correlated these with the obvious independent variables: Food at home/Away from home

Alcohol

Housing

Textiles

Furniture

Home decoration

Casual & Dress clothing

Personal Care

Vacation

Clubs

TV

Music

Camping & Sports equipment

Gifts to persons outside household

Reading

Theatre & Concerts

Sports Events

Defining Class

89

• Region of U.S.; • Family size; • Family status; • Location size (city, small town, etc.); • Total consumption, • Education, • Household and individual income (p. 126). Drawing on data from the same time period, Hughes and Peterson (1983) re-analyzed a national survey on the arts that was conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the American Council of the Arts. The survey looked at American leisure activities and included evaluation of participation in the performing arts, sports, “going out,” domestic activity (needlework, cooking, gardening, etc.), outdoor activity, anti-arts attitudes, craft activities (photography, painting, woodworking, etc.), museum attendance, and amateur performance (participation in music, drama or dance). Their critique found that the data included nothing about the population’s most common activity – watching television. Most importantly, they could not identify a significant fit between social class and cultural classes. A relevant study from 1998 by Douglas B. Holt examined whether Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital applies to consumption patterns in the United States. He defined six dimensions of taste from those with high capital resources to those with low: • Material versus formal aesthetics – furniture, food and clothing preferences • Referential versus critical interpretation – real life vs. critical view of books, movies, etc. • Materialism versus idealism – luxury vs. metaphysical experience • Local versus cosmopolitan tastes • Communal versus individualist forms of consumer subjectivity – authenticity and connoisseurship decisions about possessions 90


• Auto telic versus self-actualizing leisure – self-expression and realization Holt distinguished between those with high and low cultural capital resources. His findings suggest that “… consumption continues to serve as a potent site for the reproduction of social class” (1998, p. 1). Weeden and Grusky (2005) reported on their extensive surveys that categorized class and lifestyles by consumption practices and institutional participation. Institutional participation included marriage and divorce, children; union membership, and veteran status. Consumption practices were broad and involved questions about news knowledge, TV watching hours, reading (literature), and family life.

Viewpoints Is Class Structure Declining?

A debate has raged for nearly twenty years among sociologists whether social classes are fading out. An article with that very title by Terry Nichols Clark and Seymour Martin Lipset (1991) recognized the emergence of new social strata and the need to create new models. If there is any one lifestyle variable that would disprove the decline of the class definitions of social class it would be health. Does Class Affect Health?

Does inequitable distribution of income and wealth cause poor health? According to Isaacs and Schroeder (2004), “wealth and income are distributed less equitably in the United States than in any other industrialized country, and the gap between the rich and the poor” has grown over the last thirty years. They beg social scientists to look at the importance of socioeconomic status as it relates to health. They point to data that indicate that lower income people generally die sooner than people at higher socioeconomic levels. It is “… a pattern that holds true in a progressive fashion from the poorest to the richest.” Their data also shows “… that those who earned $15,000 or less per year from 1972 to 1989 were three times as likely to die prematurely as were those with earning in excess of $70,000 per year” (par. 5). Isaacs and Schroeder verify that those in upper classes have healthier behavior. Their charts clearly show, as is generally acknowledged, that Defining Class

91

the higher the income, the less an individual is likely to smoke. Likewise, those in the lower income brackets “… are nearly three times as likely not to engage in leisure-time physical exercise.” And have “… less health insurance coverage, poor neighborhoods and exposure to more environmental hazards.” Beyond that, they say, “…. there is something about lower socioeconomic status itself that increases the risk of premature death” (par. 8). This is a gloomy scenario. In a review of the sociology research literature, Neckerman and Torche (2007) identified research studies that verify the “status hypothesis” that proposes that relative deprivation – “the subjective awareness of one’s own economic position relative to others – influences health directly through the effects of stress on the body or indirectly through poor health behaviors such as smoking or alcohol abuse” (p. 341). They refer to a recent study by Eibner and Evans (2004) that supports the contention that income inequality for the poor “raises mortality risk as well as the risk of heart disease and tobacco-related mortality; it is also associated with unhealthy behaviors such as smoking and sedentary lifestyles. Their results suggest that half the impact of individual income on mortality may operate through relative deprivation” (p. 342).

Bibliography Bögenhold, D. (2001). Social inequality and the sociology of life style: material and cultural aspects of social stratification. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 60(4), 829. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5802638&site=eho st-live Clydesdale, T. (2005). Work, money, & leisure: Understanding the economic life of American teens during the first year after high school. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, Annual Meeting, Philadelphia. 1-20. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18616628&site=ehost-live DiMaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1985). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. American Journal of Sociology, 90(6), 1231-1261. Eibner , C. E. & Evans, W. N. (2004) The income-health relationship and the role of economic deprivation. In Neckerman, K.M. ed. (2004) Social Inequality. New York: Rusell Sage Foundation. Erickson, B. H. (1996). Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology. 102 (1), 217-251. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX 92


with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=961 1101910&site=ehost-live García-Álvarez, E., Katz-Gerro, T., & López-Sintas, J. (2007, December). Deconstructing cultural omnivorousness 1982-2002: heterology in Americans’ musical preferences. Social Forces, 86(2), 417-443. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=28056473&site=ehost-live Gilbert, D. (2008). The American class structure in an age of growing inequality. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press. Goesling, B. (2007). The rising significance of education for health. Social Forces, 85(4), 1621-1644. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=25527577 &site=ehost-live Halnon, K. (2002). Poor chic: The rational consumption of poverty. Current Sociology, 50(4), 501. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=7295362 &site=ehost-live Issacs, S., & Schroeder, S. (2004) Class -- the ignored determinant of the nation’s health. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(11), 1137-1142. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from EBSCO online database, EBSCO online database,http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14361322&site=ehost-live Neckerman, K., & Torche, F. (2007, August). Inequality: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 335-357. Sobel, M. (1983). Lifestyle differentiation and stratification in contemporary U.S. society. Research in Social Stratification & Mobility, 2, 115-144. Zhang, N. (2003, Aug. 16). Elite cultural activity participation and social status: the U.S. Case. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, Retrieved September 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15922508&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. (Nice, R. trans.) London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Cross, G. (2006). Crowds and leisure: thinking comparatively across the 20th Century. Journal of Social History, 39(3), 631-650. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d irect=true&db=sih&AN=20499313&site=ehost-live DiMaggio, P., & Useem, M. (1978). Cultural democracy in a period of cultural expansion: The social composition of arts audiences in the United States. Social Problems, 26(2), 55. Dumas, A., & Laberge, S. (2005). Social class and ageing bodies: Understanding physical activity in later life. Social Theory and Health, 3 (3), p. 183.

Defining Class

93

Giddens, A. (1973). The class structure of the advanced societies. New York: Harper & Row. Hughes, M., & Peterson, R. (1983). Isolating cultural choice patterns in the U.S. population. American Behavioral Scientist, 26(4), 459. Jarosz, L., & Lawson, V. (2002). Sophisticated people versus rednecks: Economic restructuring and class difference in America’s west. Antipode, 34(1), 8. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier.http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6068243&site=ehost-live Levy, G., & Churchill, C. (1992). New middle class youth in a college town: Education for life in the 1990s. International Journal of Politics, Culture & Society, 6(2), 229. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier.http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10729516&site=ehostlive Mohr, J., & DiMaggio, P. (1995). The intergenerational transmission of cultural capital. Research in Social Stratification & Mobility, 14, 167-199. Nichols, L., & Wanamaker, N. (1995, September). Needs and priorities in balancing paid and family work: A gender and social class analysis. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 24(1), 71. Osgerby, B. (2003, January). A pedigree of the consuming male: Masculinity, consumption and the American ‘leisure class’. Sociological Review Monograph, 51, 57-85. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11914805&site=ehost-live Riesman, D., Denny, R. & Glazer, N. (1950). The lonely crowd: A study of the changing American character. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sobel, M. E. (1981). Lifestyle and social structure; conceptions, definitions, analyses. New York and London: Academic Press. Veblen, T. B. (1899/2007). The theory of the leisure class. London: Oxford University Press.

94


The Middle Class in America Jeff Klassen

Overview The observation that the current generation of middle-class households are the first generation in American history to experience a lower standard of living than their parents is now very common. Although the descendents of the “baby boom” generation have generally enjoyed a higher level of educational achievement than their parents, they have also faced higher inflation-adjusted living expenses and often engage in a higher level of consumption (spending) than the earlier generation. According to Lehmann-Haupt (1993), family inheritance, rather than accomplishment, is now likely to provide the primary source of economic opportunity in many middle-class households. One of the reasons that the older generation of middle-class households, the single providers of which were often employed in the manufacturing sector, is economically secure in that it enjoyed substantial appreciation in the value of its homes. Many of those homes were purchased with lowinterest mortgages provided through the G.I. Bill of Rights or other government programs. The younger generation of middle-income households appears to have reacted to this relative decline in the standard of living primarily though long-term anxiety about the future and that of its children rather than through anger or political activism (Noble, 1993; Reich, 1994). Political radicalism and frustration politics (or “protesting voting”) flourished in the 1970s, but have arguably declined in more recent decades. Defining Class

95

Middle Class Income

The middle class is often characterized as those households earning between 80% and 120% of the median household income in their local community. By this standard, the proportion of the population that is middle class has fallen to 22% from 28% since 1970 (Roberts, 2006). Although the real (that is, inflation-adjusted) wages of the middle classes have fallen behind that of even the working class in recent decades, middle-income households as a group have retained relatively stable levels of assets and savings; although assets have fallen sharply for the bottom 40% of earners (Frank, 2007). Recent reforms of tax policies, however, have been more beneficial to the working class and the rich than the middle class (Gerteis, 1998). The ratio of households who leave middle-class classification through either downward mobility or upward mobility is roughly 2:1, respectively (Pressman, 2007). A rough proportional description of the U.S. population based on income can be broken down into six categories: • The lowest class or largely unemployed “underclass” at about 10%; • The working poor at about 15%; • The working (or “blue-collar“) class at about 30%; • The lower-middle class at about 30%; • The upper-middle (or “professional”) class at about 15%; and • The rich at about 1%. According to the 2003 Census, the middle 20% of the population earned between $40,000 and $95,000 that year (Baker, 2003). Financial classifications, however, are highly relative. For example, average median incomes range from $20,000 in Miami to $60,000 in San Francisco (Scott, 2006). Housing costs in Washington, D.C. are almost twice the national average (Baker, 2003). Nonetheless, well over 60% of the population claims to be middle class. An article in the New York Times colloquially invokes the idea of Marxist class consciousness to imply that conventional class consciousness tends not to operate in the U.S.: “In America, the class struggle has meant trying to fit everyone into the middle” (Roberts, 1997, ¶4). 96


Middle Class Values & Concerns

It can be useful to characterize the middle class in terms of values and social concerns or status. These values and concerns, however, are often discussed - particularly among the lower-middle class - as negative factors such as isolation, voter apathy, or economic insecurity. C. Wright Mills’ influential 1951 book, “White Collar: the American Middle Classes” predicted several trends that are still prominent. Mills observed, for example, that the working class and the professional class associate culturally with the middle class in both social and political terms. In other words, the non-middle classes often express their views in non-class related terms (Gerteis, 1998). The lower-middle class tends not to exhibit strong ideological or political affiliation. As such, the lower-middle class, in particular, is frequently a crucial demographic group in federal elections; political campaigns tend to appeal to them (Gerteis, 1998). Somewhat ironically, the middle class is often associated with voter apathy. Mills termed the administrative middle-class “strangers to politics . . . Not radical, not liberal, not conservative, not reactionary” (Mills, 1956 [1951], p. 328). This characterization can also be at least partially extended to Mills’s view of the social life of the middle-class. Kelfalas (2007) argues that the lower-middle class is more self-conscious about respectability than either the working class or the upper-middle class. A defining social characteristic of the middle classes has speculatively been defined as “a longing for control” associated with the desire for social and economic security. A slight variation on this characterization for the lower-middle class has been termed “keeping up appearances” accompanied by some cynicism about the possibility of upward social mobility. Very broadly, this group tends to be negatively ambivalent about welfare recipients, the federal government, intellectuals, and foreign-born U.S. residents (Kelfalas, 2007, p. 65). Also very broadly, the non-professional middle class are likely to think of themselves as politically conservative; they are also usually charitable and socially generous unless threatened by the loss of social or economic security (Kelfalas, 2007, p. 66). Heckert and Heckert (2004) posit that the ten most common middle-class behavioral norms are: Defining Class

97

• Privacy, • Group loyalty, • Conventionality, • Prudence, • Participation, • Responsibility, • Moderation, • Peacefulness, • Honesty, and • Courtesy. At least five of these traits - group loyalty, participation, responsibility, conventionality and courtesy - can arguably be grouped together under the rubric of conformity. Heckert and Heckert describe how these traits can either be perceived positively or negatively. A workaholic, for example, is likely to be viewed with disdain by co-workers, but as exceptional by a supervisor; a gifted student is likely to be resented by most students, but appreciated by a teacher. In this context, provincialism (or even more disparagingly, parochialism - an excessively local or narrow outlook) can be termed negatively perceived overconformity to the value of conventionality and group loyalty. Potential provincialism radicalism and potential radicalism are especially relevant to a discussion of the lower-middle class and the middle class as a group. All of these ten social norms can also be subdivided into real (or commonly achievable) social roles and ideal (or “sublime” or exceptional) social roles, but these ten values are primarily relevant in their real or achievable form in this discussion (Heckert & Heckert, 2004).

Further Insights A Portrait of the American Middle Class

Although as much as 80% of the U.S. population has identified itself as middle class, a larger portion chose to identify themselves as working class in the 1980s and 1990s. About 20% making under $15,000 annually and 98


90% making more than $75,000 annually identify themselves as middle class (Roberts, 1997). About 35% of African-Americans can be classified as middle-class if median income is considered $35,000 annually (Patterson, 1997, p 22). Half of the upper-middle class in the 1990s would likely have fallen out of that category if one of two working spouses had lost their income (Roberts, 1997). Happiness

Self-reported happiness might seem like an unreliable measure of societal health. Frank, however, argues that self-reported happiness (or “subjective well-being”) is indeed a reliable indicator of more than one measure of social health: “Happy people agree strongly that ‘When I am doing well at something, I love to keep at it,’ whereas unhappy people often seem not even to understand what such statements are getting at” (2007, p. 17). Self-reported happiness, or unhappiness, also tends to be consistent over a period of several months or longer, and happiness correlates strongly with minimal absence from work and minimal workplace conflict (Frank, 2007, p. 16, 19). Politics

A survey of political culture in the 1990s, Hunter and Bowman’s, “The Study of Disunion” found that the working poor and the lower middle class - especially African-Americans - were significantly more supportive of “identity politics” based on small group differences, particularly those based on ethnicity, than professionals and the affluent. The wealthy were also found to be substantially more likely to express distrust of the federal government than the middle classes. About 75% of those surveyed were at least “pleased” with their jobs, and more than 90% indicated that their childhood and current family life were mostly happy or better (Steinfels, 1996). These categories - arguably including happiness - tend to coalesce in studies of changing middle-class voting patterns during late twentieth century recessions. Gerteis (1998) attempts to find a functional approach to describing class roles or class consciousness in the U.S. using surveys about self-reported political and ideological loyalty. A possible avenue emphasizes social status as opposed to material self-interest. Gerteis argues that this

Defining Class

99

approach accounts for voting patterns during the political and economic crises of the early 1970s, but that the recession of the early 1990s is not as easily explained. The surveys from both periods indicate that professionals claimed to be strongly “engaged”: they identified themselves firmly as liberals or conservatives and with either Democrats or Republicans. Lower middle-class workers, however, consistently identified themselves as neutral both in terms of ideological and party loyalty. In this model, intellectuals - including the clergy, academics, researchers, social workers, and professionals in cultural fields - are generally leftleaning and derive self-worth from cultural capital, including prestigious possessions and credentials that can potentially be used for exclusionary purposes. Engineers, managers, and corporate executives that tend to be right-leaning derive self-worth from economic capital or straightforward wealth. These differences can be easily mapped onto a political landscape. The lower-middle class - including sales people, accountants, clerks, and teachers - tend to be centrists and devoid of the influences of either cultural capital or economic capital (Gerteis, 1998). The Marxist class consciousness model appeared to grow less relevant between the 1970s and the 1990s. Levels of self-interest or unified occupational solidarity appeared to become less identifiable with voting behavior over time. This confusing situation can be partially explained by an analogous condition on the political left in the 1960s: the counterculture movement was generally anti-government at the same time that federal Democrats were expanding civil rights and funding on social programs. Gerteis concludes that voting patterns in the 1990s had moved even further away from a unified class consciousness model in which group solidarity is evident, through what is termed “segmentation,” in which occupational or social groups exhibit some similar voting trends, and into a period of “fragmentation” in which even that trend is not clear (1998). Gertais’s analysis, however, does not explicitly link growing “fragmentation” with escalating voter radicalism. Middle Class Radicalism or Voter Volatility?

Both internal and external factors combined after the early 1970s to contribute to the potential radicalization of the middle classes and what has been termed “frustration politics.” In the 1970s, the Watergate scandal, 100


the OPEC oil crisis, and a recession combined to grant some perceived national credibility - or popularity - to the radical populist George Wallace, who presented a platform based on Southern economic and cultural dissatisfaction. Wallace’s speeches asserted that both African-Americans and the affluent had gained too much political influence. He also termed his supporters “Middle American Radicals.” Patrick Caddell, a prominent Democratic pollster, found that public willingness to support Wallace for president in the early 1970s was as high as 35%, half of which identified their potential support as a protest vote against the established parties. Caddell’s interpretation of this alarming trend was that the: People smack in the middle - the people who are the least ideological - are the most volatile. Forty one percent thought that the American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it (cited in Phillips, 2002, p. 381). He also termed the trend “[c]enter extremism.” The term “radicalism” is largely used pejoratively to describe voter volatility or dissatisfaction, but the well-known poverty activist Barbara Ehrenreich implicitly claims that it also has another meaning. She argues that labor protests in the 1970s and the counterculture opposition to the Vietnam War were consistent with the American tradition of activism, but some intellectuals were uncomfortable with the idea of politically active working or lower-middle class groups and ascribed that behavior to a recent, divergent culture of “permissiveness” (Morley, 1989). The October 1987 stock market plunge and a subsequent recession marked a less severe continuation of this trend. In the 1980s, the federal Republicans, in effect, favored “soaking the middle”: the professional class was taxed at a higher rate while rich individuals and corporations received tax breaks (Gerteis, 1998). White-collar unemployment grew steadily between 1983 and 1993 from about 5.5% to over 8%, as blue-collar unemployment fell from 10% to 8%. In the 1980s, the federal government also took the unprecedented step of protecting the banking and finance sectors, and “[b]usiness magazines spoke of the first white-collar recession” after 1990 (Phillips, 2002, p. 97).

Defining Class

101

The populist agenda resurged, and what is known as the “swing vote” - including “Reagan Democrats” - was estimated to be as high as 70% of voters. The right-wing populists Patrick Buchanan and Ross Perot campaigned on a defense of working-class and the middle class interests. Voter turnout was about 55% in 1992, whereas in 1998 and 1996 it was 50%. Perot, the successful third-party candidate, garnered 19% of the popular vote in 1992; George H.W. Bush had received 53.6% in 1988, and in 1992, Republican Robert Dole received 37.7%. Perot’s success clearly aided the Democratic victory. In 2000, however, the left-wing populist Ralph Nader used a similar platform to garner 3% of the vote that otherwise would have primarily benefited Democrats. Polls after the election revealed that public support was as high as 8% for Nader, and “post election behavior [is] usually reflective of underlying sympathies” (Phillips, 2002, p. 97-98, 384-388). If Caddell’s “center extremism” was an accurate description of voter behavior in the 1990s, the later period certainly did not result in a radical change. The Republican party, however, has since assumed a more fundamentalist and socially conservative stance, which resonates more with the working class than the business elite - traditionally the key Republican base (Gerteis, 1998). Income Instability Since the 1970’s

Both income inequality and income instability appear to have risen since the 1970s, but the issue of income stability may have more to do with perception and the loss of high-quality jobs. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office using comprehensive Social Security Administration records concludes that levels of income were relatively stable in the 1980s and 1990s. The public perception of income instability and greater economic volatility may be due to the fact that layoffs now occur en masse and are widely reported in the media. On a smaller but more frequent scale, layoffs had been relatively normal when much more of the lowermiddle class was employed in the manufacturing sector before the 1970s (Leonhardt, 2007). It is true, however, that college-educated workers are now more likely to be laid off than laborers, but the college-educated have also formed a larger part of the workforce since the 1980s. A recent Gallup Poll indicates 102


that about 12% of respondents claimed they were likely to be laid off. That is roughly the rate at which workers in the manufacturing sector were laid off before the 1970s. It is also true that temporary jobs are more common now, and that job tenure is declining. Income inequality, however, clearly has grown substantially since the 1970s (Leonhardt, 2007). Greater income inequality (larger portions of poverty and affluence) tends to undermine democratic stability (Gutmann, 2006). The stability that has emerged since the 1970s, therefore, appears to be of a rather undesirable sort. In 2003, 25% of workers suffered an income loss of 20% or more, while 22% experienced an increase in income of 25% or more (Leonhardt, 2007). Between 1968 and 1980, about 6% of the population moved upward from the middle class, and roughly the same portion fell downward into the middle class. Families with children, however, are now statistically more likely to experience bankruptcy than divorce; about 1.5 million families file for bankruptcy annually (Kilborn, 1992; Gutmann, 2006). Although the middle classes are clearly anxious about the prospect of losing ground financially, they do not appear to be bothered by not getting ahead. The middle classes apparently enjoy consuming cultural products such as magazines and television programs featuring luxurious homes. Frank (2007), however, argues that they might be pressured to overextend themselves financially for a valid reason. The quality of public schools is linked to local levels of property taxation; therefore, middle-class families with school-aged children might be compelled to spend more than they can afford on housing in order to gain access to higher quality public education (Frank, 2007, p. 43-44). Tax policies continue to place a heavy burden on the middle class, but state and federal politicians have actively sought to temper these policies in other areas (Leonhardt, 2007). For example, politicians in Iowa recently attempted to prevent a large Maytag plant from closing by offering to build a new energy-efficient plant and providing college scholarships for the children of its employees. That offer was not accepted (Uchitelle, 2007). Demographic Shifts

Although the oft-reported “decline” of the middle class seems to reflect income more than a proportion of the population, a distinct trend of demographic stratification has emerged. New York City, followed closely by Defining Class

103

Los Angeles, has the lowest proportion of middle-income households in the nation among large metropolitan cities. In New York, 16% of families and 28% of neighborhoods are considered middle class, and those neighborhoods are disappearing faster than the families. Levels of high- and low-income housing are rising, and rich and poor neighborhoods have become more homogeneous since 1970. Baltimore, Chicago, and Philadelphia have been marked by a very high rate of change along these lines. The national proportion of middle-income housing has fallen from 58% to 41% of metropolitan neighborhoods (Roberts, 2006). This trend often necessitates that firefighters and police officers often cannot afford to live in the area in which they work and, therefore, must commute. It is likely that those public servants perform better when they are more familiar with the area in which they work and when they have a personal investment in the location (Scott, 2006).

Viewpoints Middle Class Women

Whereas an earlier generation of feminist activists struggled to release women from the near-requirement that they sacrifice career opportunities in order to raise children, it is now more common for women to lose the opportunity to raise children in their own home due to the financial need for a full-time income (Toner, 1993). Women have often been more successful in fields - such as academia, social work and radiography - in which cultural capital is more easily obtained than financial capital. There is some evidence that the level of cultural capital that such fields are perceived as conferring has declined as more women have excelled in them (Gerteis, 1998). The appearance of the decline of the middle class might be partially accounted for by the fact that highearning men and women tend to marry one another and thereby rise out of middle-class status more readily. In all developed nations, however, fairly drastic changes in the gender-based make up of domestic households have had virtually no effect on the proportion of the middle class in comparison with other economic groups (Pressman, 2007).

104


Is the Middle Class in Decline?

The apparent decline of the middle class in the United States has been compared with the more decisive decline of the bourgeoisie in late eighteenth century Holland and late nineteenth century England. The probable upsurge of radicalism in recent decades is at least partially analogous to the late eighteenth century Dutch “reactionary revitalization” known as the Patriot movement, which distrusted aristocrats, plutocrats, and the “unruly poor” and favored industry and hard work over financing practices. It has also been compared with late nineteenth century British “John Bull nationalism” and the imperialist exercises in the Boer that resulted in a resounding 1900 Conservative election victory (Phillips, 2002, p. 382). The similarities of these three eras include a high trade deficit, social stratification, and “financialization” (government debt and high foreign investment in the domestic market). The dissimilarity is that both Holland and Britain were small nations dependent on nautical power, whereas the United States has ample natural resources and a large domestic economic market (Lehmann-Haupt, 1993).

Bibliography Baker, C. (2003, November 29). What is middle class? Washington Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from:http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/nov/29/20031129-1058557412r/?page=2 Frank, R.H. (2007). Falling behind: How rising inequality harms the middle class. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gerteis, J. (1998). Political alignment and the American middle class, 1974-1994. Sociological Forum, 13(4), 639-667. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=10811285&site=ehost-live Gutmann, P. (2006). The middle class, the rich and the poor: Who gets what? Retrieved August 8, 2008 from SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=972133 Heckert, A., & Heckert, D.M. (2004). Using an integrated typology of deviance to analyze ten common norms of the U.S. middle class. Sociological Quarterly, 45(2), 209-228. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13876218&sit e=ehost-live Hunter, J.D., & Bowman, C. (1996). The state of disunion: 1996 survey on American political culture. Charlottesville: In Media Res Educational Foundation. Kelfalas, M. (2007). Looking for the lower middle class. City & Community, 6(1), 6368. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Defining Class

105

Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=24090616&sit e=ehost-live Kilborn, P.T. (1992, January 12). The middle class feels betrayed, but maybe not enough to rebel. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from:http://query.nytimes.com/ gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6DB1230F931A25752C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&page wanted=all Lehmann-Haupt. C. (1993, February 1). Middle-class rage: Like in history, only different. [Review of the book Boiling Point: Republicans, Democrats and the Decline of MiddleClass Prosperity]. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from:http://query. nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DF1739F932A35751C0A965958260 Leonhardt, D. (2007, April 25). What’s really squeezing the middle class? New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/ business/25leonhardt.html?scp=29&sq=Middle%20Class&st=cse Mills, C.W. (1956 [1951]). White collar: The American middle classes. New York: Oxford University Press. Morley, J. (1989, August 6). The discreet anxiety of the bourgeoisie. [Book Review]. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage. html?res=950DE7DC1530F935A3575BC0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Noble, B.P. (1993, May 16). Busting the American dream. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDC15 3BF935A25756C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Patterson, O. (1997). The ordeal of integration: Progress and resentment in America’s ‘racism’ crisis. Washington, D.C.: Civitas/Counterpoint. Phillips, K. (2002). Wealth and democracy: A political history of the American rich. New York: Broadway Books. Pressman, S. (2007). Decline of the middle class: An international perspective. Journal of Economic Issues, 41(1), 181-200. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=b th&AN=23779789&site=ehost-live Reich, R.B. (1994, August 31). The fracturing of the middle class. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980 2E7DE1738F932A0575BC0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Roberts, S. (1997, May 18). Another kind of middle-class squeeze. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940 1E0DE1038F93BA25756C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Roberts, S. (2006, June 22). Study shows a dwindling middle class. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/ nyregion/22income.html?scp=34&sq=Middle%20Class&st=cse Scott, J. (2006, July 23). Cities shed middle class, and are richer and poorer for it. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/ weekinreview/23scott.html?sq=Middle%20Class&st=cse&scp=5&pagewanted=all 106


Steinfels, P. (1996, November 2). Beliefs. New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E2D61F39F931A35752C1A960 958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Toner, R. (1993, June 20). America out of reach. [Book Review]. New York Times. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DD153 AF933A15755C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Uchitelle, L. (2007, August 26). Is there (middle class) life after Maytag? New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2008 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/ yourmoney/26maytag.html?sq=Middle%20Class&st=cse&scp=31&pagewanted=all

Suggested Reading Converse, P.E. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 26, 578-599. Converse, P.E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science 3, 331-353. De Soucey, M. (2005). Living in their parents’ basements: How traditional mechanisms of social reproduction are failing middle class kids. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 2005 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 1-27. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18615359&site=ehost-live Easterly, W. (2000). The middle class consensus and economic development. SSRN: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2346. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from:http:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=630718 Ehrenreich, B. (1989). Fear of falling: The inner life of the middle class. New York: Harper Collins. Felski, R. (2002). Why academics don’t study the lower-middle class. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (20), B24. Retrieved September 11, 2005 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =a9h&AN=5989251&site=ehost-live Gans, H., (1982 [1962]). The Levittowners: Ways of life and politics in a new suburban community. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Gans, H. (1991 [1988]). Middle American Individualism: Political Participation and Liberal Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. Helmstetter, C. (2008) The stratification of ideological sophistication in the general public. SSRN. Retrieved August 9, 2008 from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1158142 Kilborn, P.T. (1992, January 12). The middle class feels betrayed, but maybe not enough to rebel. New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2008 from: http://query.nytimes.com/ gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6DB1230F931A25752C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&page wanted=all Lewis, M. (1961). The City in History. New York: Harcourt Brace. Defining Class

107

Miller, J.C. (1996). An ‘uncommon tranquility of mind’: Emotional self-control and the construction of a middle-class. Journal of Social History, 30 (1). Retrieved August 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9610071701&site=ehost-live Newman, K.S. (1999). Falling from grace: Downward mobility in an age of affluence, (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Russell, J. (1981). Theory of the new middle class. Sociological Spectrum, 1(3), 24758. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10615223&sit e=ehost-live Shipler, D.K. (2004, January 18). A poor cousin of the middle class. New York Times. Retrieved August 11, 2008 from:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=95 03E2DB1530F93BA25752C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Warren, E. (2006). Rewriting the rules: Families, money and risk. The Privatization of risk. Retrieved August 11, 2008 from Social Science Research Council: http:// privatizationofrisk.ssrc.org/Warren/ Warren, E., & Tyagi, A.W. (2003). The two-income trap: Why middle-class mothers and fathers are going broke. New York: Basic Books. Weller, C. (2006). The middle class falls back. Challenge, 49(1), 16-43. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=19513056&site=ehost-live Wolff, E. N., (2007). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze. SSRN: Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 502. Retrieved August 10, 2008 from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=991901

108


Contradictory Class Locations Jennifer Kretchmar

Overview The notion of class is a fundamental conceptual tool in the social sciences. And yet, as Beckert and Zafirovsky explain, “there is no general consensus among sociologists about how best to define the concept or about the broader theoretical framework within which it should be studied” (2006, p. 62). Some theorists follow closely in the footsteps of Max Weber, others adhere to the tenets of Marxism. Within these larger theoretical landscapes, more specific topics emerge: class location, class structure, class consciousness, and class struggle to name just a few. What unites those who study class, however, is a firm belief in the significance of class in explaining a wide variety of social phenomena (Wright, 1997a). In the late 1970s, one young scholar – Erik Olin Wright – began what would become a lifelong commitment to the study of class. His original research was motivated by the desire “to demonstrate to non-Marxist social scientists that Marxist categories mattered” (Wright, 1978, p. xix). And he intended to do so through a quantitative study of income inequality and class. What Wright soon discovered, however, was that class – although a central concept in Marx’s work – was “never systematically defined,” even by Marx himself (Wright, 1996, p. 6). Furthermore, he realized that Marx’s conceptualization of capitalist societies as comprised of two increasingly polarized classes – those who own the means of production, or the bourDefining Class

109

geoisie, and the working class, or the proletariat – was inadequate. What was needed was a more nuanced understanding of class structure that would allow theorists to differentiate among the growing “middle class.” Wright introduced his theory of ‘contradictory class locations’ as a way to fill the gap. The Original Theory of Contradictory Class Locations

In the nearly four decades since Wright first introduced his theory, he has continually attempted to revise it. As he explains, “the process of concept formation is a continual process of concept transformation. New solutions pose new problems, and the efforts at resolving those problems in turn generate new solutions” (Wright, 1996, p. 92). As a result, the theory of contradictory class locations as it exists now differs in significant ways from its original presentation. We’ll look at the theory as Wright first introduced it in the 1970s, then explore some of the arguments of his critics, and finally, look at the ways in which he has attempted to revise it. In his 1978 publication, “Class Structure and Income Determination,” Wright’s initial task was to present the concept of class from Marxist perspective. Wright begins by recognizing that “Marxists have defined class primarily in terms of common structural positions within social organizations of production” (1978, p. 4). According to this definition, classes do not constitute groups of people, or statistical aggregations, or social organizations. Rather, classes represent common positions within a hierarchy; importantly, it is the positions themselves which are the primary unit of analysis, not the individuals who occupy those positions. For Marx, the primary positions in the class structure were the capitalists or bourgeoisie, and the proletariat or workers, although he did identify others too, such as the petty bourgeoisie. Before characterizing these positions further, Wright provides a broader context for his discussion of class by further distinguishing Marxist and non-Marxist perspectives (1978). First and foremost, Wright argues, Marxists view class as a relational concept as opposed to a gradational one (1978). In the latter approach, classes are often defined in terms of spatial relationships – for example, upper and lower class – and members of one or another class typically have more or less of something, such as income or status. In relational definitions, on the other hand, classes are defined in 110


terms of qualitative differences rather than quantitative ones - according to functions performed in work, for example, rather than in terms of income accumulated. In addition, relational definitions of class emphasize change over stasis; that is, according to Marxists, class structures provide the basis collective action and class struggle. Relational definitions of class can be further differentiated from one another along a second dimension - whether relations are situated in the market, or in the production process itself. Those who subscribe to a Weberian conception of class concentrate on market relations, or the exchange that occurs between sellers and buyers. Marxists, on the other hand, place class analysis firmly in the sphere of production, and the relations between the actors who participate in the production process. Definitions of class grounded in the sphere of production branch once again; some theorists characterize production relations in terms of the division of labor, some in terms of authority, and others in terms of exploitation. For Marxists, exploitation is the central organizing concept, and occurs when those in dominant positions appropriate the labor of the people they dominate. Based on these key elements – relations, production, and exploitation – Wright proposes a Marxist definition of class as “common positions within the social relations of production, where production is analyzed above all as a system of exploitation” (1978, p. 17). Although Wright was able to bring some clarity to Marx’s interpretation of class, the outline sketched above proved inadequate, especially for those wishing to investigate class empirically, and not just conceptually. Theoreticians had difficulty categorizing a growing segment of society into any of the class positions Marx identified – that is, they seemed to be neither capitalists nor members of the working class, or they seemed to have characteristics of both at the same time. Although many critics of Marx interpreted this classification difficulty as evidence of the inadequacy of Marx’s theory, Wright believed differently. He writes, “Many critics of the Marxist framework have argued that…ambiguities in the class structure negate the value of the Marxist perspective on classes altogether. This is equivalent to saying that because the platypus has webbed feet and a bill, the concept of ‘mammal’ is useless” (Wright, 1978, p. 41). Instead, Wright decided to reevaluate the assumption that every position within the class structure has to fall into one and only one class. “If we drop this assumption,” he writes, Defining Class

111

“an entirely new kind of solution to the problem of conceptually mapping the ‘middle class’ becomes possible” (Wright, 1996, p. 43). As a result of dropping this assumption, Wright stumbled upon the notion of contradictory class locations. The new middle class, he argued, largely occupied such positions. In presenting his argument Wright first had to distinguish contradictory class locations from other classes, which he recognized as inherently contradictory in and of themselves. “In a sense all class positions are contradictory, in that class relations are intrinsically antagonistic social relations” (1996, p. 26). The bourgeoisie and proletariat, for example, are not only defined in relation to one another – that is, the existence of one class presupposes the existence of the other – but also in opposition to one another. The bourgeoisie exist only to the extent they can dominate and exploit the proletariat. “Thus, the class interests defined by this class relation are fundamentally opposed to each other. It is in this sense that there is an intrinsic – as opposed to purely contingent – contradiction between classes” (Wright, 1978, p. 22). Contradictory class locations, on the other hand, represent certain “’empty places’ in the class structure [which] constitute doubly contradictory locations: they represent positions which are torn between the basic contradictory class relations of capitalist society” (p. Wright, 1978, p. 26). Rather than using what he calls a cumbersome expression – contradictory positions within the basic contradictory class relations of capitalist society – Wright simply refers to such positions as contradictory class locations. In order to further distinguish them from other class positions, he discusses how contradictory locations arise in specific circumstances; for Wright, understanding the notion of control and the three separate dimensions of social relations of production are critical to understanding contradictory class locations (1978). Again, the difference between class positions and the individuals within those positions becomes critical in Wright’s analysis. Importantly, individuals themselves do not have control; rather “it is by virtue of being in a particular position within a social relation and not by virtue of being an ‘individual human being’ that capitalists have control” (Wright, 1978, p. 25). Control itself implies the capacity to make decisions or to utilize some kind of resource. Within the social relations of production, Wright argues, 112


there are three specific types of control: control over money, control over the physical means of production, and control over labor. It is precisely because these three types of control function independently of one another – that is, one class position might be characterized by control over labor but not money – that contradictory class locations arise. Wright writes, “The three processes that comprise capitalist social relations of production do not always perfectly coincide. This fact is the key to understanding the class position of the new social categories that are labeled ‘middle class’” (1978, p. 26). According to Wright, three specific clusters of contradictory locations – managers/supervisors, semi-autonomous workers, and small employers – are most prominent within the class structure (1978). Managers and supervisors occupy the first contradictory class location between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. As Wright acknowledges, some contradictory locations will be closer to one boundary or another (1978). Foreman or line supervisors, for example, occupy a contradictory location closest to the working class. They have control over labor in that they supervise workers, but they have little control over the physical production process, and have no control over capital. As organizations have become increasingly bureaucratic, such positions have lost some of their authority, moving them even closer to the working class. Other middle managers who have more technical or professional expertise may occupy a position closer to the bourgeoisie, or a position more equally torn between the two. Middle managers may participate in investment decisions, for example, and have control over parts of the labor process but rarely control physical production itself. Semiautonomous workers occupy a contradictory location between the working class and the petty bourgeoisie. According to Wright, this contradictory location is a direct by-product of the attempt by capitalists to exert increasing levels of control over the labor process, or what is referred to in Marxist terms as the proletarianization of labor (1978). Within this ongoing struggle, some workers – semiautonomous workers – have managed to maintain a level of control over their immediate labor process. To the extent they are no longer self-employed nor supervise the work of others, they are members of the working class. However, to the extent they control their own work – even to a small degree – they are petty bourgeoisie. Wright acknowledges that a significant amount of ambiguity remains in defining the Defining Class

113

boundaries of this location; how much control and/or autonomy is needed to classify someone as semi-autonomous is unclear (1978). The last of the contradictory locations – small employers – inhabit a position between the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie. This location, Wright argues, is conceptually simpler because it involves a single mode of production rather than different modes (1978). That is, petty bourgeoisie participate in simple commodity production because they produce their own goods and rarely employ others to produce for them. As a result, they cannot appropriate surplus labor through exploitation of others. However, when a small business begins to hire help, the social relation of production changes and exploitation – even if on a small scale – is now possible. Such employers, although still largely petty bourgeoisie, now inhabit a position that shares characteristics with the capitalist class. The number of employees needed to tip the balance, so that the smaller business owner identifies more closely with the bourgeoisie rather than the petty bourgeoisie, will vary across different kinds of technologies and historical periods (Wright, 1978).

Viewpoints Criticism & Evolution of the Theory

In his 1996 publication, Classes, Wright himself gives voice to many of the criticisms of his original formulation of contradictory class locations. From the start, he acknowledges, there were some conceptual problems with his theory. The four issues he believes deserve the most attention are introduced below. Contradiction

Perhaps most significantly, critics have taken issue with the use of the term “contradiction” itself. While some of the contradictory class locations Wright identifies may indeed have intrinsically antagonistic interests, other positions may be better described as having heterogeneous rather than contradictory interests (Wright, 1996). Managerial positions, for example, are arguably contradictory – it’s impossible to be both a capitalist who appropriates surplus labor through exploitation of laborers, and be a member of the proletariat, the recipient of the exploitation, at the

114


same time. “At a minimum,” Wright argues, “it makes sense to describe the interests of managers as internally inconsistent” (1996, p. 52). On the other hand, semi-autonomous workers and small employees – who inhabit contradictory locations between modes of production rather than within modes – might have competing interests but not necessarily internally inconsistent interests. Wright suggests these latter locations would be better described as inhabiting “dual” or “heterogeneous” classes (1996). Autonomy

The use of autonomy as a class criterion has been problematic, from a conceptual as well as empirical standpoint. Conceptually, critics have questioned whether the distinction between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat in terms of autonomy is a useful one. Do the petty-bourgeoisie – farmers, shopkeepers, independent artists – truly have more autonomy than wage-laborers? Some argue the petty bourgeoisie are equally constrained in their pro duction choices by forces in the market, contracts, and credit institutions, for example. Wage-laborers, on the other hand, continue to make decisions and utilize judgment even in the most routine jobs. Self-employment, rather than autonomy, may be what distinguishes the classes most (Wright, 1996). Autonomy has also been difficult to operationalize. Wright explains, “If autonomy is defined in terms of control over what one produces and how one produces it, then many janitors in schools who also perform a variety of ‘handyman’ tasks will end up being more autonomous than airline pilots” (1996, p. 55). Historical Experience

A third and perhaps more fundamental criticism of Wright’s theory, and Marxism more generally, is the degree to which actual historical experience has provided contradictory evidence. Marx argued, unequivocally, that socialism was the only logical trajectory for capitalists societies; what has emerged instead, some suggest, are post-capitalist societies. Rather than an increasing proletarianization (e.g. de-skilling) of the labor force, post-capitalist societies are characterized instead by increasing technical expertise and professionalism, or a de-proletarianization of the workforce (Wright, 1997b). As Wright admits, “the conceptual frameworks

Defining Class

115

adopted by Marxists for analyzing classes in capitalist societies do not contain adequate criteria for systematically understanding post-capitalist classes” (1997b, p. 55). While Wright concedes that capitalism may have changed in ways unanticipated by Marxists, he also poses two challenges to the contention that class structure has become post-capitalist (1997a). Possible measurement bias – or more specifically, an overestimation of the size of the working class in the 1960s and a concomitant underestimation of the size of the working class in the 1990s – may call the de-proletarianization trend into question (Wright, 1997a). Without concrete evidence, however, Wright entertains a second possibility – namely, that the narrow lens through which many study capitalism (e.g. the national lens) distorts their perspective. “A second line of response is to accept the results but to argue that the transnational character of capitalism in the world today makes it inappropriate to study transformations of class distributions within single national units. The Marxist theory of proletarianization is a theory about the trajectory of changes in class structures in capitalism as such, not national units of capitalism” (Wright, 1997a, p. 110). The last criticism, and the one which Wright (1997b) has addressed most fully, is a criticism introduced by fellow Marxists. Even though Wright’s theory of contradictory locations was developed within a Marxist framework, and therefore reaffirmed the relationship between exploitation and class, Wright concedes that his theory rests on the notion of domination more so than exploitation. The important distinction between the two, Wright argues, is that domination does not imply that the two actors have inherently contradictory interests (1997b). Exploitation, on the other hand, occurs when “one person’s welfare is obtained at the expense of the other” (Wright, 1997b, p. 65). Wright builds upon Roemer’s notion of exploitation in order to reconfigure his theory of contradictory class locations (1982, as cited in Wright, 1997b). According to the reconfiguration, the “new middle class” is characterized by complex exploitation relations; that is, “there will…tend to be some positions which are exploiting along one dimension of exploitation, while on another are exploited” (Wright, 1997b, p. 87). Professionals, for example, are exploited by the bourgeoisie because they lack capital, but they exploit the skills of others. Wright’s reconfiguration also makes a distinction between different types of exploitation among non-wage earners – exploitation of what he calls organization assets and skill/credential assets. This 116


shift allows him “to distinguish within this framework a whole terrain of class-locations that are distinct from the polarized classes of the capitalist mode of production” (Wright, 1997b, p. 87). The exploitation-based conceptualization of contradictory locations also makes it easier, Wright argues, to determine alliances – whether managers, for example, will side with capitalists or workers in a class struggle (1997b). Although the reconfiguration solves some conceptual problems, Wright acknowledges that other issues remain – how to conceptualize interactions among forms of exploitation, for example, and the nature of relationship between skill exploitation and class (1997b). Conclusion

Wright, of course, is not the only person to recognize the shortcomings of his own theory. He has been criticized by others as well, including Meiksins, who argues that Wright’s exploitation-based theory of contradictory locations fails on three grounds (1989). First, Meiksins argues that Wright’s conceptualization of exploitation runs counter to the original Marxist definition (1989). For Marx, exploitation was defined as the appropriation of surplus labor; Wright’s argument rests upon the idea that multiple exploitations exist. Secondly, Wright suggests that the existence of multiple exploitations might lead to the development of a post-capitalist class (1997b). Meiksins (1989) questions again whether such extensions are logical within a Marxist framework. “It is important to ask whether this makes sense as an analysis of capitalist class structure” (p. 178). Finally, Meiksins criticizes Wright’s conceptualization of the relationship between class structure and class formation (1989). In the end, Meiksins calls into question whether the notion of contradictory class locations is helpful at all in conceptualizing the growing middle class (1989). He writes, “Undoubtedly, the complexities of contemporary class structure pose many problems for Marxist theory; many questions do remain unresolved. However, it is not at all clear that the theory of contradictory class locations helps us to understand these complexities” (Meiksins, 1989, p. 183).

Bibliography Beckert, J., & Zafirovsky, M. (2006). Class. In The International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology (pp. 62-68). New York, NY: Routledge Press. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/selected-published-writings. htm#ARTICLES

Defining Class

117

Meiksins, P.F. (1989). A critique of Wright’s theory of contradictory class locations. In E.O. Wright (Ed.), The Debate on Classes (pp. 173-183). New York, NY: Verso. Wright, E.O. (1978). Class structure and income determination. New York, NY: Academic Press. Wright, E.O. (1979). Class, crisis, and the state. New York, NY: Verso. Wright, E.O. (1997a). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wright, E.O. (1997b). Classes. New York, NY: Verso.

Suggested Reading Buroway, M. (1989). The limits of Wright’s analytical Marxism and an alternative. . In E.O. Wright (Ed.), The Debate on Classes (pp. 78-99). New York, NY: Verso. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/selected-publishedwritings.htm#ARTICLES Wright, E.O. (1996). The continuing relevance of class analysis: Comments. Theory and Society, 25(5), 693-716. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s ih&AN=9708135530&site=ehost-live Wright, E.O., & Dwyer, R.E. (2003). The patterns of job expansions in the USA: a comparison of the 1960s and 1990s. Socio-economic Review, 1, 289-325. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/selected-publishedwritings.htm#ARTICLES

118


The Working Class Ilanna Mandel

Overview Workers are often considered the backbone of a society. To a large degree, the working class is made up of the people we refer to as “blue-collar workers.” These workers may be skilled or unskilled and work in a wide range of fields such as manufacturing, mining, construction, home renovations, temporary daily labor, maintenance and repair, and other forms of physical labor. The notion of a working class can actually be a vague term and it can vary from country to country depending on the ways in which the various social strata are defined. In America, the working class is generally comprised of laborers who are distinguished from “white collar workers” such as academics, business people or sales executives. The working class is also generally thought of as having a lower or limited education. However, defining the working class is becoming ever more difficult. According to Smock (1995): In addition to bluecollar workers, arguing justifiably that the demarcation between working class and lower middle class has become even more blurred in recent years. What the men and women in these families have in common are jobs paying low wages, little or no discretionary income, and vulnerability to bouts of unemployment (p. 187).

Defining Class

119

Class, Social Mobility & Social Inequality

While the dream of upward mobility and achieving the “American Dream” continues to persist not only in the U.S. and in other countries, the reality is that America has always been a stratified society. There have always been the rich, the middle class and the poor. Today, the lines between middle class and the working class are beginning to blur. The majority of these people are in the working class. They have regular jobs, bring in a regular salary, and may even have a pension fund and health insurance. However, the likelihood of ever moving beyond the working class is becoming less and less likely all the time. One of the key issues facing the working class is social inequality. In fact, one could make the argument that decreasing social mobility and social inequality are very much related to each other. The longer an individual or family remains part of the working class, the more difficult it becomes to move out of that class and the more they are impacted by social inequality. Social mobility in the U.S. has a strong correlation with white collar work and the ability to save money beyond one’s monthly paycheck. In other words, if a person or family continues to subsist on their monthly income but cannot save beyond that, there is little to no likelihood (unless they win the lottery or inherit money) that they will ever move beyond the working class. The Working Poor

Within the larger group referred to as the working class there is the group known as the “working poor.” These are people who live either on or just below the poverty line and the most recent statistics are grim. According to a 2006 article, “7.8 million were classified as ‘working poor’ - persons who, during the year, spent 27 weeks or more in the labor force during the year . . . but whose incomes still fell below the official poverty level” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006, p. 1). Although social mobility is more difficult to achieve today, America is still considered to have an open class system. This suggests that while people may be born into a class they are not expected to remain there. One of the most enduring principles of American society is that hard work and especially achievement can lead to a person’s movement up the “social ladder.” 120


Hard work has always been highly prized in America and viewed as a means of improving one’s life (Loeb, 1961). Some would suggest that there are inherent inequalities in American society which make social mobility difficult. As stated above, persons in the working class usually work some form of physical labor, or they work in the service industry. After a day of such work people are often tired to the point of exhaustion. Many come home to families and face a whole new set of responsibilities – decisions regarding children, bills to pay, etc. The majority of these people do not have the money, energy, or freedom to attend night school and educate themselves for a better job and higher salary. There are many who cannot afford a home computer in order to pursue online education. In addition, the country’s recent economic downturn has led to a high percentage of layoffs, which leaves the working class in an even more vulnerable position. If they are fortunate enough not to be laid off, they may still be in the position of having uncertain or part-time employment and the possibility of unstable work. Race & the Working Class

The subject of race and class in America continues to be one of the most contentious and emotional to deal with. The history of race in America has been a difficult one even though the country has often been thought of (and has actually been) a haven for people from a wide range of countries and cultures. Yet, the truth is that people of color are the majority of the working class in America. “Black and Hispanic or Latino workers continued to be more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be among the working poor” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006, p. 1). The fact that African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans continue to be the majority of the poor or working class translates into fewer opportunities for social mobility. This color divide represents a disturbing reality for American society. It translates into a grim future for people of color and far less chance to change that reality than was previously thought to be true. Education & Social Class

Education has long been considered the “bridge to social mobility” in America. It has generally been accepted that the higher one’s education, the Defining Class

121

greater the opportunities for social mobility. Education and social mobility were once thought to be highly connected. While that may be true to some degree, there is also a case to be made that education simply reinforces class status rather than serving as a bridge for social mobility. Some researchers suggest that instead of creating a path to social mobility, the educational system often reinforces the status quo. While there have been and continue to be initiatives implemented to try and ensure that the educational system is equal for all, some still say that this is more of a fantasy than a reality. The truth for working class students is that they come from a background where resources are limited, and there may be a need for them to take a part-time job at a younger age than they’re ready to in order to access post-secondary education. According to Rouse and Barrow: For low-income students, greater psychological costs, the cost of forgone income (continuing in school instead of getting a job), and borrowing costs all help to explain why these students attain less education than more privileged children. And these incomerelated differences in costs may themselves be driven by differences in access to quality schools. As a result, U.S. public schools tend to reinforce the transmission of low socioeconomic status from parents to children (Rouse & Barrow, 2006, p. 99). At least one study suggests that children from working class families are always behind the proverbial “eight ball” due to the reduced access to resources and information. “Students in poor and minority neighborhoods are less well prepared academically; ill-prepared to select colleges, apply for admission, and secure acceptance; and poorly informed about the cost of attending college and the availability of needs-based financial aid” (Haveman & Smeeding, 2006, p. 126). According to Hurst (2007), barriers for working class students exist in higher education too. In particular, they have difficulty in building a bridge between their two worlds – the world they come from (its culture and values) and the world they’ve entered into (with its culture and values). The discrepancies between the two worlds often leave these individuals feeling lost, frustrated and confused. Hurst suggests that an important 122


skill for working class students in post-secondary education is to recreate their own identity – an identity that can relate to and exist in both worlds. Working class students are faced with a terrible choice – to assimilate into the new culture or resist and maintain their identity at all costs. “Being a rebel and still managing to be academically successful is not an easy task, and may explain why there appear to be many more assimilators than resistors (again, this goes to the heart of social reproduction theory)” (Hurst, 2007, p. 84). One of the primary barriers to post-secondary education is economic. Universities and colleges are expensive. Many students cannot afford to extend their education beyond high school. In addition, competition for scholarships is fierce. “Even among students with similar test scores and class ranks and from identical schools, students from higher-income families are significantly more likely than those from lower-income families to attend college…” (Haveman & Smeeding, 2006, p. 126). America has often thought of itself as an education-based meritocracy, in which higher education serves as a means for social mobility. However, the process to gain spots in top universities and colleges has become more of a struggle (and a competition), and excellent grades are not always enough. For example, to attend schools like Harvard, Columbia, Stanford and other top universities is not only financially prohibitive to all but the extremely wealthy, a potential student also often needs the “right social connections.” As Haveman and Smeeding explain: Contrary to its stated goals and repeated claims, the U.S. higher education system fails to equalize opportunities among students from high- and low-income families. Rather, the current process of admission to, enrollment in, and graduation from colleges and universities contributes to economic inequality as measured by income and wealth (2006, p. 128). Secure Retirement

One of the most serious issues for people in the working class is the concern of Social Security and the notion of a secure retirement. Without a secure retirement, people in the working class either have to rely on their children to support them or risk falling into dire poverty. “The retirement income Defining Class

123

landscape is becoming more treacherous. The length of retirement is increasing as the average retirement age hovers at 63 for men and 62 for women and life expectancy continues to rise” (Munnell, 2008, p. 41). Some employers are no longer providing pension plans; even if one works for an employer who does, the opportunities to save money beyond the required employee donation are limited. The lack of ability to save and a pension that will likely decrease in value as interest rates rise means that many in the working class will face a decline in their standard of living once they reach retirement: The rise in life expectancy and the contraction of conventional retirement income sources means many people are going to have to work longer to gain a reasonably secure and comfortable retirement. Continued work means that the employee must recognize the need to stay in the labor force and the employer must be willing to hire the older worker (Munnell, 2008, p. 43). Although people generally are living longer lives in developed countries, this is not always true for people in the working class. Given that many people work at hard, manual labor, the thought of early, not later, retirement is something they hold on to as a promise for the future. However, if the retirement money they have available cannot support that, then no matter how difficult it is, many in the working class will have to accept a much longer working life. The decision to work later than the age of 65 may not always be possible even if people are willing and able. Not all employers are willing to keep older workers, especially in a physically demanding job. One of the ideas to help ease this situation is stated by Munnell: “with a diminished Social Security program, uncertain outcomes from 401 (k) plans, and one third of households with no pensions at all, it might be worth considering the introduction of an additional tier of retirement income” (Munnell, 2008, p. 49).

Applications Health Care & Social Mobility

An enduring reality of American life is the crisis of the country’s health care system. Yet, there is also a distressing link between health and social 124


mobility. People who work at manual labor are far more likely to injure themselves (more than once) and often work for employers who take advantage of a willing labor force to pay lower wages and to not provide health insurance. The combination of a greater likelihood of injury and no health insurance is a dangerous one. It leaves many in the working class vulnerable to complete financial breakdown. There is a linear progression that can easily be explained as “good health equals good opportunities.” The equation should read – the ability to pay for good health services equals better health and this translates into the ability to work harder. The lack of proper health care often translates into poor health, which can lead to loss of income and a downturn in social mobility. Palloni (2006) argues that in fact childhood health is a strong correlate to social mobility. He emphasizes that “early childhood health is an important, albeit not the most powerful, determinant of social stratification. It is a non-ignorable mechanism through which social inequalities could be reproduced across generations” (p. 588). He explains that both chronic physical or mental health issues in childhood can translate into poor health in adulthood and thus less chance for social mobility. The health of the working class is also quite often affected by the environments in which they work. They are often working in stressful and unsafe environments which can lead to mental health issues and physical injuries or other conditions. Research conducted by Griffin-Blake, Alarcon-Yohe, Grady, and Liburd (2008) reveals that women in the working class experience an extremely high rate of stress and other conditions such as fibromyalgia, insomnia, high blood pressure and diabetes. This report identifies a key dilemma for working women – the lack of power to change their situation. Many in the working class experience a distinct lack of ability to make positive change in their social status. The lack of access to affordable health care remains the key to all these issues. Health care is becoming increasingly expensive, co-payments are rising, and the number of procedures and treatments that insurance companies will not pay for are increasing. In testimony before Congress, Diane Rowland, Executive Vice President of the Kaiser Family Foundation remarked:

Defining Class

125

And, even for those with health coverage, rising premium costs, the increasing out-of-pocket costs from more limited coverage, and decreasing availability of employer-based coverage make obtaining and paying for health care an increasing financial burden. For many, health insurance coverage through the workplace now has higher deductibles and more cost-sharing as well as higher premiums (Rowland, 2007, p. 1). In the final analysis, it comes down to the fact that affordable health care is even more elusive than ever. For those in the working class, this translates into health problems both short-term and chronic, which affects their ability to work and any hope of real social mobility. Conclusion

The dawn of the 21st century may have also been the beginning of the end for what has been termed the “American Dream.” So many people have immigrated to the U.S. over the past few centuries in order to pursue the dream of working hard and becoming successful. The old notion was that if you worked hard enough you could achieve anything and become anybody. It is possible that to some degree, this may be true. If it is, it exists on a very small scale. The reality of life for people in the working class is that their lives are difficult. They work long hours, many in physically demanding and even dangerous jobs. Far too many will spend their entire lives as workers. The children of the working class will feel caught between home and the promise of a better life – their own culture and the one they hope to be a part of. The working class no longer has any direct path to success; not hard work and not even education. There are no guarantees that one who is born into the working class won’t die as part of the same class. It may be that social mobility is becoming far less attainable today than it has ever been in American history.

Bibliography Case, A., & Paxson, C. (2006). Children’s health and social mobility. Future of Children, 16(2), 151-17. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=224661 63&site=ehost-live 126


Griffin-Blake, S., Alarcon-Yohe, M., Grady, M.A., & Liburd, L. (2008). Impact of stress of female blue-collar workers. Retrieved July 23, 2008 from Directors of Health Promotion and Education: www.dhpe.org/ImpactOfJobStressOnFemalBlueCollarWorkers.pdf Haveman, R., & Smeeding, T. (2006). The role of higher education in social mobility. Future of Children, 16(2), 125-150. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& db=ehh&AN=22466162&site=ehost-live Hurst, A.L. (2007). Telling tales of oppression and dysfunction: Narratives of class identity reformation. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3(2), 82-104. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=26297796&site=ehost-live Katz, M.B., & Stern, M. J. (2008). Beyond discrimination understanding African American inequality in the twenty-first century. Dissent, 55(1), 61-65. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=28627085&site=ehost-live Rowland, D. (2007, January 31). Health care: Squeezing the middle class with more costs and less coverage. Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from Kaiser Family Foundation website: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7612.pdf Loeb, M.E. (1961). Social class and the American social system. Social Work, 6(2), 12-18. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=143806 37&site=ehost-live Munnell, A. (2008). The declining players in the retirement income game: Risks and policy implications. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 62(2), 40-53. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier: http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=31138427&site=ehost-live Palloni, A. (2006). Reproducing inequalities: Luck wallets, and the enduring effects of childhood health. Demography, 43(4), 587-615. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir ect=true&db=aph&AN=23128291&site=ehost-live Rouse, C.E., & Barrow, L. (2006). U.S. elementary and secondary schools: Equalizing opportunity or replicating the status quo? Future of Children, 16(2), 99-123. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete:http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22466161&site=ehost-live Shoeni, P.E. (2005). The health care crisis: A moral and economic issue. Retrieved July22, 2008 from National Coalition on Health Care: http://www.nchc.org/materials/ speeches/2005-2007/53-04_26_2005.pdf Smock, P. (1995). Families on the faultline: America’s working class speaks about the family, the economy, race, and ethnicity. Contemporary Sociology, 24(2), 187-188. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier:http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9505154055&site=ehostlive Defining Class

127

U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). A profile of the working poor, 2004. Retrieved July 23, 2008 from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/ cpswp2004.pdf

Suggested Reading Arnold, K.A. (2008). America’s new working class. State University Press.

University Park, PA: Pennsylvania

Frisch, M. J. & Walkowitz, D. J. (1983). Working-class America. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. McDermott, M. (2006). Working class white. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Shipler, D. K. (2006). The working poor: Poverty in America. New York, N.Y.: Knopf Publishing Group. Zweig, M. (2001). The working class majority: America’s best kept secret. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

128


The Underclass in America Geraldine Wagner

Overview What is the Underclass?

The term, underclass, is attributed to American sociologist and anthropologist Oscar Lewis, who in the 1960s, studied and wrote about many Latin American communities. Lewis was able to identify what is often referred to as a culture of poverty. He found in his research, for example, that people who populate the underclass tend to live for the present moment and often do not plan for the future, something that may hinder a person’s ability to do some of the things necessary to avoid further poverty (Philen, 2007). The term became more widely used in the 1980s and refers to people who are habitually unemployed, who have low educational attainment, often not finishing high school, and who often rely on long term social welfare programs for their well-being. The underclass is also comprised of drug addicts and low-class prostitutes, hustlers who deal in the black market, and homeless mental patients. These are people with little or no access to the resources that would help them from their poverty. Thus, 50% of children born into the underclass will remain there throughout their lives. Karl Marx described the underclass of 19th century Europe (a group he called the lumpenproletariat) as gamblers, tinkers, brothel keepers, discharged soldiers and prisoners. He called the underclass the dangerous class that would rot society from the bottom up. Defining Class

129

The Culture of Poverty

The underclass concept has two origins. One perspective refers to the inner city poor in African American communities. The argument is that generous welfare programs have removed any desire to work, thus creating a culture of poverty and the underclass. Another perspective points to civil rights gains that have allowed many African Americans to enter the middle class, leaving behind their old cultural neighborhoods and the stabilizing effect they might have had on them. With the decrease in working class jobs and an increase in low-paying, low motivational service sector jobs, those left in the African American communities in hyper-segregation are not only poor, but also disenfranchised, and they form the bulk of the underclass. This concentration of poverty, created by economics and changes in the social structure, creates a pathological culture with behaviors such as low marriage rates, high levels of illegitimacy, and poor work habits frequently exhibited. The culture perpetuates itself and keeps blacks in poverty even when barriers to their mobility are rapidly disappearing (Arena, 2005). In America, estimates of the current size of the underclass range from 5% to 12% of households, whose incomes fall very far below the official governmental poverty line. Oscar Lewis may have been correct in assuming a culture of poverty. In the 1990s, with welfare reform enacted under the Clinton administration, the country believed that if people were trained and sent out to jobs, they would rise out of poverty and that their children’s lives would improve, thus breaking the cycle of poverty (Samuelson, 1997). But data showed that despite a rise in their parents’ incomes, poor children’s environments did not change for the better. Kids who were able to score high on school tests, or get a job, or remain in school until graduation were able to improve their life chances regardless of their parents’ income. But those who dropped out of school, or who got pregnant as a teenager, or both, did not have any success of climbing out what has been called a culture of poverty, and what is now referred to as the underclass (Samuelson, 1997). It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that a discussion of the underclass is a discussion about poverty in the U.S. Many Americans believe that the U.S. is a classless society where people have reasonable expectations to be free, happy and relatively well off. However, experts believe that 130


the United States is one of the most stratified countries in the world, and has the distinction of keeping its poor in their state of being longer and more often than any other western country (Stephen, 2007), whether it is a culture of poverty or discrimination that keeps them there. The Class System

All countries have some system of stratification, or division among people based on social class. Regardless of the type of stratification system in use, it is always a hierarchy, putting those with the most wealth, power, or prestige (or a combination of all three) at the top of the hierarchy, giving them the most privileges, life chances and share of the wealth, and putting others below in a range of categories to the poorest among us. For example, in the American class system, several classes have been identified, beginning with those in the upper class, which comprises about 15 % of the population, and includes the old-money rich, sports and entertainment figures and highly educated professionals. People in this class tend to have a great deal of influence on the economy and society (Gilbert, 2003). They also own approximately 40% of the nation’s wealth, while everybody else shares the remaining 60% (Rothchild, 1995). Falling below the upper class, another 60% of the population combines to make up the middle and working classes. The middle class includes white collar and skilled blue collar workers, while the working class includes factory, clerical and retail sales workers. This group is said to be the heartland of American society. Farther down the hierarchy, the working poor, about 13% to 20% of the population, includes laborers and service industry workers. These people are called the working poor because while they work full time, they do not earn enough to support themselves or their families. Many single mothers belong to this class, as do African Americans and Latino/as (Gilbert, 2003). Finally, there is the underclass, about 5 to 12% of the population, which is made up of temporary, seasonal, or part time workers, most of whom also receive some form of long term public assistance. This group is generally uneducated and does not work consistently, essentially remaining jobless much of the time (Gilbert, 2003).

Defining Class

131

Further Insights Two Sociological Perspectives

Each sociological perspective, structural functionalist and social conflict explains social class differences from its unique viewpoint. The Structural-Functionalist Perspective

Structural functionalists, from the beginnings of American Sociology in the Chicago School, have been interested in how what keeps society stable, and how it operates most efficiently. This perspective argues that inequality must exist for the smooth running of society and that in and of itself, inequality is beneficial. A meritocracy, a system which rewards people based on their abilities and their credentials, must identify certain positions in society that are more important than others and must be filled by the most qualified people. These people must have the ability and the talent to perform these jobs and therefore, must be compensated with a higher level of income, wealth, prestige and power. In 2006, one poll found that firefighters, doctors and nurses all shared in the most prestigious positions in the U.S., although their salaries might have large discrepancies (Harris Interactive, 2006). To be certain, physicians in America earn higher salaries than nurses and firefighters. Davis and Moore have argued that the greater the functional importance of a person’s job, and the more he or she is rewarded for it, the more others will strive for similar success. This motivation thus increases productivity and is therefore beneficial to society. Equality among all people would essentially make them lazy and not motivated to achieve (cited in Macionis, 2007). This argument is often used against the idea of implementing a socalled socialized medical program in the U.S. Social-Conflict Perspective

The Conflict perspective argues that stratification does not simply reward some people for their extraordinary effort; it gives them an unfair advantage over others that is difficult to overcome. It also points out that many unqualified people are rewarded when others are overlooked because of bias and discrimination.

132


The most well-known conflict perspective regarding social class is the work of Karl Marx. Marx recognized only two classes: the capitalists, or bourgeoisie who owned the land, capital, factories, and mines and the working class, or proletariat, who worked for the capitalists to earn a living wage. Marx explained that exploitation of the proletariat became profit for the capitalists. Exploiting the workers in this way would alienate them and ultimately lead to extreme class conflict, an overthrowing of the capitalists and a more equal distribution of wealth. Max Weber took the Marxian perspective further and identified power and prestige along with financial wealth, as indicators of social class. Wealth is identified as one’s assets such as property and income. The more wealth one has, the higher the social class to which he or she belongs. But according to Weber, one can have prestige, without wealth, and command power in society. A typical example of this is Mother Teresa, a woman who voluntarily lived a life of poverty to become a champion of the poor and to live among them. Another indicator in Weber’s notion of social class is power, where a person can obtain his or her will despite the objections of others. An easy example of power would be the President of the United States, who can make very unpopular decisions and remain unaffected by the will of the people. Many Americans believe that one must stand behind the decisions of the President, whether he is right or wrong. Absolute & Relative Poverty

Within the U.S. class system, which uses stratification, an institutionalization of inequality that distributes society’s resources based on one’s class, some people have more of everything. Using the wealth of others as a yardstick, some people experience relative poverty, meaning that they can provide for the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothing, but compared to those around them, they cannot afford the other material goods and services that are available. If people cannot provide even the basic necessities of life, they are said to experience absolute poverty. The ability to obtain material goods, as well as to accumulate wealth, power and prestige, is linked to a person’s socioeconomic status, or social class.

Defining Class

133

Most Americans believe that a meritocratic system, where those who attain higher incomes, more prestige, and more wealth, must deserve their bounty, is fair and just. This belief goes back to what Max Weber called, the Protestant Work Ethic (Weber, Parsons, & Tawney, 2003). Today, it is simply called the work ethic, but it means basically the same thing: that hard work and effort will produce the fruits, or rewards, of one’s labor. Yet inequalities exist that run against this belief and these inequalities often run along race, age, class and gender lines. A growing segment of the U.S. population is falling below the poverty line and actually lies outside its boundaries. This includes the underclass, people who experience what is called social exclusion and who have little or no chance of achieving the American Dream. The Underclass

Some things have changed for the demographics of the poor. The elderly have pulled out of poverty through social security benefits. But poor urban blacks remain the most isolated both physically by congregating in cities, and economically, by being forced into the lowest paying jobs, which often exist in those areas. This underclass, which resides outside the class structure, displays high rates of unemployment, crime and family deviation. They are avoided by Middle America and thus ignored. Not until the economic problems that plague the underclass begin to filter into the middle classes (as happened during the Great Depression of the 1930s) will Americans take any appreciable notice of urban poverty except to understand intellectually that it exists. People identified as part of the underclass often have no living wage. Their employment tends to be seasonal or sporadic at best, and they have to rely on public assistance programs to achieve levels of absolute poverty. Their children have only a fifty-fifty chance of rising out of the same poverty themselves (Gilbert, 2003). The underclass is not simply poor for a short period of time; they are chronically, or long term deprived because of their lack of education, jobs skills and access to income. African Americans and single mothers make up a large part of the underclass (Gilbert, 2003). Researchers have determined the size and composition of the underclass as relatively small: 2.2 million people living in 775 neighborhoods, accord134


ing to an analysis of 2000 census data. Members of the underclass tend to be minorities and living in large urban areas in the mid-Atlantic and the Midwest. The underclass is not just poor; it exhibits behaviors that exacerbate its poverty (Sawhill & Jargowsky, 2006). Many social scientists believe that training and employment opportunities are the only things that can bring people out of this type of poverty. The underclass must have jobs that pay a living wage and that offer them some type of medical insurance. They need safe housing and neighborhoods, and healthy food for themselves and their children (Fine & Weiss, 1998). Others do not agree that it is simply a matter of better jobs when it comes to moving people, especially the next generation, out of the underclass. However, some claim that the underclass is breaking up.

Viewpoints Is the Underclass Shrinking?

Some researchers point to progress made since the Clinton welfare reforms of 1996, claiming that a new work ethic foisted on the poor is getting good results. The number of people living in poor neighborhoods has decreased by 24 percent, or 2.5 million people. However, a distinction must be made between the poor and the underclass. The poor lack income, but have middle class ideals. Their ranks may include women recently divorced, or recently unemployed blue or white collar workers, both of whom have the opportunity and often the motivation to end their poverty in a relatively short period of time. But the underclass is characterized by what have been termed as dangerously self-destructive behavior patterns reminiscent of the notions of a culture of poverty. But even underclass neighborhoods have declined by 33%, or about 1.2 million people (Sawhill & Jargowsky, 2006). The causes of these drops in poverty and underclass levels are attributed to improved real wages, and the social policy changes of the Clinton administration. Child care assistance allowed single mothers to work and many poor housing projects were demolished. More programs aimed at getting children to remain in and finish school could develop behavioral Defining Class

135

changes that could break the cycle of poverty. If poor Americans finished school, waited to have children until they are married and worked full time, poverty would be cut in half. Therefore, the focus must be rewarding work and responsible behavior as the right way to fight poverty in America (Marshall, 2005). The Rise of a New Underclass

While some researchers argue that the underclass is shrinking in America, others point out that the underclass is still with us, albeit changing in composition. Immigrants

The number of both legal and illegal immigrants in the United States has been increasing so that at 12.6% of the population, or 37.9 million people, it is now higher than it was at the 1920s height of immigration. But there is a difference between immigrants of an earlier era and immigrants of today, the so-called rainbow underclass (Zuckerman, 2002). The new immigrants are not as eager to fit into their new culture or assimilate as previous generations did. The children of Mexican immigrants are an example. While they do better educationally and in the workplace than their parents, they do not remain upwardly mobile. Some researchers fear that Mexican Americans will suffer the same discrimination as African Americans, many of whom have been almost permanently relegated to lives of poverty. Why does this happen? It is simply a matter of prejudice and discrimination that lead to segregation, substandard schools and resulting high school drop out (Cose, 2007). Immigrants are marginalized and therefore cannot, or perhaps will not assimilate into the culture, bringing fears that they will become the new American underclass. Conclusion

Problems of a poor inner city population with no prospects for bettering itself remain, despite years of a strong economy and public policy changes that encouraged educational goals and job training. To be certain, there have been some improvements, but many inner city communities remain 136


troubled and their problems could be spilling into older suburban areas as well, given the dire economic climate of the latter part of 2008. More neighborhoods are experiencing lower crime rates, teen pregnancy and birth rates, all behaviors of the underclass. Public policies must underscore and encourage high risk populations, providing a ladder to the working and middle classes. Single working mothers must receive wage supplements, child care, health care and employer training programs. Youngsters must be encouraged to remain in school, to be offered mentoring and after school enrichment programs (Cose, 2007). Immigrants from Mexico must not be segregated, but welcomed and incorporated into the American mainstream society so a new underclass does not simply replace the old one, in a pattern of human gentrification. And working class people who slip into poverty because of current economic circumstances must not be allowed to become alienated from government and industrial behaviors that cause them to feel the discouragement and hopelessness that has so often characterized the underclass in America.

Bibliography Arena, J. (2005). “Bringing back in the black working class: A critique of the “underclass” and urban politics literature”. Conference Papers, American Sociological Association; 2005 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 1-24. Retrieved October 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=sih&AN=18614536&site=ehost-live Cose, E. (2007). The rise of a new American underclass. Newsweek, 151 (1), 74-74. Retrieved October 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=28018202&site=ehost-live Ewing, H. & Grady, R. (2005). The boys of Baraka. [Documentary film]. New York: Loki Films. Fine, M. & Weis, L. (1998). The unknown city: The lives of poor and working class young people. Boston: Beacon. Gerstmann, E. (1999). The constitutional underclass: Gays, lesbians, and the failure of classbased equal protection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gilbert, D. (2003). The American class structure in an age of growing inequality. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Harris Interactive, Inc. (2006). Firefighters, doctors and nurses top list as ‘Most Prestigious Occupations” according to latest Harris poll. The Harris Poll #58. Retrieved October 6, 2008 from website http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=685

Defining Class

137

Koepke, D. (2007). Race, class, poverty and capitalism. Race, Gender & Class, 14 (3/4), 189205. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=31792793&site=eh ost-live Macionis, J. (2007). Society: The basics. New York: Prentice Hall. Marshall, W. (2005). Shrinking underclass. Blueprint, 2005 (3), 27-27. Retrieved October 3, 2008 from EBSC online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17780712&site=ehost-live Philen, R. (2007, March 21). Oscar Lewis and the culture of poverty. Robert Philen’s Blog. Retrieved October 6, 2008 from http://robertphilen.blogspot.com/2007/03/oscarlewis-and-culture-of-poverty.html Rollins, J. (1985). Between women: Domestics and their employers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rothchild, J. (1995). Wealth: Static wages, except for the rich. Time Magazine, 145 (4), 60-61. Sawhill, I. & Jargowsky, P. (2006). The decline of the underclass. Center on Children and Families Brief Number 36. Retrieved October 3, 2008 from Brookings Institute. http:// www.brookings.edu/papers/2006/01poverty_jargowsky.aspx Stephen, A. (2007). Born equal? New Statesman,137 (4857), 28-31. Retrieved July 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26150864&site=ehost-live Samuelson, R. (1997, April 30). The culture of poverty. Washington Post, A21. Retrieved October 6, 2008 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/ welfare/stories/op043097.htm Weber, M., (2003). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Parsons, T., & Tawney, R., eds. New York: Dover. Zuckerman, M. (2002). Our rainbow underclass. U.S. News & World Report, 133 (11), 118. Retrieved October 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7357361&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Dalrymple, T. (2003). Life at the bottom: The worldview that makes the underclass. New York: Manhattan Institute. Massey, D. & Denton, N. (1998). American Apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Boston: Harvard University Press. Peterson, W. & Burgess, A. (2004). Silent depression. New York: Norton.

138


Cultural Theories of Poverty Michael P. Auerbach

Overview In his 1935 State of the Union Address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stressed the importance of helping Americans who had fallen into poverty and destitution. However, he also warned that aid to poor people whose plight remained largely unchanged over a long period of time could be dangerous for America. “[Continued] dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamental to the national fibre,” he said. “To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit . . . It is in violation of the traditions of America” (Roosevelt, 2004). FDR’s comments speak to two types of sentiment that have long been prevalent in American society. The first is that those who fall upon hard times and into poverty must be given every resource necessary to reemerge above the poverty line. The second is that no one should be complacent about their impoverished status – for the United States government to support those who do not seek to better their situation is akin to perpetuating their complacency, which is counter to the American dream. In other words, these two ideas stress a central point: Poverty is not a status Americans should embrace – should they fall into hardship, they should work diligently to return to economic health.

Defining Class

139

While Roosevelt warned the people of the dangers of eschewing the American tradition of hard work and persistence and, instead, enabling the poor to remain poor, there are those who believe that poor communities have their own “culture,” one with values somewhat different from the “American dream” ideals proffered above by FDR. Among those who espouse this school of thought was anthropologist Oscar Lewis. Lewis suggested that poor people had created for themselves a “culture of poverty” which became ingrained among impoverished peoples. In fact, he argued, this “culture” was so deeply rooted in poor communities that it would be handed down from generation to generation. Understandably, such theories created a storm of controversy, but also raised a valid point: There are a wide range of factors that can create poverty in a given society, and such contributors are not limited to the political or economic arenas. There are sociological forces at work, many of which may have cultural underpinnings. This paper explores many of these cultural factors within the broader context of the causes of poverty. In doing so, the reader will glean a more comprehensive understanding of the multifarious elements that foster and maintain poverty in the postindustrial international community. What is Poverty?

Billions of people around the globe live in poverty, and yet there is no single, universally-accepted definition of what this individual status is. There is a wide range of definitions, to be sure; encompassing the political, economic and sociological arenas. Indeed, painting a definitive picture of poverty is at best an arbitrary undertaking. Then again, its impacts are equally far-reaching. The President of the World Bank recently wrote that poverty “remains a global problem of huge proportions. Of the world’s 6 billion people, 2.8 billion live on less than $2 a day, and 1.2 billion on less than $1 a day. Six infants of every 100 do not see their first birthday, and 8 do not survive to their fifth. Of those who do reach school age, 9 boys in 100, and 14 girls, do not go to primary school”(UN Economic and Social Committee, 2001). As the World Bank quotation above indicates, arguably the most popular of the definitions of poverty is along economic lines. Nations, as well as the 140


international community, have largely embraced the establishment of an absolute “line” to distinguish a system’s impoverished population. Those who earn less than about one US dollar (a determination based on the year in which the threshold was established – 1993) are considered “below the poverty line.” Then again, such rigid parameters are, as many scholars contend, flawed. Even the $1 US figure is subject to controversy. In fact, given the varying size of individual national economies, even those who introduced the $1/ day concept to the World Bank have largely sought to update or replace it with a more complex (and realistic) figure that includes the economies of the nations in which incidences of poverty are more prevalent (The Economist, 2008). In fact, there are a number of contributors to poverty rates, and not all are manifest in income levels. In some cases, the economy under which a society operates fails to provide development opportunities for the people. In other situations, political leadership does not provide the resources and institutions that enable the people to avoid falling in hardship. In another arena, there are cultural elements that can contribute to poverty. In many cases, poverty is increased and the policy responses designed to mitigate the issue falls far short over the long-term, due in no small part not to limits in income but in limited appeal to certain social groups with distinct cultures and traditions. This paper will next turn to some examples of the theoretical causes of poverty in the international community. Culture & Poverty

In a 2007 study, a social service group experienced a number of failures in attempting to mitigate poverty in one community. Staff complained about the fact that clients rejected their efforts in strong fashion. Some felt insulted at the assumption that poverty and racial issues could be generalized across countries and cultures. Other staff members felt that they were not properly trained on the cultural and traditional norms of the region in which they would work (Vu & Austin, 2007). It is the myriad of international, national and sub-national social groups and cultures, and the failure of service providers to appreciate the number Defining Class

141

and profile of such groups, that have led to situations such as those described above. Social service groups often fail to mitigate poverty because they do not appreciate the cultural forces that created it within the system. One researcher observes that many anti-poverty programs fail because the real experts on how to address the issue in a given system are the poor themselves. The study continued to note that some systems have seen small successes by enabling the people to help grow and appreciate the advances they had just taken part in (Xiaoyun & Remenyi, 2008). The Role of the Family Unit

Such a statement finds particular veracity in studying the relationship between poverty and the family. The family unit is arguably the most important entity in any given culture. Social norms, traditions, religious ideals and other cultural elements are shared among parents, siblings and countless generations of relatives. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that many sociologists believe that life in poverty may also be one of the cultural elements imbued in the family structure. This theory suggests that generations of individuals who had previously been subjected to impoverishment have a certain perspective of the world that is based on a life of poverty. Some of these values and traditions may be positive in nature, such as Roosevelt’s espousal of an American tradition of individual effort to succeed without external help. Then again, many of those in whom this “bootstraps” ideal is ingrained are those who see the benefits of escaping poverty, either by examples set by close relatives or perceived role models. Others may have at one time in their lives lived above the poverty line and, as a result, aspire to return to that status. On the other side of the coin are those who have no such inspiration. For many, poverty is all they may know simply because such a life is all that they have ever seen and experienced. The most glaring examples of such a “heritage” are seen in such places as sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, but such a lifestyle exists in virtually every region on Earth, including rural and urban centers in many wealthy nations. Only when impoverished families are exposed to the elements and resources that may help facilitate upward mobility do some break away from the life to which they have become complacent.

142


In a recent study in the Philippines, two groups of Filipinos raised in poverty demonstrated identical perspectives on their status – they had never seen their basic needs met, had negative emotions about their way of life and attributed their respective states of poverty to family heritage. One of these groups did experience upward mobility, however. This elevation occurred when the family was exposed to services, educational resources and other elements that provide a path towards greater wealth than that to which they were accustomed. By breaking these individuals away from their family “tradition” of poverty, this group was able to move up in socioeconomic class, while the second group, unexposed to such elements, remained mired in poverty; complacent in the only life they knew (Tuason, 2008). Theorists of Cultural Poverty

The idea that families help perpetuate their own state of poverty leads to a more general theory of poverty as a culture in and of itself. As stated earlier, Oscar Lewis offered the view that poverty is handed down from generation to generation as a “culture of poverty.” He wrote that once this culture is introduced, it tends to perpetuate itself. “By the time slum children are six or seven, they usually have absorbed the basic attitudes and values of their subculture,” he said. “Thereafter they are psychologically unready to take full advantage of changing conditions or improving opportunities that may develop in their lifetime” (Bradshaw, 2006). Lewis was not alone in his view that poverty had its roots in a deeply embedded “culture” of impoverishment. In 1984, Charles Murray echoed this sentiment, but expounded on its causes. In fact, Murray asserted a rather daring point – responsibility for the continuation of poverty in the United States despite the 1960s “war on poverty” rested squarely on the shoulders of the system that was intent on defeating it. Murray’s theory centered on the fact that attitudes (especially among upper-class elites) about poverty in the United States changed in the 1960s. No longer, he argued, was poverty being considered the result of individual vice or misstep. Rather, liberal-minded activists believed that the system had failed a growing segment of the population, keeping it mired in poverty with little opportunity to reemerge. With regard to the large number of blacks below the poverty line, Murray contended, elites viewed Defining Class

143

this disparity as the product of white racism. The result, Murray said, was that US society sought to spend exorbitant sums of money to help the poor. This money, coupled with an educational system that “dumbed down” school curricula to help poor citizens, served not to help poor citizens out of squalor but rather keep them firmly entrenched in it (Magnet, 2005). Understandably, the Lewis’s theory of a culture of poverty, as well as Murray’s notion that state-sponsored relief policies did little more than help entrenched poverty maintain itself and generated considerable backlash primarily from liberal-minded critics. Certainly, scholars did find holes in such theories. For example, the culture of poverty theory suggests that poverty exists as the result of deviance in behavior from mainstream society but critics have repeatedly doubted this claim, suggesting that most poor people share the same values as those of upper classes (Long, 2007). Nevertheless, many policymakers have begun to take such views seriously. Alternatives to the Cultural Poverty Theory

As mentioned earlier, there are countless definitions of poverty. In a similar vein, there is a myriad of theories about the causes of impoverishment. Sociologists proceed from two general theoretical approaches to this mystery. The first of these is the failure of the individual to advance upward in society. Within this school of thought is the conclusion that the system has not failed an individual, but rather that the individual, for a number of reasons, fails to take advantage of the resources available for him or her to avoid falling below the poverty line. How an individual falls into poverty has a number of explanations – poor financial decisions, committing crime, becoming addicted to drugs, mental illness or emigrating to a wealthier country from a less developed country. However, under this theoretical framework, the perpetuation of poverty is also borne of a culture, although it is something of a departure from the “culture of poverty” theory espoused by Lewis and Murray. Under this model of “classism,” the liable “culture” views those who live in poverty in an inequitable fashion, a perspective that is in turn ingrained into the individual.

144


Classism within the Education System

One study of the American public education system sees classism based on a number of myths that stem largely from the “culture of poverty” framework. Among these misconceptions about poor people are the beliefs that these individuals lack motivation or a work ethic and as a result, so do their children. Also, a belief among higher classes is that poor people are inattentive and non-nurturing to their children, that they cannot speak English and that they are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, which further keeps them mired in poverty. These myths, founded in the Lewis and Murray ideal, lend to the continuation of poverty and the failure of schools to either help students elevate out of their lower-class status or give them the tools to extricate themselves, according to the study’s author. He continues, saying: The myth of a “culture of poverty” distracts us from a dangerous culture that does exist — the culture of classism. This culture continues to harden in our schools today. It leads the most well-intentioned of us . . . into low expectations for low-income students. It makes teachers fear their most powerless pupils. And, worst of all, it diverts attention from what people in poverty do have in common: inequitable access to basic human rights (Gorski, 2008). The central imperative that results of the classist point of view is not that the system must spend more to remove individuals from their impoverished state. Rather, it is that the system must have the resources available for all classes to utilize for their betterment. In a society in which privilege creates choices for all, classists maintain, the society must enable an equitable set of benefits for all social groups (Koepke, 2007). Poverty Amidst Certain Social Groups

Controversy over the theories of Lewis and Murray has persisted, even though many believe that they are at the least fundamentally intriguing. Still, although the perpetuation of poverty may be evident in these theories, the fundamental causes of poverty among certain social and racial groups are not as clear. Some theories regarding the plight of minority groups suggest that there may in fact be a collective grouping of factors that have contributed to poverty at its advent and perpetuated it during the course of history. Defining Class

145

In one study of African Americans, for example, researchers employed a multi-level approach, combining individual-level data with contextual information from community-based organizations. The author concludes that young, poor black people face a number of layers of disadvantages, many of which have been described in this paper. On one level, instability at the family level tends to embed in young African Americans a sense that their poverty will undoubtedly continue, for it has persisted throughout family history. On another level is the community and neighborhoods, which have largely failed to present avenues and resources that enable black men and women to escape the mindset of the perpetuity of poverty suggested to them by the family. Such individual and community issues, the study concludes, contribute heavily to continued social disparity and the poverty that is endemic to it (Kirk, 2008). Similar to the theory of classism, the distinctive element of this theory is not that society must overcompensate to correct the inequities that perpetuate poverty. Rather, it is to stress that there are inequities in the current system, and that in situations where resources are not distributed in an equitable fashion (more specifically, the resources available to wealthier individuals are also available for the less wealthy), poverty is likely to be maintained. Conclusion

There is an old English proverb that says “Poverty is not a shame, but the being ashamed of it is” (Columbia University, 1996). Indeed, in every society in the modern world, there is a group of citizens who have fallen upon hard times or have grown up in a state of poverty. Poverty has many faces and definitions, but the most basic of these is a lack of the resources to live a comfortable life in society. The causes of poverty are equally elusive, and lack universally accepted definition due to the wide range of schools of thought on the subject. For millennia, the commonly accepted view of poverty was that it was the result of individual missteps – it was the responsibility of the individual to return to prosperity. Of course, many individuals did not seek a remedy, falling further into personal disrepair – drugs, crime, limited education and conditions of abject squalor were part of their lives 146


and although they had the choice to better themselves, for reasons all their own, they failed to take advantage of a system designed to help those who seek to help themselves. In the 1960s, however, the view among American leadership was that those who had fallen behind the veil of poverty were the products of a system that had failed to meet their needs. The necessary response, in the minds of adherents to this school of thought, was for the government to spend the funds necessary to improve the lives of poor members of the community. This “liberal” approach to understanding poverty (and thereby formulating a policy response) led to the controversial theory about a “culture of poverty.” Under this model, the poor are seen as part of an ingrained subculture, knowing only the impoverished way of life. For adherents to this mode of thought, such as Oscar Lewis and Charles Murray, any form of state assistance only perpetuated poverty by feeding a segment of the population that chose not to feed itself. As this paper has demonstrated, there is a great deal of data to support many of the theories surrounding the links between culture and poverty. Such data has led to the “war on poverty” during the administration of Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, and it has led to the comprehensive reform of the US welfare system in the mid-1990s. Although poverty will almost certainly continue as the world enters the post-industrial era, it remains to see if any these theories on the substance of poverty will prevail, or if new data will support other theories.

Bibliography Bradshaw, T. K. (2006). Theories of poverty and anti-poverty programs in community development. Rural Poverty Research Center Working Papers. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from www.igloo.org/eckerlecurwood/.download/theories The Columbia world of quotations. (1996). Columbia University Press. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from http://www.bartleby.com/66/40/2440.html Gorski, P. (2008). The myth of the “culture of poverty.” Educational Leadership, 65(7), 32-36. Kirk, D. S. (2008). The neighborhood context of racial and ethnic disparities in arrest. Demography, 45(1), 55-77. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =a9h&AN=28627035&site=ehost-live

Defining Class

147

Koepke, D. J. (2007). Race, class, poverty, and capitalism. Race, Gender and Class, 14(3/4), 189-205. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=31792793&si te=ehost-live Long, R. (2007, May 27). Chapter 7: Poverty. Social problems. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/problems/chap-07.htm Magnet, M. (2005). Ending welfare as we knew it. National Review, 57(23), 110-111. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19082069&site=e host-live On the poverty line. (2008). The Economist, 387(8581), 100. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32190476&site=ehost-live Roosevelt, F. D. (2004). State of the Union Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/2429098/State-of-the-UnionAddresses-of-Franklin -D-Roosevelt. Tuason, M. T. G. (2008). Those who were born poor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(2), 158-171. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN =31712236&site=ehost-live United Nations Economic & Social Council. (2001, May 10). Poverty and the international Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/E.C.12.2001.10.En?Opendocument. Vu, C. M. & Austin, M. J. (2007). The explosive nature of the culture of poverty. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 16(1/2), 167-172. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=30035675&site=ehost-live Xiaoyun, L. & Remenyi, J. Making poverty mapping and monitoring participatory. Development in Practice, 18(4/5), 599-610. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx ?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33158126&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Garrity, R. (2005). Classism: Why should we care? Off our Backs, 35(1/2), 22-23. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Gender Studies Database. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=fmh&AN=WMST-112752&site=ehost-live Gross, D. (2008). Today’s “Culture of Poverty.” Newsweek, 151(14), 18. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31506770&site=ehost-live Lehning, A. J. (2007). Political science perspectives on poverty. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 16(1/2), 87-103. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from 148


EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=30035671&site=ehost-live Long, C. (2006). Understanding poverty. NEA Today, 24(7), 16. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20357053&site=ehost-live Morely, J. (1988). The new anti-poverty debate. Nation, 246(6), 196-198. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=8800005641&site=ehost-live O’Connor, B. (2001). The intellectual origins of “welfare dependency.” Australian Journal of Social Issues, 36(3), 221-236. Retrieved August 8, 20, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =a9h&AN=5382168&site=ehost-live

Defining Class

149

Demographics of Poverty PD Casteel

Overview In America poverty is measured by annual income. The poverty line is based on a calculation that takes into consideration the minimum required to feed an individual, child and adult not differentiated, multiplied by three. The calculation was designed by Mollie Orshansky, a Social Security Administration employee, in 1963. Despite recommendations from researchers and the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance, a early 1990s government panel that studied the issue for two and a half years, the calculation for of the American poverty line has remained unchanged and in the opinion of many experts greatly misstated. This paper explores the demographics of poverty in a two-fold manner. First it breaks down the demographics based on the official calculation and second suggests how much further poverty may reach in a certain category based on available data, various methodologies used in measuring statistics around the issue of poverty, income, and work and the suggestions by Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance. A broader perspective of the demographics of poverty can shed light on the changes in the American economy over the last few decades and aid the researcher and policy maker in both understanding of wealth and poverty and constructing new approaches to remedying poverty.

150


The War on Poverty

The War on Poverty was unofficially waged from President Johnson’s declaration in his 1964 State of the Union Address. Johnson called for a “nationwide war on the sources of poverty.” The program included programs such as Head Start, School Breakfast program, Minimum Wage Bill, Job Corps, and the College Work Program. These programs were passed as part of Johnson’s Great Society plan which included the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. Taken as a whole, the Great Society was to benefit many Americans, but its focus was on the Civil Rights and economic hardships of African Americans. In 1980 President Reagan was elected and started the process of dismantling the institutions that were erected in the War on Poverty. In 1981 the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was passed which cut eligibility for welfare programs, cut benefit levels, and allowed states to cut off benefits if new state work regulations were not met. The plan cut many benefits to the lowest wage earners, but left most of the middle class initiatives like the College Work Program intact. The idea behind the initiatives was to keep the poorest welfare recipients from becoming entrenched in welfare programs. Research shows that it may have had the opposite effect (Englander & Jane, 1992). In his 1988 State of the Union Address, Reagan said, “My friends, some years ago, the Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” From 1963 to 1979 the official poverty rate dropped from 19% of the population to 11.7%. The number of Americans officially considered poor dropped from 36 million to 26 million. Since Reagan’s overhaul of the Great Society the percentage of people living in official poverty has remained largely unchanged and the number of poor has returned to 36 million. The demographics of poverty continue to evolve. Changes and trends can been recognized in measurements of race, gender, and age. Shifts in poverty reflect a growing Latino population, a split between fortunes for African American men and women, the affluence of Asian Americans, an overall feminization of poverty, a perplexing loss of progress on the issue of children living in poverty, and the aging of the generally more affluent Americans of the Silent Generation. The Poverty Line Calculation

“Mollie’s measurement” is straight forward and may have served as a functional measurement in the Sixties. However, the formula has become Defining Class

151

flawed over time. In 1963 it was assumed that the cost of food made up one in every three dollars in an individual’s budget. That figure has dropped to one in nine dollars (US Department of Labor, 2006). This might lead to the assumption that the poverty line is too high. However, the calculation also doesn’t take into account the increase of women in the workforce and increase in single mother heads of households since 1963 and the associated increase in daycare expenses, changes in the costs of healthcare, exacerbated differences in costs from region to region, substantial difference in costs from rural to urban areas, and rapid acceleration of housing costs (Citro, Michael, et al, 1995). This calculation and the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance also do not take into account the breathtaking rise in oil prices since 2005. The current government calculation for a two parent family of four is $20,444 (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). Based on that figure, over thirty 36 million Americans live in poverty. Based on various recommendations by the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance that figure could go up one to four points (Pear, 1995). Each percentage point represents approximately 3 million people. It is reasonable to consider the demographics of the 12 million people who live just above the official poverty line and may well be considered poor based on current economic conditions.

Applications Latinos

In 1979 roughly 22 percent of Latinos living in America lived below the poverty line. In 2006 that figure remained approximately the same. However, the Latino population grew more than three and a half times during that period and the number of Latinos living beneath the official poverty line grew from 2.9 million in 1979 to 9.2 million in 2006 (DeNavasWalt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). Officially 1 out of every 5 Latinos in America live in poverty. The figure drops to 1 out of 4 for children (Kreider, 2008). This is due to the large number of single male immigrants in the Latino population base. Overall Latino poverty may be more understated than any other given the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance suggested guidelines in measuring poverty and more importantly the lack of good data on the millions of illegal Latino immigrants in America.

152


Many factors influence the high number of Latinos living in poverty including the breakdown of the extended families experienced by new immigrants, the relative youth of Latinos, illegal immigration status, lack of English proficiency, discrimination, and low educational attainment (De La Rosa, 2000). What is significant about Latino poverty is that Latinos made up only 6% of the population in 1979 and that figure is over 15% today. The growth in the number Latino poor is in direct proportion to their explosive growth in the population at large. In 2000 US Census projections predicted that Latinos would represent over 25 percent of the population shortly after 2050. If these trends are projected to the end of the century Latinos will outnumber Whites in America. Given that Latinos passed the 2010 projected figure in 2007, it is plausible that these changes will happen faster than anticipated. It is important to keep this in mind when considering the issue of poverty. As America moves forward the issue of poverty will become increasingly a Latino American issue. Approximately 60% of Latinos over the age of 25 have a high school degree and only 13% have a bachelors’ degree (US Census, 2008). And an amazing 1 in 3 Latinos do not have access to health insurance (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). African Americans

Currently 24% of African Americans live below the official poverty line. The figure was nearly 31% in 1979. However, today 9.4 million African Americans live in poverty compared to 8.0 million in 1979. These figures are understated if we accept the assumptions of the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance related to the cost of living in urban areas. The issues surrounding African American poverty are neighborhood entrenchment (Ross, & Mirowsky, 2008), mass imprisonment (Western, 2008), erosion of the nuclear family, low levels of education attainment, high unemployment for African American men, and discrimination. The most striking issues in the demographics of poverty in the African American community are related to the fortunes of the African American male. In 1979 the incarceration rate of African American men was about 5%. This is figure has increased to approximately 12% without any significant increase in crime rates (Western, 2007). It is estimated that 44% of all youth in juvenile jails are African American (Butterfield 2003). Unemployment for African American men exceeds 9% and only 6 in 10 adult African American men have jobs. These figures are understated because unemDefining Class

153

ployment rates exclude the incarcerated population. Because of this there are nearly 3 million more African American women in the general population men and over 1 million more in the labor force (Department of Labor, 2008). Due to these and other factors 7 of 10 African American children are born to an unwed mother (Martin, Hamilton, et al, 2007). Approximately 82% of African Americans over the age of 25 have a high school degree and 19% have a bachelors’ degree (US Census, 2008). 1 in 5 African Americans do not have access to health insurance (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). Asians

Asian poverty figures have been tracked since 1987. The number of Asians living in poverty has dropped from 1 in 6 in 1987 to 1 in10 in 2006. The reasons behind the Asian success has been attributed to parental economic status, immigrant status, expectations, and values (Vartanian, Thomas, et al, 2007). In the 2006, for the first time, Asian Americans surpassed White Americans in median income for full time workers (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). Approximately 52% of Asians in America have a bachelors’ degree and nearly 61% of all Asian Americans between the ages of 25 and 29 have bachelor’s degrees. Perhaps most telling is that over 20% of Asians have a graduate degree. This is twice as high as the percentage of Whites who have graduate degrees and greater than the percentage of Latinos and African Americans who have bachelors degrees (US Census, 2008). Surprising, despite their economic success, 1 in 6 Asian Americans still do not have access to health insurance (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). Whites

Since 1979 the percent of White, non-Hispanic, people living below the official poverty line remain just above 8%. The number of Whites living in poverty increased from 14.4 million in 1979 to 16.0 million in 2006. Reasons for the entrenched nature of White poverty can be attributed to reconstruction of the American economic system shifting unskilled jobs from high paying industrial sector jobs to low paying service sector jobs (Mulherin, 2000), failure to immigrate out of the rural South to urban areas offering more opportunity as African Americans have done (Hooks, 2000), and poor Whites alignment with conservative political movements slowly dismantling the very social welfare programs that would benefit them

154


(Gilens, 1996). Approximately 91% of American Whites over the age of 25 have a high school degree and 32% have a bachelors’ degree (US Census, 2008). 1 in 10 Whites do not have access to health insurance (DeNavasWalt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). Feminization of Poverty

In 1979 8.7 million families had a female head of household. Today that figure is 14.4 million or quickly approaching 1 in 5 families (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). In 1979 approximately 2.6 million or 48% of all families that lived below the official poverty line had a female head of household. Today the numbers have escalated to 4.1 million and 54%. Overall, woman make up 60% of America’s poor (Gimenez, 1999). Primary issues related to women in poverty are the wage gap, cost of child care (Davis, 2000), the effects of divorce (Gimenez, 1999), and government policy on leave and other benefits (Casper, McLanahan, & Garfinkel, 1994). This trend has been referred to by numerous scholars as the feminization of poverty. With the anticipation of continually high birthrates for unwed mothers and the erosion of welfare and company provided benefits the slowing of the feminization of poverty does not look promising. In one positive response to these trends young women have turned to education and recent studies show that women now obtain approximately 60% of all newly awarded associates, bachelors, and master’s degrees. Statistically, the fortunes of children closely follow the successes and failure of their mothers. In 1979 16.4% of children lived in poverty. The figure shot up in the 1980s and 1990s to well over 20% and has only recently begun to decline. Today the figure is 17.4% (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2007). Silent Generations

Historically late Silent Generation children were the first generation to enjoy broad middle class affluence from an early age through adulthood. This generation had fathers who enjoyed the benefits of the GI Bill and became the first generation in America that expected to go to college. This is also the first generation to enjoy a lifetime of contributions to the Social Security program and the resulting income in retirement. Once criticized for their focus on just getting an education and a good job while remaining silent on political issues their focus has translated into

Defining Class

155

lower poverty rates for Americans over the age of 65. In 1973 the poverty rate for the elderly was 15.2%. Today that figure is 9.4%. The actual number of poor elderly has dropped while the population of elderly has increased from 24 million in 1979 to 36 million in 2006. Some caution is required when trying to interpret these figures. First, medical care and life expectancy improved greatly for the Silent Generation in comparison to their predecessors. Second, there is at the very least a correlation between poverty and mortality (Sakamoto, 1990). The Silent Generation will be followed by the Baby Boomers, Americans born between 1946 and 1964. The Boomers have been the most prosperous generation on record. With access to better health care than previous generations, the Boomers will create a dramatic shift in the age of the American populace. If past earnings are any indication of wealth in retirement, the Boomers should continue the gains seen in the Silent Generation.

Viewpoints In 1964 the War on Poverty began. From then until 1979 poverty dropped from 19% to 11.7%. In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected President. Since 1980 the poverty rate has remained largely unchanged in the 12% to 13% range. The gains from the War on Poverty have not continued. With a stagnant poverty rate the number of poor will increase in step with the growth in the general population. In 2006 the number of poor in America returned to the 1964 figure of 36 million people. Though the rate has been largely stable the demographics beneath have had some significant changes. African American poverty rates have dropped dramatically. This gain has been offset by slight increases within the much larger White population. Though there has been a lowering in the Latino rate of poverty the dramatic increase in the Latino population has created a very large Latino poverty population. The most significant change has been in the acceleration of the feminization of poverty. In 1954 families with a female head of household represented only 23% of poor families. Today that figure is 54%. Many of the dynamics that has hastened this growth followed the American Feminists’ Movement of the 1970s. In 1969 the percent of households in poverty with a woman head of household was 36%. In 1979 the figure was 48%. 156


The same can be said of the politically charged 1980s. Political reform of the welfare system saw the decade end with female head of house hold families representing 52% of the families living in poverty in America. In the relatively prosperous 1990s this figure remained largely unchanged. Need to Improve Public Policy

Understanding the demographics beneath poverty is essential if we desire to create good public policy. The War on Poverty was primarily designed to attack the issue of African American poverty, because this was how poverty was understood in 1964. The percentage of families in poverty with female head of households had remained largely unchanged over the previous decade and the Latino population was relatively small. In hindsight, the Great Society policies were largely effective. Over half of all African Americans lived in poverty in the 1950s. Today that figure has been reduced to 1 in 4. Unfortunately, the War on Poverty was not equipped to deal with the feminization of poverty. New initiatives were needed in the late 1970s and early 1980s to attack this new trend in poverty. Instead welfare policy was stripped down. The federal government made it more difficult to get welfare and the welfare that could be obtained was significantly reduced. States were slow to fill the gap. States with the greatest number of poor and the highest birth rates to unwed mothers were conservative states in the South that formed the foundation of support for the new federal government restrictions on welfare programs. The Sociologist’s Role

Currently, the discussion of public policy and Latino poverty is being drowned out by the debate on immigration. The inevitable demographic certainty that America will become a Latino nation and that Latino issues must be considered in addressing public policy has yet to sink in with policy makers. The role of the sociologists is to continue to study the underlying demographics of poverty and publish their findings in hope that their work will once again inform public policy. The challenge is greater than ever. Policy makers now get much of their information on demographics from private foundations funded by corporations and individuals with a particular political interest. Informing the public debate with rigorous academic research is becoming more difficult. However, the role of the independent academic researcher is vital. It’s a role similar to having a free press. Like the press, it is the responsibility of the sociologists to inform. Defining Class

157

This paper gives a brief overview of some of the demographics underlying poverty in America. One of the concepts assumed in this paper is that these demographics represent the working poor. What is not seen in the figures is how the working poor earn their wages and what this means relative to their quality of life. Additionally, the 5.5 million Americans who work more than one job cannot be separated from other single wage earners in these demographics. Today 36 million Americans officially live in poverty. If that figure were to include suggestions from the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance for calculating the official poverty line the poor in America would number 48 million. Approximately the same numbers of Americans do not have access to health insurance (DeNavasWalt, Proctor, & Smith 2007). For perspective, if the 48 million people were a separate country they would be larger than 169 of the world’s 195 countries.

Bibliography Butterfield, F. (2003). Racial disparities seen as pervasive in juvenile justice. In Rosenthal, P. S. (ed), Race, class, and gender in the United States, Sixth Edition, 224 – 225. New York: Worth Publishers. Casper, L., McLanahan, S., & Garfinkel, I. (1994). The gender-poverty gap: what we can learn from other countries. American Sociological Review, 59(4), 594-605. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text, http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9408220178&site=ehost-live Citro, C.F., Michael, R.T., & Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance. (1995). Measuring poverty: A new approach. Washington D.C: National Academies Press. Davis, M. (2000). Four cornerstones to ending women’s poverty. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 7(2), 199 – 224. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=sih&AN=3643250&site=ehost-live DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B.D., & Smith, J. (2007). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2006. In Current Population Reports, 60-233. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington D.C. De La Rosa, M.R. (2000). An analysis of Latino poverty and a plan of action. Journal of Poverty, 4(1/2), 27 – 62. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= sih&AN=27647277&site=ehost-live Englander, F. & Kane, J. (1992.) Reagan’s welfare reforms: Were the program savings realized? Policy Studies Review, 11(2), 3-23. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d irect=true&db=sih&AN=11446023&site=ehost-live

158


Gilen, M (1996). “Race Coding” and white opposition to welfare. American Political Science Review, 90 (3). 593 – 604. Gimenez, M. (1999). Reflections on “the feminization of poverty: Myth or reality.” Critical Sociology, 25(2/3), 333-335. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= sih&AN=4434552&site=ehost-live Hooks, B. (2000). Where We Stand. Taylor & Francis Ltd. / Books. Oxfordshire, UK. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16697640&site=eh ost-live Kreider, R.M. (2008). Living Arrangements of Children: 2004. In Current Population Reports, 70 -114. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington D.C. Martin, J.A., Hamilton, B.E., Ph.D., Sutton, P.D., et al. (2006). Births: Final data for 2005. National Vital Statistics Report, 56(6). Division of Vital Statistics: Washington D.C. Retrieved July 1, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf Mulherin, S. (1995). Affordable housing and white poverty concentration. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(2), 139 – 156. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=3238272&site=ehost-live Pear, R. (1995, April 30). A proposed definition of poverty may raise number of U.S. poor. New York Times. Ross, C.E., & Mirowsky, J. (2008). Neighborhood socioeconomic status and health: Context or composition? City & Community, 7(2), 163-179. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=32006465&site=ehost-live Sakamoto, A. (1990). Gender Differentials in Poverty-Mortality Well-Being. Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 33(4), 429-445. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih AN=9606215880&site=ehost-live U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Preliminary 2007 Data on Employment Status by State and Demographic. Washington D.C. Retrieved June 29, 2008. http://www.bls. gov/lau/ptable14full2007.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Annual social and economic supplement: Educational attainment in the United States: 2007. In Current Population Survey, 2007. Washington D.C. Retrieved June 29, 2008. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/ education/cps2007.html U.S. Department of Labor. (2006) Consumer Expenditures in 2005 Survey. Washington D.C. Vartanian, T.P, Karen, D., Buck, P.W., & Cadge, W. (2007). Early Factors Leading to College Graduation for Asians and Non-Asians in the United States. Sociological Quarterly,

Defining Class

159

48(2), 165-197. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3210035 9&site=ehost-live Western, B. (2007). Mass imprisonment and economic inequality. Social Research, 74(2), 509-532. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=26378602&sit e=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Newman, K.S., & Chen, V.T. (2006). The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near Poor in America. Boston: Beacon Press. Payne, R.K. (1996). A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Highlands, TX: Process, Inc.

aha!

Shipler, D.K. (2004). The Working Poor: Invisible in America New York: Alfred A, Knopf.

160


Stratification & Class: Income Inequality Jennifer Christian

Overview What is social stratification? How does income inequality contribute to stratification in the Unites States? Is stratification necessary for society to function? These issues are of central importance to understanding the very nature of society and how individual opportunities are restricted or expanded based on their family status. Yet, many people are oblivious to how social stratification and income inequality influences their daily lives. Issues such as these fit into the broader study of social inequality, and more specifically, income inequality. They also shed light on the consequences of inequitable access to resources and how income inequality affects individuals, educational opportunities, job opportunities, advancement in employment, and living a long and healthy life. Social stratification is the umbrella under which these concepts are united. In the United States, as is the case around the world, there is patterned inequality that divides society into categories in which there are disparities between access to social and economic rewards, with some people having more opportunity than others. Most scholars who investigate income inequality start from the foundation that there is social inequality that exists in the United States. This is attributed to variation in wealth, power, and

Defining Class

161

prestige (Thio, 1992). Under the umbrella of scholarship on social stratification is one that focuses specifically on income as a primary factor that leads to differential opportunities and outcomes for members of society. Once thought of as a part of life (i.e., people are rich because they always have been, and the poor are poor because they don’t work as hard), today many scholars are pointing to structural factors rather than individual choices as the major driving force behind social stratification, income inequality and the growing disparities between the rich and the poor. These scholars argue that inequality is not necessarily a function of society, but rather a result of institutional arrangements that perpetuate inequality from generation to generation. The results of inequality have also garnered additional attention among sociologists, economists, political scientists, criminologists, healthcare, and social service providers. Social and income inequality are political issues that are gaining attention in the media, among the public and politicians. Today there is still little consensus among these scholars regarding the causes and consequences of social inequality, income inequality, and ultimately the effects of inequitable opportunity on individual lives. Theories of Inequality

There are many competing theories that attempt to explain income inequality on a national and international level. Most of these theories can be categorized into one of two theoretical camps: Functionalism and Conflict theory. The Functionalist perspective asserts that inequality is a central component to the organization of society and serves a purpose in structuring social relationships. On the other hand, Conflict theorists argue that income inequality is part of a socio-structural force lead by elites to increase their wealth and opportunity at the expense of the working and middle classes. Functionalism

The theory of Structural Functionalism coined by Davis and Moore (1945) asserted that stratification was necessary in society. The primary reasons given for their claims were that stratification serves a useful function of society. That is, not every job or task is equally important or desirable; these various tasks require different skills and therefore, in order to fill 162


such positions there must be variation in the types of rewards given. Davis and Moore (1945) go on to explain that the function of stratification is to motivate the labor force in a highly competitive market and that without competition for higher pay (and thus, access to resources) it would be difficult to fulfill all of the needs of society. In other words, if a lawyer whose job requires extensive training and multiple degrees and the garbage collector were paid the same amount, nobody would want to collect the garbage or spend the additional time earning a Jurist Doctorate to become a lawyer. More specifically related to income inequality, Davis and Moore (1945) argue that the reason that there is such a disparity in income between those at the top of the social ladder and those at the bottom is because 1) those at the top have more skills; and 2) those at the bottom perform jobs that are less important than those at the top. Conflict Theory

In a significant departure from Structural Functionalism, many scholars who adhere to the writings of Karl Marx regarding capitalism, arguing that inequality is not necessary, nor does it serve a pertinent function. Rather, inequality is a symptom of societal dysfunction. Scholars such as Tumin (1953) claim that inequality provides opportunity to the privileged while at the same time limiting the possibilities for those in the working class. Moreover, it works to reinforce the status quo whereby the rich are able to secure their privilege in society and those who are less privileged are forced to work under the rules of the privileged. Finally, because of the disproportionate system of rewards, there is the possibility for those who are less privileged to become hostile to the status quo resulting in crime or other acts of resistance. Other scholars who subscribe to the ideas of Marx have further argued that income inequality is an unjust distribution of power whereby those who own large corporations and provide jobs to the working class have the ability to manipulate wages, perception of competition, while preserving their status by exploiting others. These two competing theories paint a very different picture of the factors that contribute to income inequality. Structural functionalists argue that inequality is a functional force in society that rewards those who do more meaningful work greater than those who do less important jobs. Conflict Defining Class

163

theorists argue that inequality is a result of larger socio-structural forces that manipulate those with the least power and privilege by promoting competition and controlling wages in favor of the wealthy.

Further Insights Socioeconomic Factors & Inequality

Understanding the theoretical underpinnings of scholarship on social stratification and income inequality is only part of the vast work that has been completed on the subject. One of the most controversial aspects of inequality scholarship is the disparity not only between the rich and the poor but also the patterned inequality that has been illustrated between whites and minorities, men and women, and between those with low IQ’s and high IQ’s. The contributions of socioeconomic indicators such as race, gender, and IQ to social stratification and income inequality are central to scholarly debates surrounding the causes and correlates of various subgroups in the population and their social status. Scholars who study these issues often find themselves in the most heated debates that especially view inequality as a function of preexisting cleavages rather than precursors to inequality. Race

The issue of racial inequality has been at the forefront of sociological scholarship for decades. There is a significant body of research that specifically focuses on the relationship between inequality and race. Most scholars agree that there is a disproportionate percentage of minorities in the lower and lowest income brackets (Wright, 1978; Zandvakili 1998; McLeod, Nonnemaker, Call, 2004). However, this is where much of the agreement ends. Currently, the central focus of scholarly debate is on what causes income inequality between whites and minorities. Wright (1978) asserts that one of the most consistent findings in sociological research is that Blacks make considerably less income than whites, regardless of educational attainment or occupational status. Central to his research agenda is the rate of return for minorities and whites given their overall level of education. Much of this work is based on the notion that education is the great equalizer in American society and that meritocracy 164


prevails in educational settings which favor those who work hard rather than those who have preexisting privilege. Following the work of Wright, additional scholarship has found that education does not in fact equalize opportunity among students but rather inequality in education begins before students enter the classroom, much of which is due to race and class cleavages (Lee & Burkam, 2002). Together this body of research indicates that individuals of color are significantly disadvantaged with respect to earning potential which consequently contributes to income inequality regardless of education or other “equalizing” factors often used by functionalists to justify why individuals are inequitably rewarded for their efforts. Gender

Another central concern of sociologists is the differential pay and income inequality that exists between men and women. While early scholarship suggested this was simply due to women choosing to work in less prestigious sectors of the workforce, more attention has recently been paid to the differences between men and women who work in similar jobs in similar industries (Mount & Bennett, 1975; Zandvakli, 1998). The work of Mount and Bennett (1975) was one of the first to investigate income inequality as a function of both social and economic indicators. These variables included gender as well as education, occupation, industry and race. There research yielded some of the most controversial information of the time, suggesting that education, occupation and industry was less important in explaining income inequality between men and women than gender. This highlighted the notion that regardless of training or job, women made less money than men for no reason other than their sex. More recent studies investigate the intersection of gender and assume there is a synergistic effect of race and gender, which predicts women of color are even more disadvantaged in the work place than white women (Zandakili, 1998). Given the results of such studies, and the growing body of literature on gender and income inequality, there is growing support for conflict theories regarding income inequality in so far as it suggests that women, many of whom occupy just as prestigious and meaningful jobs as men and have desirable skill sets, are consistently paid less. This does Defining Class

165

not serve a function in society as Davis and Moore would suggest, but rather women appear to be inequitably rewarded for their performance as a result of discrimination, socio-structural forces, and stratification in the workplace. Intelligence

Finally, one of the most controversial factors attributed to income inequality was put forth by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) in their infamous book “The Bell Curve.” Their analysis fueled blistering debates among scholars as to the psychological/ genetic correlates that may account for income inequality, individual success, and upward mobility. While the preponderance of work that has been done looking at IQ and income inequality since The Bell Curve was released has discounted their findings, the notion that psychological and genetic factors play an influential role in shaping the life chances of individuals from different social classes and income brackets is still prevalent today. The central arguments made by Murray, which have continued into his recent work, emphatically state that stratification, whether necessary or not, is a fact of life and that regardless of individuals’ social positions, people are born with different abilities, as measured by IQ, and therefore are rewarded differently (Murray, 2002). For Murray, this “social fact” suggests that there is no need for policy change or political intervention to increase opportunities for the most disadvantaged, or to ameliorate the differences between the rich and the poor, as social and income inequality are merely part of social evolution. The scholarship looking at socioeconomic indicators and income inequality suggest that there are far more complex phenomena that contribute to inequality than early social theorists may have expected. This body of scholarship continues to grow and branch off into various directions that include social, psychological, genetic, geographical, and environmental conditions that further contribute to income inequality.

Issues Consequences of Income Inequality

In addition to looking at theories that attempt to explain the causes of income inequality and the relationship between inequality and socioeco166


nomic indicators it is important to look at the consequences of inequality on individual life chances. This scholarship includes in-depth analysis of the consequences of many different social problems. Here we will focus primarily on the literature that investigates health outcomes, and incarceration rates and violent crime. Health

Recent controversial work focusing on the relationship between adverse health outcomes and inequality has recently focused on both domestic and international hypotheses as to how inequality contributes to individual health trajectories (Mellor & Milyo, 2001; Beckfield, 2004). Scholars in this area assert that income inequality has a direct causal relationship to individual health including one’s life expectancy and infant mortality. Beckfield (2004) specifically initiates a cross-national comparison of income inequality at aggregate levels and how the distribution of wealth impacts health. His findings strongly support the notion that there is a negative relationship between inequality and health outcomes, thus suggesting that scholars reconsider earlier theories of the impact of income inequality on individuals’ life trajectories and policy positions related to aiding those who have the least access to resources. A central theme of this work suggests that income inequality has real consequences for those who are least fortunate and further suggests that something should be done to ameliorate some of the disparity such that those in the lowest income brackets are not as disadvantaged with respect to life expectancy and infant mortality. This issue is important at the local, national, and international level of social policy development. Crime

Another issue that is often associated with inequality is the problem of crime, violence, incarceration rates, and sentencing disparity between the rich and the poor. Much of the scholarship in criminology and criminal justice has explicitly described the empirical relationship between income inequality and disparities within nearly every facet of our criminal justice system. Two recent examples of work in this area is the scholarship by Arvanties and Asher (1998) and Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza (2002). Each has investigated the positive relationship between income inequality and violent crime and incarceration rates. Defining Class

167

Arvanties and Asher (1998), focus primarily on the direct and indirect effects of race and income inequality on imprisonment rates at the state level. Their research focuses on three distinct questions: • Does income inequality and race correspond to imprisonment rates, regardless of crime? • What is the magnitude of the direct and indirect effects? • What is the magnitude of the relationship? Their data suggest that race is a central factor in determining imprisonment rates. However, income inequality also played a major part in predicating the level of incarceration at the state level. More simply put, these researchers were able to disentangle the relationship between crime and incarceration and attribute that the majority of incarcerations can be traced back to the race of the offender and level of income inequality in the state. Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza (2002), focus on the impact of income inequality on violent crime. Their research attempts to answer several key questions regarding the robust nature of the relationship between inequality and violence in 37 countries. Most notably they focus on the degree to which income inequality (once standardized between countries) explains robbery and homicide rates and accounts for overall variation in crime. Using advanced statistical measures of income inequality most often found in macro studies of stratification, these scholars conclude that income inequality is in fact positively related to crime both within and between countries. That is to say, in countries where there is a large disproportion in income inequality, such as in the United States, there is a greater amount of crime. When there is less income inequality, such as the case in Norway, there is less crime. Conclusion

Income inequality is a central topic of political, sociological, psychological, and economic scholarship. Many factors have been investigated that arguably contribute to income inequality in the United States. Recently a growing body of scholarship has looked at the socioeconomic factors that contribute to the growing gap between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor. Additional work in this area has uncovered several import political and social consequences that are specifically related to 168


income inequality, including variation in health outcomes, incarceration rates and violent crime. More attention needs to be given to the factors that contribute to and result in the growing disparity between the rich and the poor.

Bibliography Arvanites, T. & Asher, M. (1998). State and country incarceration rates: the direct and indirect effects of race and inequality. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57, (2), 207-221. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Business Source Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN= 683157&site=ehost-live. Beckfield, J. (2004). Does income inequality harm health? New cross-national evidence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, (3), 231-248. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15216351&site=ehost-live Davis, K. & Moore, W. (1945). Some principals of stratification. American Sociological Review, 10, (2) 242-2349. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a 9h&AN=12781047&site=ehost-live Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D. & Loayza, N. (2002). Inequality and violent crime. Journal of Law and Economics, 45 (1), 1-40. Herrnstein, R. & Murray, C. (1994). Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: Free Press. Lee, V. & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. McLeod, J., Nonnemaker, J., & Call, K. (2004). Income inequality, race, and child wellbeing: An aggregate analysis in the 50 United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, (3), 249-264. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=15216352&site=ehost-live. Mellor, J. & Milyo, J. (2001). Income inequality and health. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, (1), 151-155. Mount, R. & Bennett, R. (1975). Economic and social factors in income inequality: Race and sex discrimination and status as elements in wage differences. American Journal of Economic and Sociology, 34 (2), 161-174. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di rect=true&db=sih&AN=4511064&site=ehost-live. Murray, C. (2002). IQ and income inequality in a sample of sibling pairs from advantaged family backgrounds. American Economic Review, 92, (2), 339-343. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text database. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6881942&site=ehost-live. Defining Class

169

Thio, A. (1992). Sociology: An introduction (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Harper-Collins Publications, Inc. Wright, E. (1978). Race, class, and income inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 83, (6), 1368-1397. Zandvakili, S. (1999). Income inequality among female heads of households: Racial inequality reconsidered. Economica, 66 (261), 119-133. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=1602665&site=ehost-live.

Suggested Reading Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods: Class: Race and Family Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Reiman, J. (2007). The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice (8th Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Schein, V. (1995). Working From the Margins: Voices from Mothers in Poverty. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

170


The Poor & the Working Poor Geraldine Wagner

Overview Many Americans believe that the U.S. is a classless society where people have reasonable expectations to be free, happy and relatively well off. However, experts argue that the United States is one of the most stratified countries in the world and beyond that, has the distinction of keeping its poor in their state of being longer and more often than any other western country (Stephen, 2007). To begin this discussion, a few terms need to be introduced: social class, stratification, and poverty, as well as the sociological perspectives on each. What is Social Class & How is it Determined?

At some point in our development as human beings living in the United States, we begin to realize that some people have more than others: more material goods such as houses, cars, nice clothing, toys, and an easy ability to procure those goods. It seems that some people have all the latest “stuff” that arrives on the market, while others struggle to simply put food on the table for their families. The ability to obtain certain goods and the quality of the goods obtained is generally linked not only to personal preference, but also to social class, part of a system of stratification. Those institutionalized inequalities in the distribution of resources include power, wealth, and status between categories of persons within a single social system. These inequalities run along race, class and Defining Class

171

gender lines and help to determine the ownership and control of resources and the type of work that people perform. To compound and perpetuate the problem is the fact that the U.S. economy is blind to the needs of people who have fewer resources than others. Thus, a large group of Americans are not only poor, but also less able to participate fully in society (Koepke, 2007). Differences in the ability for some to accumulate more than others have historically turned into conflicts between groups of people who have felt that they were not receiving their fair share of society’s wealth. This inequality continues to exist today in the United States. In fact, among the wealthy nations of the world, the United States receives the distinction of being first in a list of societies with inequality of income distribution (Rothchild, 1995). Sociological Perspectives on Social Class

Sociologists use the accepted theoretical perspectives to look at and explain social class differences and how they relate to social inequality. Functionalist Perspective

Functionalists look for the things in society that make it stable and help it to run smoothly and efficiently. Their perspective finds that inequality must exist and is not harmful. Certain positions in society are more important than others and they must be filled by the most qualified people. These people must have the ability and the talent to perform these jobs and therefore are best compensated with a high level of income, wealth, prestige and power. For example, a heart surgeon must spend years in school and in training and has the welfare, if not the entire life, of an individual in her hands. This system of rewarding people for their work with wealth, power and prestige for jobs that are unique and demanding is called meritocracy. A meritocracy rewards people based on their abilities and their credentials. It is a hierarchical system. Conflict Perspective

The most well-known conflict perspective regarding social class is the work of Karl Marx, who believed that our wealth and position in society is

172


based on how we fit into the system of production as either the owners of the means of production of goods, such as the factories, or as sellers of our labor for an hourly wage. Marx recognized only the two classes: the capitalists, or bourgeoisie who owns the land, capital, factories, and mines and the working class, or proletariat, who worked for the capitalists to earn a living wage. Marx explained that exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists occurred because the excess production produced, which did not go to the workers, became profit for the capitalists. This made for an unequal distribution of the accumulated wealth produced. When this occurred, the workers felt a sense of alienation, or powerlessness within the equation of capitalist over proletariat. Exploiting the workers would lead to class conflict and an overthrowing of the capitalists and a more equal distribution of wealth overseen by a more or less just government. While neo-Marxists continue to follow the predictions of Marx, others find that because the relationship between ownership and worker has blurred, with workers having their pensions buying stock, or partial ownership, in the companies which employed them, that a workers’ revolution will not likely occur. With the advent of the credit card and the ease of obtaining it, the workers often feel that they can afford the things in life that they equate with wealth. They can purchase a home, a car, a big screen television, a computer, and a cell phone using credit, and still have money left in their checking accounts for groceries. With this surface material complacency, it is now difficult to find the deep alienation that Marx described. Another prominent social scientist, Max Weber, pointed out that the relationship between the haves and the have-nots was more than simply a two-class conflict between the capitalists and the proletariat. Weber identified three dimensions of stratification - wealth, prestige and power - which determine a person’s social class. Wealth is identified as one’s assets such as property and income. Those who have a similar level of such assets are included in one social class. The more wealth one has, the higher the social class to which he or she belongs. A case in point is Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, who enjoys not only wealth, but also two other dimensions, prestige for his accomplishments and his philanthropy and power for his ability to affect the lives of others using his wealth and prestige. Defining Class

173

One can also be in a higher social class even without a lot of wealth, if he or she commands prestige: the respect of others based on life work, or position. For example, Mother Teresa, a nun from Macedonia who won the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize (Nobel Foundation, 1979), spurned the accumulation of wealth, and chose to live in poverty, but she was courted by the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world because of her prestige as a champion of the poor. A third dimension of Weber’s notion of social class is power, where a person can obtain his or her will despite the objections of others. An example of social power would be the President of the United States, who can make very unpopular decisions and remain unaffected by the will of the people. Many Americans believe that one must stand behind the decisions of the President, whether he is right or wrong. Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

While functionalist and conflict sociological perspectives take in the “big picture” of society and look at large groups of people, the symbolic interactionist perspective takes a micro level view of topics such as social class and stratification. A symbolic interactionist would then study the effects of poverty, for example, on a group of high school students and their grades and ability to attend college. Or, the symbolic interactionist might study the language used in the workplace to identify workers, noting that those with less prestige are often called by their first names, while those with a higher office might be referred to by a title and last name (Rollins, 1985). What is Stratification?

Because the United States is divided into social classes based on wealth, prestige and power, it is said to have a system of stratification; this is a hierarchical system that puts those with the most wealth, power, and/or prestige at the top of the hierarchy, and those with the least, at the bottom. Several classes have been identified in American society, beginning at the top, with 0.5% of the population belonging to the upper-upper class. These people have accumulated wealth over long periods of time due to inheritance, or have come into a great deal of money through investment. People in this class tend to have a great deal of influence on the economy and society, despite the fact that there are few of them (Gilbert, 2003). 174


The lower-upper class makes up another 0.5% and includes executives, movie stars, television personalities, and sports figures. The upper-middle class makes up about 14% of the population and includes highly educated professionals such as physicians, attorneys, and stockbrokers, and those in upper managerial positions. While most Americans consider themselves part of the middle class, only about 30% of the American population, including white collar and skilled blue collar workers, actually falls within this category. The working class makes up another 30% of the population and includes factory, clerical and retail sales workers. The working poor, about 20% of the population, include laborers and service industry workers. These people are called the working poor because while they work full time, they do not earn enough to support themselves or their families. Many single mothers belong to this class as do people of color (Gilbert, 2003). The underclass, about 5% of the population, is made up of temporary, seasonal, or part time workers, many of whom also receive some form of public assistance. This group is generally uneducated and does not work consistently (Gilbert, 2003).

Applications What is Poverty?

As the categories of the working poor and the underclass indicate, many people in the United States work, but live in poverty. Poverty is defined by the Social Security Administration as the minimum amount of money needed to maintain a subsistence lifestyle. In 2002, nearly 35 million people lived below the official poverty line of $18,556 for a family of four. This number has steadily increased since that time (Proctor & Dalaker, 2003). Who are the Poor?

Statistics show that the poor in the United States go across all races and ages, but that those considered most poor are children under the age of Defining Class

175

18 as well as those in the 18-24 years bracket, for all races. In other words, nearly one out of three persons below the official poverty line is under 18 years of age and many are only lingering slightly above that poverty line. The official poverty line is determined by figuring the cost of a low-budget food diet for a family of four, multiplied by three. For African Americans and Hispanics, however, the numbers are much larger for these age groups than for whites. Regarding education, those with no high school diploma tend to live in poverty. Twenty two percent of people with no high school diploma in all races are poor; again, those percentages increase to nearly 33% and 25% for African Americans and Hispanics, respectively (Proctor & Dalaker, 2003). Who are the Working Poor?

Some 52 million working poor people live in the United States and the numbers could continue to increase due to the 2008 economic recession. While the working poor often earn more than the official poverty level wage, they find it difficult to make ends meet. These earnings often make the working poor ineligible for assistance programs such as food stamps, which currently do not reflect contemporary economic conditions and the rising cost of housing, fuel, and food (Lubrano, 2008). Relative & Absolute Poverty

When people live in life-threatening conditions because they have no means to adequately feed or house themselves, or their dependents, they are said to live in absolute poverty. Homeless people fall into this category for obvious reasons. If people can provide the basic necessities of food and shelter for themselves and/or their dependents, but they cannot afford any of the other material comforts that an average working person might provide for herself, they are said to live in relative poverty. In other words, compared to others in society, they are living in poverty. Income Distribution in the United States: How Equal is it?

According to the categories determined by social scientists, even if they differ somewhat in percentages and terminology, it is obvious that income distribution in the United States is unequal and that wealth is concentrated in a small percentage of the American population. Only 1% of the American population controls about 33% of all wealth; the next lower class holds 176


about 51% of the nation’s wealth. In other words, 20% of Americans, the super rich, control or own 84% of the wealth of the nation. This leaves only 16% of the wealth for the remaining 80% of Americans (Domhoff, 2006). What Key Factors Produce Inequality in Wealth in the U.S.?

Inequality is both an economic and a social issue. The major cause of social inequality and poverty is low wages. Fifty percent of all families living in poverty live on a family member’s wages and barely one third of those who are earning the family wages work full time (Proctor & Dalaker, 2003). From Industrial to Post-Industrial Economy

There are problems inherent within the infrastructure of the United States economy as well, that contribute to inequality and poverty. Most importantly, America has moved from an industrialized society with many factory and manufacturing jobs, to a post-industrial society. Corporations have moved most of the manufacturing of goods to other countries where they can obtain cheap labor and avoid many of the restrictions on workplace safety and environmental integrity, leaving millions of American workers unemployed, or needing to learn new job skills. These new jobs exist not in the industrial sector, but in the service sector (Bluestone & Harrison, 1982). Service sector jobs such as motel maids, restaurant and fast food workers, and retail sales in the malls springing up across America, do not pay as well as manufacturing jobs and often are part time, or have little or no benefits attached to them. Inheritance & the “Old Boys” Network

About 42% of the people who are considered the wealthiest people in the United States, achieved their wealth through inheritance (Gilbert, 2003). In other words, these people are born into wealth and maintain their position by buffering their lives from the rest of society. The super-rich tend to affiliate themselves and their offspring with one another exclusively in what is typically referred to as an “old boys network.” They attend the same schools, move in the same social circles, and often sit on one another’s corporate boards. Wealth then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for these people, and while Americans believe that the class system in the U.S. is an open system, with anyone being able to achieve the American Dream and beyond, the chance of the bottom 80% of the population breaking through the barrier into the super-rich realm is very slim indeed. Defining Class

177

Race & Ethnicity

While some two-thirds of those who live below the official poverty level are white, that figure can be misleading. Disproportionately, about 24% of all African Americans and 22% of all U.S. Latinos lived below the poverty line in 2002, and one third of all Native Americans continue to live below the poverty line (Proctor & Dalaker, 2003). These statistics indicate that discrimination based on race and ethnicity continues to thrive in American society. Gender

Women make up about two-thirds of all adults living below the poverty line. With an increase in single-parent families, typically with a female head of household, these families had a 35% poverty rate while two-parent families weighed in at a 10% poverty rate. This “feminization of poverty” means that women are disproportionately represented among the poor because of their primary role in childrearing, making it difficult to maintain full time, steady employment. Even the women who work steadily and full time continue to earn only about 70 cents for every dollar men earn in the U.S. (Pearce, 1978). Age

A high degree of poverty exists among the elderly and children under the age of 18. The statistics increase for African American children under the age of 18 and Latino children. In fact, American children of all races and ethnicities are poorer today than they were nearly three decades ago because of cutbacks in programs originally designed to alleviate the problems associated with poverty such as poor nutrition and health (Proctor & Dalaker, 2003). Among elders, women over the age of 65 have twice the likelihood of being poor than older men (Proctor & Dalaker, 2003). The Consequences of Inequality – Reduced Life Chances

The United States enjoys a class system, which while imperfect, does allow some upward mobility between classes and especially between generations. Consider the proud working class parents with a high school education background as they sit together at their child’s graduation from law school. They can almost feel their child’s graduation not only in academic

178


terms, but socially, from working class to upper middle class. Of course, in the parent’s school days, one only needed a high school diploma to land many good paying jobs. Today, a working class job often requires at least a 2-year college degree. Post high school education has become another big business in America. Yet many parents do not have the pleasant experience of seeing their children graduate from college at all. In America’s large cities, some fifty percent of students drop out of high school before graduation (Thomas & Date, 2006). Those who do finish high school and go on to college find that student loans have become a big business in the United States, with many students graduating from college owing enough money in student loans to equal a mortgage payment on a house. Others attempt to attend college on a part time basis while they work, or continue to live at home. This type of schedule takes perseverance and discipline. College is often interrupted by unforeseen economic situations; the birth of a child, or the illness of a parent. Stratification in the Future

With the reduction in good paying jobs via industrialization, the protection of wealth by a small number of people in the U.S., and an economic down turn causing a rise in the costs of every day living, many people are feeling the pinch. Some current economic conditions such as recession and rising fuel prices may be short lived. But they are doing economic damage to all Americans except the super-rich, who maintain a buffer from such hardships due to their extreme wealth. Yet those in upper middle classes are finding that they cannot afford to spend money on many of the luxuries that keep the American economy going. Consider that if the economic sector relies heavily on service industry jobs and if people cannot afford to shop and buy, or to eat out in restaurants, or order pizza delivery, that a ripple effect is likely to occur (Fram, 2008). Employers will stop hiring and reduce their work force. If no one buys cars except for the few models that get good gas mileage, the one stronghold of American manufacturing, the automobile industry, is likely to take a hard economic hit.

Defining Class

179

But the greatest hardship moves to the bottom of the social equality hierarchy: the poor and the working poor. The poorest of the poor, of course, suffer the most and will have difficulty with the basic necessities of daily living such as food, shelter and heating or cooling. Those who have lived in relative poverty are in danger of moving into the category of absolute poverty, where they cannot provide for the welfare of themselves and their families. Downward mobility is as likely to occur as upward mobility, with working Americans moving on two different escalators: one is going up, but the other is going down (Reich, 1993).

Viewpoints Solutions to the Problem of Poverty in the U.S.

Many people believe they have the solution about where to break the cycle of poverty in America. Michael Harrington’s 1962 ground breaking book, The Other America, discusses the people traveling on the “down escalator.” While the U.S. has the highest standard of living in the world, it is home to millions of impoverished people who may not be starving (as are millions in African countries), but who are, according to Harrington, invisible. Poor people may be overweight because they eat high fat, nonnutritional food; not because they are living in abundance. Go to the local thrift shop and notice the amount of good quality clothes that have been discarded by some, only to be picked up by others. Or watch a television documentary about a poor African country and notice that many of the people being filmed are wearing western tee shirts and other clothing. It is easy to hide poverty in inexpensive clothing (Harrington, 1962/1997). Repeatedly, champions of the poor insist that American society must stop ignoring the poor, and must not continue to make them invisible. To eradicate poverty in the U.S., the government and its citizenry must work in concert on a variety of tasks (Morris, 2005). Education

Some experts rely on high quality early education for low-income children, with the federal government providing matching funds for state-sponsored programs. There is evidence that a good early childhood education 180


sets the tone for success later on in high school and college. If lack of even a high school education is an indicator of the eventuality of poverty, then encouraging higher education and thus more earning power could be one avenue for reducing poverty in the U.S. (Sawhill, 2007). Others look at college education as the primary means of escaping poverty. Yet they also point to the high cost of college education for the poor and the working poor. But the federal government and universities are not helping matters. Student aid does not fully cover costs for poor students. Furthermore, there needs to be reform in the financial aid system, the welfare system, and the taxation policy on higher education. Congress needs to increase how much a student can earn at a job and still be eligible for full financial aid benefits. Families with low incomes cannot be expected to contribute to a student’s college finances to the extent currently required. It has also been recommended that college attendance count as work under the welfare to work program. These measures would help more poor students achieve the college education that could pull them out of poverty (Ashburn, 2007). Postpone Child-Bearing

Families, communities, schools and individuals need to encourage young girls to postpone child-bearing until they are older and more capable of caring for children both emotionally and economically. Because poverty has been linked to gender and age, as well as to educational achievements, society and the government can support young women in choices regarding remaining in school and postponing childbearing (Sawhill, 2007). Provide a Living Wage

Because some 30% of the U.S. population falls into the category of the working poor, it is important that workers receive a living wage. This can be achieved with raising the minimum wage and with programs for affordable child and health care (Sawhill, 2007). Programs such as New Hope strive to help the working poor by offering a social contract with volunteer participants to help supplement a worker’s earnings. A host of cost effective benefits become available to the participants as long as they work the minimum of 30 hours per week in a job they can obtain with help from the program. These benefits can change as a Defining Class

181

workers’ life circumstances change. For example, the person may become a parent and need health care, or day care assistance (Gennetian, 2008). Equal Opportunity for Women & Minorities

The feminization of poverty is well-documented. Women must be given the opportunity to earn a living wage for themselves and their families. With divorce rates and single parent families on the rise, the income disparity between men and women must be eradicated for women to be better able to contribute to their households and to society. Poverty still moves along racial lines. Statistics show that while many Americans are affected by low income and poverty, the numbers increase dramatically in the African American, Latino and Native American communities. The institutional racism that continues to exist in the United States must be eradicated with continuation and expansion of equal opportunity programs.

Bibliography Ashburn, E. (2007). Report suggests steps to help poor. Chronicle of Higher Education; 53 (46), A21-A21, 0p. Retrieved July 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premiere: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=259280 65&site=ehost-live Bluestone, B. and Harrison, B. (1982). The deindustrialization of America. New York: Basic. Domhoff, G. W. (2006). Power in America: Wealth, income and power. Retrieved June 29, 2008 from Who Rules America? http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/ wealth.html Fram, A. (2008). 9 in 10 see rising gas prices causing family hardship. Associated Press. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from Yahoo!Newshttp://news.yahoo.com/page/election2008-political-pulse-gas-prices Gennetian, L. (2008). Higher ground: New hope for the working poor and their children. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 61 (2), 258-260. Retrieved July 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir ect=true&db=sih&AN=27701317&site=ehost-live Gilbert, D. (2003). The American class structure in an age of growing inequality. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Harrington, M. (1962/1997). The other America. New York: Scribner. Koepke, D. (2007). Race, class, poverty and capitalism. Race, Gender & Class, 14 (3/4), 189-205. Retrieved July 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:

182


http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=31792793&site=eh ost-live Lubrano, A. (2008, April 8). Working poor struggle to get by. Philadelphia Inquirer. P. A01. Morris, C. (2005). Who are the working poor? Retrieved June 30, 2008 from: http://www. democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/06/who_are_the_wor.html Mother Teresa. (1979). Retrieved June 29, 2008 from The Nobel Foundation. http:// nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html Oxfam International. (2008). Organizational information retrieved June 30, 2008 from: http://www.oxfamamerica.org Pearce, D. (1978). The feminization of poverty: Women, work, and welfare. Urban and Social Change Review, 11 (1/2), 28-36. Proctor, D. & Dalaker, J. (2003). Poverty in the United States: 2002. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reich, R. (1993). Why the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. In Baker, P., Anderson, L. & Dorn, D. (eds.) Social problems: A critical thinking approach 2nd ed., 145-149. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Rollins, J. (1985). Between women: Domestics and their employers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rothchild, J. (1995, January 30). Wealth: Static wages, except for the rich. Time Magazine, 60-61. Sawhill, I. (2007). Solutions to poverty. Testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from: http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2007/0426poverty_sawhill.aspx Stephen, A. (2007). Born equal? New Statesman 137 (4857), 28-31. Retrieved July 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26150864&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Blank, R. (1998). It takes a nation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Harding, D. (2003). Counterfactual models of neighborhood effects: The effect of neighborhood poverty on dropping out and teenage pregnancy. American Journal of Sociology. 109 (3). Iceland, J. (2006). Poverty in America: A handbook. 2nd ed. University of California Press. Jencks, C. & Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood: Inner-City poverty in the United States. L. E. Lynn and M. G. H. McGeary, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Defining Class

183

Terms & Concepts

Absolute Poverty: The life threatening inability to obtain resources. Achievement Gap: The achievement gap can be described as the class, racial, socioeconomic, and academic disparities that exist between the rich and the poor. Affluenza: A psychological condition defined by feelings of inadequacy and insecurity about attaining the “American Dream.” Affluenza affects members of the upper class most commonly by causing them to , despite their wealth, experience feelings of dissatisfaction and anxiety about their social status. Alienation: Feeling of isolation and powerlessness, attributed to workers by Marx. Assimilation: The process by which people from one culture blend into another, effectively letting go of their old cultural values and norms to adopt new ones. Blue-Collar Workers: Workers within the working class who labor at jobs that are primarily physical or manual in nature, but also in the service sector. Bourgeoisie: Karl Marx identified two primary class locations in capitalist society – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie, also referred to as capitalists, own the means of production and employ wage-laborers. Marx argued that the bourgeoisie exploit the surplus labor of the proletariat. 184


Capitalism: An economic system based on the premise of free enterprise and the accumulation of profit. Capitalist Class: People who own and operate businesses in order to make a profit. Class Conflict: The struggle between groups of people for the resources of society. Class Consciousness: In this context, class consciousness refers to the degree to which members of an identifiable social group are aware of their societal role and act upon that role. In a strictly Marxist sense, class consciousness can be contrasted with “false consciousness,” which refers to societal messages that do not conform to rational self-interest from a worker’s perspective. Current class-based social roles tend to be fairly clear in Germany, whereas in the U.S., they are less easily defined. Alternate modes of class consciousness that can be applied to contemporary U.S. social roles include occupational interests and “universal” interests such as environmentalism (Gerteils, 1998). Class Structure: Class analyses typically address many different aspects of class – class structure, class formation, class consciousness, and class struggle. According to Wright, however, understanding class structure is a necessary first step in this analysis. Marxists, in particular, define classes as common positions within a hierarchy or structure. It is the positions themselves which are the unit of analysis, not the individuals who occupy such positions. Class: Social class is a position in a hierarchy usually endowed with material, social, symbolic, and ideological resources. Conflict Theory: The Marxist notion that inequality is a function of the disjuncture between elites who own the means of production (or large corporations) and the workers, who are often exploited by elites to preserve the status quo and keep wages low and income inequality increasing. Control: Within the social relations of production, Wright argues, there are three specific types of control: control over money, control over the physical means of production, and control over labor. It is precisely because these three types of control function independently of one another – that is, one class position might be characterized by control over labor but not money – that contradictory class locations arise. Defining Class

185

Cultural Capital: Cultural capital can denote tangible acquisitions (such as wealth and possessions) or intangible properties (such as prestige) from which a sense of self-worth, self-identification, or society is derived. Digital Divide: Disparities across social classes, racial groups and gender in the distribution of information technology skills and resources. Downward Mobility: Movement into lower social strata. Economic Capital: Economic capital, a more straightforward notion than cultural capital, denotes self-worth or self-identification, or social status based on wealth. Exploitation: The concept of exploitation is central to Marx’s, as well as Wright’s, analysis of class structure. An exploitive relationship occurs when one group has inherently contradictory interests with respect to another; that is, when one’s groups well-being is obtained at the expense of another group. The bourgeoisie’s wealth, for example, depends on their exploitation of the labor of the proletariat. Exurbs: The region beyond the suburbs of a city. Family: The U.S. Census Bureau defines family differently depending on the analysis, but is usually understood to be two or more persons living together in the same household related by blood, marriage or adoption. Feminist Movement: Here the Feminist Movement refers to what is often called the “second wave” feminism; a movement that began in the late Sixties and took off in the early Seventies. The movement focused on equal pay and equal opportunity for women. Feminization of Poverty: This term refers to the growing number of women, specifically woman who are head of households that live in poverty. Functionalism: The theoretical perspective that views social institutions as the means through which individuals fulfill their social needs. Each part of a society has its own specific function which contributes to the overall operation of society. In this view, certain people are very rich and others are very poor because the roles they play as a result of their economic positions serve the overall functionality of society. Gini Index: The U.S. Census Bureau “Gini index” incorporates detailed data into a formula to produce a single number which summarizes the 186


dispersion of the income shares across the whole income distribution. It ranges from zero, which indicates perfect equality to one, which indicates perfect inequality. Household: A household consists of all people who occupy a housing unit regardless of relationship. A household may consist of a person living alone or multiple unrelated individuals or families living together. Households may include family; married couple; female household, no husband; male household, no wife; non-family households; female householder or male householder. The married-couple families generally fare best economically. Income Inequality: The variation in income distribution between the upper, middle, and lower classes. Income: Income is the inflow of money for a given period. Income is usually measured before taxes, and besides earned income, may include government payments such as Social Security benefits, welfare or veterans payments and worker’s compensation. Also included are returns on investments and pensions, excluding capital gains or health insurance supplements paid by employers. Intergenerational Mobility: Comparison between the mobility of an individual and that of his/her parent or parents. Intragenerational Mobility: Overall change in an individual’s perspective that affects his/her pursuit of social mobility. Job Sprawl: Higher percentages of a metropolitan area’s employment located outside a five-mile ring of city center. Lateral Mobility: Status adjustment that occurs on a horizontal basis rather than vertically. Leisure Time: Author Tim Clydesdale (2005) distinguished between free time as having been lifted from school or camp schedules to describe unstructured time in a structured day and is commonly used by modern youth. By leisure time, he means the hours where one can choose freely between activity or inactivity (p. 11). Lifestyle: Michael E. Sobel defines lifestyle as a “distinctive, hence recognizable, mode of living” (p. 120). Max Weber defined lifestyle as patterns Defining Class

187

of social interaction, leisure, consumption, dress, language, and son on, associated with a social group – in particular, a prestige class, or in, in Weber’s terminology, a “status group” (Gilbert, p. 245). Manufacturing Industry: Economic sector that produces physical goods for market sales. Mass Imprisonment: Mass imprisonment is a term that refers to the statistical explosion of African American men put in prison since the 1970s. Despite crime statistics being relatively flat in the last forty years the percentage of African American men imprisoned had grown dramatically. Meritocracy: The concept that a society rewards people with greater social status on the basis of their achievements; in other words, they merit a change in their social status. Multinational Corporation: Business that conducts operations and in other countries in addition to its home nation. Net Worth: A measurement of wealth which includes a balance of assets against debts. New Rich: Those members of the upper class who were not born into wealth, but instead acquired it during their lifetimes. Occupational Prestige: The measure of variation in occupational status as a function of public opinion, which is argued to be linked explicitly to differentials in pay, prestige, and wealth. Old Money: Those members of the upper class that have attained their fortunes through inheritance and often sustain their lifestyle with income generated from investment revenue. Outsourcing: Business practice that entails moving operations to other countries to save costs and staffing expenses. Overconformity: In this context, both nonconformity and “overconformity” can either be viewed positively or negatively. For example, positively viewed nonconformity, or “deviance admiration,” denotes nonconformity that is admired. An example is a criminal who receives icon status despite the absence of any redeeming quality to his or her criminal activity. Heavy drinkers and non-drinkers might similarly - and ironically - be viewed as 188


not conforming to normal standards of moderation and thereby exhibit “negative deviance.” Mother Theresa or war heroes, by contrast, can be ascribed positively evaluated overconformity or “positive deviance”: they sacrifice personal comfort and thereby bolster group loyalty (Heckert & Heckert, 2004). Petty Bourgeoisie: Petty bourgeoisie occupy a position in the hierarchy between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. They are often self-employed individuals who produce their own goods, rather than relying on other wage-laborers. They are one of the key positions around which contradictory class locations emerge, according to Wright. Pink Collar Workers: Women who work in traditionally “female” jobs such as service work. Plutocracy: The term plutocracy refers to government by elites in service to the economic interests of elites at the expense of popular sovereignty. Some critics argue that the US government is a de facto plutocracy. Poverty Line (Threshold): The federal poverty measure; for 2006, for a four-person family unit with two children, the poverty threshold is $20,444; for one individual under age 65 it is $10,488; for an individual 65 or over it is $9,669. Power Elite: Those who are among the wealthiest, most powerful, and prestigious in society. Power Structure Research: Power structure research attempts to systematically examine the process through which political power is exercised. This vein of scholarship is associated with C.W. Mills’ controversial book, The Power Elite (1956). Mills identified “three monopolies” that function in an anti-democratic manner: corporations that demand high levels of conformity; a military “caste system” that isolated recruits from local communities; and a government in which a large number of public servants serve without having stood for election. Power: The ability a person has to get others to do things without using force. Prestige: The notion that ones placement in society and economic incentives are tied to social constructions regarding the importance of ones occupational status. Defining Class

189

Proletariat: Karl Marx identified two primary class locations in capitalist society – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The proletariat, also referred to as the working class, has no ownership or control over the means of production; as a result, they must sell their labor in order to live. Relational Class Structure: Marxist definitions of class are relational in nature, rather than gradational. Gradational definitions conceptualize class in quantitative terms – in terms of differences in the amount of income accumulated, for example. In relational definitions, on the other hand, classes are defined in terms of qualitative differences - according to functions performed in work, for example. In addition, relational definitions of class emphasize change over stasis; that is, according to Marxists, relational class structures provide the basis collective action and class struggle. Relative Poverty: The ability to provide the basic needs for life, but the inability to afford what others in the same socioeconomic status can. Scitovsky’s Reversal Paradox: Claims that spending on activities that produce a sense of variety or beauty result in more happiness than comfort-related consumption. Service Industry: Business sector that provides consultative, high-technology, financial advising, or other, un-manufactured products. Silent Generation: A term coined in a 1951 Time Magazine article. Unlike their parents’ generation who protested labor practices and their children’s generation who protested Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, the Silent Generation said little about politics and kept their focus on getting and education and working hard. Social Hierarchy: Social hierarchy can be described as the interplay of education and class which play a significant role in one’s social position. Social Mobility: Mobility is the opportunity for individuals and families to move from one social stratum to another, particularly from the social class in which they started. Social Position: Social position describes a person’s place in the social hierarchy and plays a significant role in determining one’s employability, employment, and income.

190


Social Stratification: The hierarchical classification of society based on social and economic variables, most commonly divided into upper, lower and middle classes, which may be further subdivided. Contemporary sociologists and the U.S. Census Bureau are reluctant to stratify the classes given the complexity and diversity of society and its family and household units. Socialization: The learning process that prepares new members of society for social life. Socioeconomic Status (SES): The measure of an individual’s or family’s economic and social position relative to others, based on income, education, and job. Spatial Mismatching: Where employment opportunities for low-income people are located far away from the areas where they live. Status Consistency: The degree of constancy in a person’s social status. Status System: A system which stratifies individuals based on their socioeconomic conditions. Stratification: Stratification can be described as the structural hierarchy on which education, class, and other class and social hierarchies are constructed. Structural Inequality: The notion that socio-structural factors such as policy failures relating to social service programs and housing as well as a dearth of decent paying jobs and adequate job training are the predominate causes of social and economic inequality. Structural Mobility: Social movement in which the environment’s changes facilitate upward mobility for an individual or his/her society. Stylistic Unity: “Coherent lifestyle forms” as defined by Michael E. Sobel (p. 120). Synergistic Effect of Race and Gender: The sociological notion that race and gender together have a greater impact on individual life chances than either characteristic does alone.

Defining Class

191

The Easterlin Paradox: The Easterlin Paradox, also known as the “Prosperity Paradox,” describes the apparent failure of levels of self-reported happiness to match rising levels of real earnings. The paradox resides in the fact that, though the more affluent tend to indicate a greater level of happiness than the less affluent, overall levels of happiness have largely remained static as economic productivity has increased Tokenism: A policy or practice of limited inclusion of certain people into a group in order to give the appearance that they are inclusive when they are actually exclusive. Tracking: Tracking can be described as “the separation of students into hierarchical learning groups based on perceived or measured ability” (Biafora & Ansalone, 2008, p. 588). Transfer Programs: Income not earned from wages may be termed “transfer income” from government (federal and state) programs and social service agencies, such as Social Security, Veteran Administration benefits and public assistance. Underclass: People who tend to be jobless most of the time, and have a low level of education. Upward Mobility: Movement into better jobs and higher social strata. Vertical Mobility: Movement up or down social strata due to job or other life/environment changes. Wage Gap: A term that signifies differences in pay based on race and gender for like work. War on Poverty: Name given to President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. These programs looked to extend Civil Rights, equal opportunity, education, and a economic safety net for America’s poorest citizens. Wealth: Cumulative value of assets owned by a family or individual. Statisticians measure wealth at a point in time. It includes real estate (home ownership) or business ownership, investments in stocks and bonds, interest earned, etc. Working Poor: Workers who maintain regular work and still are not able to earn enough to escape poverty. 192


Contributors

Michael P. Auerbach holds a bachelor’s degree from Wittenberg University and a master’s degree from Boston College. He has extensive private and public sector experience in a wide range of arenas: political science, comparative cultural studies, business and economic development, tax policy, international development, defense, public administration, and tourism. Jeremy Baker holds a master’s degree in sociology from Ohio State University. While at Ohio State, he focused his research on social movements and workers rights while teaching classes on globalization, social change, and sociological deviance. PD Casteel has his Master’s degree in Sociology and is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Texas at Dallas. He works as a business executive and writer in the Dallas area. Jennifer Christian is currently A.B.D. in the Department of Sociology at Indiana University, Bloomington. She completed her B.A. at CSU San Marcos in Experimental Psychology and Sociology with a minor in Criminal Justice and Criminology. Recently she earned her Master’s degree from Indiana University and completed her qualifying examinations in Political Sociology. Today, her areas of expertise are in political sociology, media, movements, social policy, public opinion and criminology. She is currently

Defining Class

193

completing her dissertation, tentatively titled “Understanding the Intersection of Public Opinion, Media, and Elite Discourse on Policy Change.” Barbara Hornick-Lockard is Emeritus Library Director of Corning Community College, Corning, New York. She holds an M.L.S. from the University of Pittsburgh and an M.B.A. from Syracuse University. Her subject background is eclectic, but a common denominator in her career as a professional librarian is work with undergraduate students for whom she developed information literacy programs. She held professional positions at the libraries of the University of Pittsburgh (Johnstown and Bradford campuses), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and at Corning. She has also taught composition and was the recipient of several writing awards when she was a student. Alexandra Howson Ph.D. taught Sociology for over a decade at several universities in the UK. She has published books and peer reviewed articles on the sociology of the body, gender and health and is now an independent researcher, writer and editor based in the Seattle area. Jeff Klassen holds a master’s degree in English from the University of Western Ontario. He is currently pursuing a law degree. Jennifer Kretchmar earned her Doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She currently works as a Research Associate in undergraduate admissions. Sharon Link is an educator, presenter, and mother of a child with autism. She has worked extensively in public education and has researched education and its relationship to autism disorders and other disabilities for the last ten years. Dr. Link currently is the Executive Director for Autism Disorders Leadership Center, a non-profit research center and is co-founder of Asperger Interventions & Support, Inc. a professional development center. Both organizations are education and research centers seeking to improve education by creating a system of diversity and inclusion in America’s schools. Ilanna Mandel is a writer and editor with over seventeen years of experience, specifically in the health and education sectors. Her work has been utilized by corporations, non-profit organizations and academic institu194


tions. She is a published author with one book and numerous articles to her credit. She received her MA in Education from UC Berkeley where she focused on Sociology and Education. Geraldine Wagner holds a graduate degree from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship. She teaches Sociology at Mohawk Valley Community College in upstate New York and Professional Writing at State University of NY, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. She has authored numerous writings including journalism articles, OP-ED columns, manuals, and two works of non-fiction: No Problem: The Story of Fr. Ray McVey and Unity Acres, A Catholic Worker House, published in 1998 and Thirteen Months To Go: The Creation of the Empire State Building, published in 2003. She divides her time between upstate New York, Bar Harbor, Maine and coastal North Carolina.

Defining Class

195

Index

A

Bourgeoisie, 9, 105, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 133, 173

Class Conflict, 9, 133, 173 Class Consciousness, 96, 99, 100, 109 Classism, 145, 148 Class Locations, 109, 110 Class Structure, 13, 19, 40, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 134 Class System, 5, 120, 131, 133, 177, 178 College, 4, 7, 10, 14, 15, 76, 102, 103, 122, 155, 174, 179, 181 Conflict Theory, 68, 163 Consumerism, 86 Consumption, 86, 91 Control, 113 Crime, 167 Cross-National Income Inequality, 12 Cultural Capital, 85, 88, 90, 91, 100, 104

C

D

Capital, 85 Capitalism, 51, 69, 75, 116, 163 Capitalist Class, 114, 117 Capitalists, 9, 110, 112, 115, 133, 173 Caste System, 5 Census Bureau, The, 15, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48 Child-Bearing, 181 Circulation Mobility, 19

Demographic Shifts, 103 Digital Divide, The, 56 Downward Mobility, 6, 96

Absolute Poverty, 176 Affluenza, 64 African Americans, 151, 153, 154, 157, 176, 178 Aggregate Income, 44 American Dream, The, 16, 64, 120, 134, 177 Anomie, 64 Asians, 154 Autonomy, 115

B

196

E Easterlin’s Paradox, 65 Economic Capital, 100 Education, 51, 121, 180 Sociology Reference Guide

Elderly, 13, 178 Equal Opportunity, 182 Ethnographic Studies, 67 Exploitation, 6, 9, 111, 114, 133, 173

F Family Income Mobility, 12 Family Unit, 142 Feminization of Poverty, 155 Functionalism, 68 Future Class System, The, 15

G Gender, 79, 165, 178 Geographic Positioning, 21 Gerstner, Louis, 27, 34 Gini Index, 44 Globalization, 40 Great Depression, The, 13, 20, 134

H Health, 88, 91, 124, 167 Health Inequality, 13 High-Status Culture, 87 Household, 43, 44, 45, 79, 89, 96, 155, 156, 178

I IBM, 27, 34 Immigrants, 136, 137 Incarceration, 13 Income Inequality, 12, 41, 44, 46, 76, 102, 103, 109, 161, 162, 163, 166, 167 Inequality, 12, 13, 161, 162, 164, 166, 177, 178 Inheritance, 177 Intelligence, 166 Intergenerational Mobility, 22 Intragenerational Mobility, 25

J Job Prospects, 19 Defining Class

L Lateral Mobility, 24 Latinos, 152, 178 Leisure Time, 84 Life Expectancy, 124, 156, 167 Lifestyle, 84, 87, 88 Living Wage, 181

M Manufacturing Industry, 32 Marxian Perspective, The, 9 Mass Imprisonment, 153 Measures of Class, 75 Measuring Income, 43 Measuring Wealth, 77 Meritocracy, 7, 8, 42, 69, 123, 132, 164, 172 Middle Class, 96, 98 Mills, C. W., 69, 70 Multinational Corporation, 34

N Net Worth, 63, 78 New Rich, 63

O Occupational Prestige, 76, 78 Old Boys Network, 177 Old Money, 63, 67 Outsourcing, 29, 33 Overconformity, 98

P Parental Involvement, 53 Petty Bourgeoisie, 110, 113, 114 Philanthropy, 66 Pink Collar Work, 14 Plutocracy, 69 Post-Industrial Era, The, 28 Post-Soviet Russia, 30 Poverty, 130, 140 197

Poverty Line, 42, 120, 130, 134, 139, 141, 143, 150, 152, 153, 155, 175, 176, 178 Power, 75 Power Elite, 70 Power Structure Research, 69, 71 Prestige, 76 Proletariat, 9, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 133, 173 Public Policy, 157

R Race, 79, 121, 152, 164, 178 Radicalism, 100 Reagan, Ronald, 18, 24, 156 Relative Poverty, 133, 176, 180

S School Readiness, 53 Secure Retirement, 123 Service Industry, 11, 29, 32, 33, 34, 121, 131, 175, 179 Silent Generation, 151, 155, 156 Slavery, 5 Social-Conflict Perspective, The, 132 Social Hierarchy, 50 Socialization, 51 Social Memberships, 87 Social Mobility, 18, 19, 27, 33, 59, 120, 124 Social Position, 50, 86 Social Security, 45, 102, 123, 124, 150, 155, 175 Social Strata, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 30, 84, 86, 91, 119 Social Stratification, 30, 75, 105, 125, 161, 162, 164 Socioeconomic Status, 53 Status Consistency, 7 Stratification, 5, 7, 8, 50, 75, 161, 174, 179 Stratification Perspectives, 8

198

Conflict Perspective, The, 9, 132, 172 Davis-Moore Thesis, 9 Functionalist Perspective, The, 8, 132, 172 Symbolic Interactionist Perspective, 10, 174 Weberian Perspective, The, 9 Structural-Functionalist Perspective, The, 132 Structural Mobility, 19, 24 Stylistic Unity, 85, 86

T Taxes, 40, 45 Technology, 40 Tracking, 41, 55, 56, 58 Transfer Programs, 41

U Underclass, 40, 129, 134, 135 Unemployment Rates, 13, 153 Upper Class, 62, 67 Upward Mobility, 5, 6, 28, 31, 80, 96, 120, 142, 143, 166, 178 Urban Schools, 54

V Vertical Mobility, 15

W Wage Gap, 80, 155 War on Poverty, 151, 156, 157 Wealth, 7, 10, 69, 74, 76, 77, 80, 133, 173, 177 Weber, Max, 9, 109, 133, 134, 173 Whites, 153, 154, 155 Working Class, 11, 39, 119, 121 Working Poor, 40, 120, 171, 176 Wright, Erik Olin, 109


Defining Class (Sociology Reference Guide)

The Process of Socialization (Sociology Reference Guide)

Defining Creole

The Social Organization of Work (The Sociology Reference Guide Series)

Gender Roles & Equality (The Sociology Reference Guide Series)

Analyzing Crime & Social Control (Sociology Reference Guide)

Defining Art

Defining Species

Defining Patterns

21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook

Sociology Projects: A Students' Guide

IP Professional Reference Guide

JavaScript Reference Guide

jQuery 1.4 Reference Guide

Cisco IOS Reference Guide

jQuery Reference Guide

OVM Golden Reference Guide

Anaphora: A Reference Guide

jQuery Reference Guide

Brain reference guide

VisualBasic Reference Guide

Cogeneration management reference guide

jQuery Reference Guide

Linux Laminated Reference Guide

jQuery 1.4 Reference Guide

Social Class, Language and Education: International Library of Sociology I: Class, Race and Social Structure (International Library of Sociology)

Sociology

Sociology

The Sociology of Gender and the Family: Middle Class Families

Toward Defining Spirituality

Defining Russian Federalism

Defining Class (Sociology Reference Guide)

The Process of Socialization (Sociology Reference Guide)

Defining Creole

The Social Organization of Work (The Sociology Reference Guide Series)

Gender Roles & Equality (The Sociology Reference Guide Series)

Analyzing Crime & Social Control (Sociology Reference Guide)

Defining Art

Defining Species

Defining Patterns

21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook

Sociology Projects: A Students' Guide

IP Professional Reference Guide

JavaScript Reference Guide

jQuery 1.4 Reference Guide

Cisco IOS Reference Guide

jQuery Reference Guide

OVM Golden Reference Guide

Anaphora: A Reference Guide

jQuery Reference Guide

Brain reference guide

VisualBasic Reference Guide

Cogeneration management reference guide

jQuery Reference Guide

Linux Laminated Reference Guide

jQuery 1.4 Reference Guide

Social Class, Language and Education: International Library of Sociology I: Class, Race and Social Structure (International Library of Sociology)

Sociology

Sociology

The Sociology of Gender and the Family: Middle Class Families

Toward Defining Spirituality

Defining Russian Federalism

Recommend Documents