Chapter 4 - Constructing and Deconstructing Social Class

What is Social Class

The way people in the U.S. most commonly think of social class is in terms of income. Income is money that comes in – largely through earnings. If you have very little money you are poor, if you have a “decent” job and wage you are middle class, and if you have “tons of money” you are rich. We also see social class as very permeable, meaning that people can move from one social class to another largely based upon their own efforts and desires. Because of this perception of free movement across class boundaries, social class becomes a “choice.” If you want to “move up” in social class, all you need to do is work harder or smarter, get more money, and there you are. This all leads us to think of social class as relatively artificial and personal rather than as a significant issue of stratification and social inequality.

Sociologists tend to think to social class as more than just income. Generally, sociologists accept Weber’s argument that groups are stratified by a combination of power, wealth and prestige. Wealth is what you own, not simply what you earn. It includes physical property, valuable objects, an investments. As you may recall from the discussion of social stratification in the first chapter, prestige is a consequence of status, which is a consequence of social placement. Applying this conceptualization to social class allows us to look at the dynamics of how social class operates within a society. When sociologists use the term “social class” or “class,” we are using it as a short hand for socio-economic status (commonly abbreviated as SES). Socio-economic status encompasses both the economic component of class as well as the social characteristics of it.

When we expand our thinking about social class, we intuitively know that there is more than money involved. For example, a person who makes $8,000 a year and wins a 30 million dollar lottery is not in the same situation as one who owns a business and is worth 30 million dollars. Similarly, a person who is in corporate management and earning 30 million and loses his/her job, is not the same as an electronic assembler who loses his/her job. We know, though rarely think about what those differences are.

Many people see social class stratification as the central form of stratification in the United States. This perception of social class takes essentially two forms. The theoretical approach sees that resolving social class inequality will resolve disparities between sexes and races. The general public (and frequently political groups) argues for the centrality of social class because it fits nicely with other core American beliefs such as equality and opportunity. From this perspective social class is the primary divider, but since social class is somewhat voluntary (or we can overcome it if we try hard enough) there is no truly structured inequality.

Another way to see social class is that it is both a starting place and an outcome. It is a starting place because we all have a social class when we are born, which affords us certain opportunities and barriers. And it is an outcome as it is a major way that social resources are divided. Ultimately, regardless of the way that one thinks about social class, it involves the distribution of social (both material and non-material) resources within this society. Social class placement has a large influence on our access to, and control of, social resources. The higher our social class, the more access and control we have; the lower our social class the less we have, and we may have no access or control at all of certain resources.

Discussions of social class inevitably lead to questions of how many social classes there are and what are the income limits for each class. There are many ways to break down the social classes in the U.S. In terms of simply dividing the population into classes in terms that are commonly used, there are at least the following five methods (see Table 4.1 below).

Table 4.1 Dividing the Classes

One might wonder why there are all these possibilities. What people are trying to capture with the different schemas is where the meaningful social breaks are – not simply income and wealth break points. Let’s just take a brief look at why we might make these different breakdowns of the class structure. Column A assumes that people who are upper class have wealth and money and are in positions of power and prestige (upper management and company owners), while the middle class are college educated skilled workers, and the lower class is virtually everyone else. Column B makes similar assumptions to A, but includes the working class as (usually) skilled workers who are making above minimum wage (and perhaps even middle class wages). Column C breaks the upper, middle and lower classes into upper and lower which is largely an accommodation for wage and occupational status differences, and adds the lower lower class as essentially those who are without continuous employment or are permanently unemployed. Column D is a finer division of Column C. Lastly, we have Column E which is a Marxist approach to social class. The Capitalist class is the large business owners and wealthy financiers. The Petti-Bourgeoisie are small business owners with the management class being all those who maintain the rules of the capitalists and petti-bourgeoisie in controlling the proletariat, which is everyone else who works for a wage (or who can be called into the workforce at need).

So, we have numerous possibilities for dividing the social classes, but it still doesn’t tell us to determine which class we (or someone else) is in. While it does not correspond with social class structure as we have been discussing it, the most common way to look at income and wealth is in quintiles or twenty percents of the population. The Table 4.2 depicts the quintile breakdown of income based upon 1997 figures.

Table 4.2 1998 Family Income Quintiles in 1998 Constant Dollars

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Table F-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families (All Races): 1947 to 1998 and Table H-2. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households (All Races): 1947 to 1998

Table 4.2 gives a the income limits for quintiles one through four with the lower limit of the top five percent of the fifth quintile for the entire U.S. population and is based on family incomes. For example, the bottom twenty percent of families earned from zero dollars to $21,600.00. At the top end of the quintiles, the fifth quintile starts at $83,694. And goes up to the highest income. The lowest level of the top five percent of families is $145,199.00. Table 4.2 also shows the percentage of total income held by families in each quintile and the top five percent of families.

Several things are of note from the above data. First, is that there is more income disparity in the highest quintile than among the rest to the population. Starting at roughly $84,000.00, it goes up to the billions of dollars. Second, many people are surprised that the dollar levels aren’t higher and more difference between the quintiles. Related to this, many are surprised that 95% of families earn less than $145,199.00.

Another set of data presented in the table is the percentage of all income received by each quintile and how it has changed from 1980 to 1998. Two things become apparent from looking at this information. First, that income is not evenly distributed across the quintiles. One form of equality would be reflected by the percentage of income being twenty percent for each of the quintiles. Looking at the 1998 percentage distribution, we see that the top twenty percent of families have almost fifty percent of the income. and that the top five percent have more than 20% on their own. If we compare the 1980 to 1998 figures, we see another thing that is happening. While the top quintile has increased their share of income, the remaining 80% of families have lost income. What this reflects is symptomatic of increasing income inequality which you have probably heard referred to from a variety of news and information sources.

One way we could roughly look at how the quintiles correlate to social class standing would be as depicted in Table 4.3 below. This is a simplistic and not very accurate approach with a number of methodological problems. However, some ways it captures what many people’s idea of social class is. First that social class is simply income. Second that there is an unequivocal line that moves one from one class to another. Third, that because we have an equal society that having an equal percentage of the population in each class seems intuitively correct. And finally, that the classes are the same for the entire population (the same for all races and ethnic groups).

Table 4.3 Theoretical Social Class Breakdown Based on 1998 Quintiles 

While Table 4.2 presents income information for all families, and Table 4.3 presents a hypothetical social class breakdown, it is important to realize that this does not reflect reality for all families. To demonstrate this, examine Table 4.4. It shows the quintile income limits for 1980 and 1998 for European American, African American, and Hispanic Origin families. Table 4.5 portrays the percentage of change in income for African and Hispanic Origin Americans between 1980 and 1999. This information is presented to demonstrate that when you look inside the data, things are not necessarily what they appear to be when you are looking at the big picture.

Table 4.4 Quintile comparison by Race and Hispanic Origin for 1980 and 1998 on Family Income Limits

Source: Combined from U.S. Census Bureau. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families - F Series Tables

One thing that is clear from Table 4.4 is that for both 1980 and 1998, across all quintiles and including the top five percent, African Americans and Latino Americans made significantly less money. For example, let’s look at the third quintile. For all families, the highest income limit was $56,020, for European Americans it was higher than the average at $58,450, while for African Americans it was $37,260 and Latino Americans it was $35,854. So African American families earned 63.7%, and Hispanic Americans earned 61.3% compared to European Americans in the third quintile. If we take this information and compare it to the theoretical class breakdown in Table 4.3, both African and Hispanic Americans fall into the second rather than the third quintile. In other words, they would be in the working rather than the middle class.

Table 4.2 also examined the percentage of income shares between 1980 and 1998 for all families. Table 4.5 below looks at the percentage of change reflected in the table above for African and Hispanic Americans. While the table for all families (Table 4.3) shows that the top twenty percent of families increased their income shares by 5.5 percent (top 5% by 5.6%), the remaining eight percent of the population lost income shares (actually from -.7 to -1.9). However, when we look at Table 4.5 below, we see that the top five percent of African American families lost 2.93% while Hispanic Americans in the top five percent lost 8.25%. From this we can see that at the highest levels, whites have increased their shares of income while Blacks and Hispanics have lost, even though we are talking about the most economically advantaged of all income groups. Another thing that is clear from Table 4.5 (below) is that African Americans (as a group) did better economically from 1980-98 while Hispanic Americans position declined significantly.

Table 4.5 Percent Change in Quintile Limits for African American and Hispanic Origin for 1980 and 1998. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Derived from Table 4.4

Earlier, I presented a theoretical social class breakdown based on income quintiles. I also mentioned there were problems with using that method for determining social class. Social class is socio-economic status, not just income. Dinesh D’Souza (1999) has devised what he calls “the new class structure” which includes income, and net wealth (what you own minus what you owe). While I disagree with Dr. D’Souza’ theories, his model for social class has its strengths. Table 4.6 presents D’Souza’s social class model, and as a reference point the 1998 quintile limits.

Table 4.6 D’Souza’s New Class Structure and 1998 Income Quintiles

D’Souza argues that there have been dramatic changes in income and wealth since the 1980s – a change that is amply documented. While his article does not talk about increasing inequality, he

attempts to capture what is happening primarily in the top of the social class structure. This emphasis is pretty clear from his model, and that over half of those he has ranked as “lower middle” class are actually below the official federal poverty line. In his article “The Billionaire Next Door,” he notes that the net wealth of most of the population is their home – something that is not true for the “rich” and “super rich.” [See Box 4.1 for article excerpt]

So at this point we know that social class is not just income, but that it also includes wealth. We also know that the lifestyles and opportunities of the various social classes are not the same. However, even given these differences, there are other differences that distinguish the social classes from each other.

Think about your life, particularly your birth and childhood. One of the things that social class does is give us our initial social placement. That placement is based upon the social class of our family or origin. If we were adopted at birth, our placement is that of our adoptive or foster parents. If we are placed within a facility (or orphanage) our class is affected as well.

What kinds of things does the social class placement of our primary care giver(s) affect? We don’t have to think very long to realize that social class dramatically affects the environment and physical conditions that we live in. It affects where we live and the quality of housing and material possessions. It affects the kind and quality of food we eat and whether our physical environment is in an environmentally safe area. (Waste and toxic sites are almost universally located in economically poor areas.) It affects our access to healthcare and to educational resources. It affects who we know, the expectations that others have of us, and perhaps our expectations of ourselves. Our initial social class placement affects the access we have to both necessities of life and the amenities of the society. It affects our (and our care givers) ability to address setbacks such as accident, injury, loss of a job, etc. In a very real and tangible way, our early social class placement dramatically affects the conditions of our lives.

There seems to be a common assumption in the U.S. mythology of social class, that none of these things are important. We are led to believe, or at least not think about, that the early conditions of our life have minimal affect on our ability to succeed and prosper as adults. Combined with our belief that class is primarily money, the assumption is that if we get more money that we start over - there are no long term affects. We don’t think very often about people moving down in social class, and when we do we assume it is a temporary setback which they will overcome. However, if we grow up in an environmentally hazardous area with little or no access to good health care could that have long term consequences for us? For example, if we grow up in an environment with dangerously high levels of lead it is highly likely that it will permanently impair our brain development. If we do not have adequate nutrition, it is unlikely that we will physically develop as we should. If we go to a school with inadequate resources (textbooks that are long out of date, no library, and little access to modern technology), it will most likely impair our academic performance and opportunities later.

While some people may overcome a “poor start,” many will have difficulty and for some it may be impossible. For those who get a “great start,” the odds are that they will keep it. While there is considerable income mobility of families over time, it is mostly at the borders – those at the top and bottom of each quintile (or social class) are the most likely to move either up or down. Gottschalk (1998) examined family income mobility from 1969-1994. Over that time period, except for the lowest quintile (41%) and the top quintile (39%), roughly 25% of families were in the same income quintile in 1994 as they were in 1969. Further, quintiles two through four were virtually equally likely to move up or down (roughly 25% either direction).

By this time you are probably wondering how something that is so commonly mentioned is so

“fuzzy” and complicated. The truth is that there are many ways to look at social class, and what one includes, or excludes) makes a difference. In other words, there are a lot of different perspectives, and while there is a high degree of overlap across social class determinations there is also a lot of areas that don’t overlap. Some researchers use income, others, income and wealth, others income and wealth and occupational status, and still others the relationship to the means and products of production.

While there are disagreements about where and how to draw the lines in relationship to social class, there are also problems with how to determine which class a person is in. Various methods are used and they all have their problems. Three primary approaches are used - subjective, reputation, and objective.

The subjective approach asks people to place themselves into a social class, and might simply ask people “what social class are you in.” One of the major problems with this approach is that people, regardless of actual class standing, are likely to report that they are middle class. Some of the reasons for this are: middle class seems what most people are and folks don’t want to stand out; middle class is a safe response because there is very little animosity towards the middle class; and most people want to be seen as being “like everyone else.” Today even some people who have extreme wealth try to present a middle class image. For example, Bill Gates (currently the richest person on the planet) usually “dresses down,” and actress Julia Roberts wants to blend into the masses (D’Souza, 1999). Therefore, the subjective approach gives us an over-representation of the middle class.

The reputation approach asks people to rank other people’s social class. This is perhaps the most accurate method of determining social class, but has limited usefulness. The accuracy of this method relies on a relatively high level of familiarity with the person being ranked. Therefore, it is very accurate in areas where people are highly familiar with each other (such as small towns and communities) and virtually worthless in larger towns and cities.

The objective approach uses other data sources to group people into social classes. This is the most common way that researchers and analysts look at social class and usually depends on various data sources that are considered reliable such as census data. Analysts apply their assumptions to creating the class boundaries and then organize the data into those categories. This is considered a valid and reliable way of determining social classes.

There are other problems with determining social class. I noted earlier that the quintile method might mean different things if we included race as a variable. Likewise, there has been considerable problems with determining women’s social class. There are many reasons why women’s social class and mens might not only be the same thing, but actually work differently. One of the primary reasons was briefly discussed in Chapter 3 - women as a form of property. Historically and contemporarily, women’s social class is heavily tied to men. While in the past women were usually unable to own property or hold credit in their own names (or it transferred to their husbands upon marriage), social expectations of women’s role in the society still have a significant impact. Even with the majority of women in the labor force, most women are still somewhat dependent on men (especially) husbands for economic support. This is especially true when children enter the picture as, at least for a brief period of time, women generally leave the labor force for childbearing.

Another problem is that women’s wages are significantly lower than men’s for a variety of reasons, including institutionalized wage inequality. For the majority of married women in the United States (regardless of race or ethnicity) the dissolution of a marriage means a significant drop in household income and standards of living. This is true even among the relatively wealthy. In the early 1990s, 60 Minutes aired a report on the wives of Belair (an upper class neighborhood in California). The story focused on the situation of a number of Belair women who were divorced and living in their cars on the streets; depending on friends and associates to provide them with places to clean up, do their laundry etc. It was an odd picture that flew in the face of stereotypes about who is homeless, but it dramatically pointed out the relationship of women to social class.

A final problem with social class in relationship to women is that historically examinations of social class and social class mobility have focused almost exclusively on men. The assumptions were based on the realities of men’s lives within the society. Intergenerational mobility looked at son’s social class in relationship to father’s social class. Social class was largely determined by family and males were considered the sole (or at least primary) earners in the family. This perception of social class at best marginalized women’s relationship to it. Women’s incomes were seen as largely inconsequential - generally considered by society, researchers, and women themselves as “pin money” – a little extra to buy non-necessities. The problem of women and social class has not gone away with their broad scale participation in the paid labor force.

With all of the definitional problems and ambiguities, social class is a reality that we see at work in our lives and society. Social class however, is not just something that is applied to us and we (hopefully) move through. Social class is also something that we learn to be. The next component to examine is the socialization process and social class.

Socialization and Social Class

Like other forms of stratification systems, we are not just “in” a social class, but it is in us. As part of the socialization process, we learn about the social classes, how social class is supposed to work, the cultural values interrelating social class, the stereotypes of the various classes, and how to interact with those of our own and different social classes. We learn to expectations of our class and how we are supposed to succeed. We learn all this in the same ways, and at the same levels as any other form of socialization – deeply and unconsciously, specifically and consciously, and through the constant reinforcement of the people around us and the institutions and organizations with which we interact.

We receive specific socialization into our class as we receive specific socialization into sex and gender. While we have become more sensitive to and aware of sex and gender socialization, we generally don’t pay much attention to social class socialization. The glaring exception to this is the belief that the poor live in a culture of poverty that they pass on to their children. To some extent this is true, but it is no different than the “cultures” of the working, middle, or upper classes and the socialization they pass on to their children. The “culture” of the poor is part of the broader construction of social class in the society.

We have already examined in this chapter a number of the broad societal beliefs about social class. These broad beliefs provide the basic foundation in which specific class socialization occurs. Such beliefs include the following:

      1.   social class is individual

      2.   individual’s are in control of their own class placement

      3.   anyone can make it to the top

      4.   education is important to success

      5.   the poor are too lazy to get out of poverty

      6.   most people are middle class

      7.   the system treats everyone the same

      8.   people are judged on their own merit

Let’s examine some of the beliefs and how social class works with the following diagram. For purposes of simplicity and clarity, I will focus on the lower, middle, and upper upper classes.

Diagram 4.1 Social Class and Expectations

The ideal of material success is a broad societal image. It is the ideal that is presented pervasively in the society regardless of the class one belongs to. In other words, we are told this is what we are to aim for and judge ourselves against. As consumption is currently treated as a key feature in U.S. society, and social class is largely seen as the ability to consume, the ideal is not focused on happiness. The message is that these material things will give one happiness.

The expectations and “road” to success however varies in interesting ways across social classes. All classes get a clear message that education and hard work are the keys to success. However, that broad general message does not translate the same across social classes. For the working and lower classes, working hard generally means significant physical effort. Your effort is reflected in your sweat and your time. For the lower classes, these are generally menial positions and general laborer jobs. For the working class, it is generally skilled or semi-skilled trades. Likewise, education is geared to those expectations. The lower class (as a group) gets a high school education or the equivalent though post high school education is becoming more common). The working class as a group generally have skilled training and/or an Associate’s degree, though Bachelor’s degrees are becoming more common.

The middle class also gets the message to “work hard.” However, working hard in this context is working in an occupation or profession. The middle class, by and large, do not have “jobs” - they have professions. Working hard means working smart – showing the boss you have the skill and commitment to be an exceptional employee. The goal is to be recognized and to be promoted. This will get one more respect and more money. The education required for these professions generally require at least a Bachelor’s degree and frequently an advanced degree. The middle class, like the lower and working classes, work for wages - though their wages are usually salaries rather than an hourly wage. Professions vary widely in this class from accountants to doctors and lawyers (and college professors).

The upper upper class gets the same emphasis on hard work and education. This class also stresses hard work, but it is hard work in a very different sense (generally) than other social classes. It is the hard work of managing people and wealth, maintaining and making contacts, and decision making. Education is generally not aimed towards a career or profession though Bachelor’s degrees are common and some advanced degrees. The purpose of higher education is primarily to make strong networks with others of one’s class, and to gain the skills to do the hard work required of this class.

The overall ideal of success is generally the same for all social classes, but their relationship to that ideal is very different. The upper upper class has already attained the ideal so their job is to hold on to and expand what they have. The rest of the population is trying to attain the ideal. For someone from the lower and working classes, the possibility of attaining “success” (or moving to the upper upper class is relatively slim (5.8% moved from the lowest quintile and 13% from the second quintile, to the top quintile from 1969-1994, Gottschalk,1998). Following the rules and expectations of one’s class is unlikely to move one - no matter how hard one works. For the lower and working class person to improve their financial position one has to work more jobs and there is a limit to how many jobs one can work. The odds are somewhat better for the middle class , especially for those at the upper end of that spectrum, because they may have adequate income to invest in property or stocks at a level that may move them up. Or they may have sufficient funds, and be seen as a good enough credit risk, to engage in entrepreneurial activities.

There are numerous behavioral, physical, and environmental components that go along with social class, and as mentioned earlier they are at least in part socialized. Socialization can make social class relatively durable. While people do change physical social class, more than money or neighborhood is involved. We carry our class with us to greater or lesser extent as we move through (or don’t) classes. Let me share a personal example. I originally came from the lower class and spent my childhood in lower and working class family and neighborhood environments. I now have a doctorate, teach at a community college, and earn a lower middle class wage. Most people assume that college faculty with doctorates are at least upper middle class. In fact, most people assume that advanced degrees are a symbol of upper middle or upper class standing.

I have a difficult time seeing myself as even middle class. I carry my lower and working class socialization with me and it crops up in interesting ways. For example, several years ago I was unemployed. From my perspective, job one is survival. There I was going along with a doctorate in sociology, teaching experience, and thirteen years of experience in information systems. One would think that I could come up with endless possibilities for good employment with those credentials, but what jobs jumped out at me? Stocking shelves, fast food, production work, and lawn care.

I know it seems silly because with my education and background I should be able to find a job that makes in a day or a week what I would make in a month in a manual labor position. But that was not my first “instinct.” I “reverted” to looking for a “job” not a “professional” position. There are a couple of reasons for my reaction. First is the socialization I received through my childhood about surviving economically. The second was more of a structural barrier. Though I have advanced degrees, I was not socialized into the middle or upper middle classes. Bachelor’s programs, and certainly advanced degree programs assume that students are from the middle and upper middle classes. They assume you know how the social networks work, and that you or your family already have connections that will facilitate your use of your education. Therefore making these kinds of connections are not part of advanced degree programs. While I had a doctorate and should have been able to at least find consulting work that would have paid me in excess of $500 a day, I hadn’t a clue on how to make my education and skills work for me.

Another way my early class socialization frequently shows itself is that much of what I do has no visible “product.” I work very hard, but there is not a lot at the end of the day or the week to show for all that effort. I frequently don’t feel that I am “working” because what I do doesn’t fit the idea of work as I learned it. Deep inside I still have a conception of work as physical and directly related to survival. The middle class in particular is socialized to find a job that they like and enjoy. For most working and lower class people, enjoying what one is doing is at best a bonus – not a criteria of employment.

A fair amount of research has been done regarding the social class of parent’s and their relationship to their children and their children’s participation in education (in particular). It has been argued for example that working class parents are likely to prioritize work over education and to stress conformity and obedience, while middle class parents stress higher education and professions, and teach decision making and choice (Kohn, 1969; Rubin, 1994). This is reflected (perhaps) in different discipline strategies for lower and working class parents (who reportedly are more likely to use physical punishment) and middle class parents (who reportedly use reasoning, threats and guilt) to assure compliance (Hughes and Perry-Jenkins, 1996).

Some argue that the reason for this class difference is that working class parents see the chances of their children moving up in social class is limited and so stress work over education (Ogbu, 1978). Others have argued that the socialization in these areas reflects what is experienced by parents in their working lives – working and lower class adults are in positions which require obedience and compliance, while middle class adults are in environments that have a greater stress on autonomy and decision making. a study by Gerris and Dekovic (1997) seems to indicate that parental perspective has more influence on child rearing than does parent’s values. What this means essentially is that their experience in the world carries more weight than values that they may have. Since social class dramatically affects experiences in the world (school, work, personal interactions, etc.) that is what parents are preparing their children for.

Socialization also includes behaviors such as communication and relationships. Michael Gos (1995) argues that working class families are characterized by informal communication styles and position orientation, while professional managerial families are characterized by formal communication and person-orientation. Drawing on the work of Bernstein (1971) Gos states that the working class is more likely to have high contact with extended family and community over long periods of time so that communication becomes focused on context and delivery (paralinguistics) than on what is actually said. Therefore, sentences are simpler and often incomplete because people know from interaction how to fill in the thoughts. The formal language used by professional/managerial families comes out of an environment of separation and distance and the meaning resides in what is said rather than how it is said. Since schools and work places use formal language, it can place working class individuals at a significant disadvantage.

Once again drawing on Bernstein, Gos discusses that working class families are position and role oriented. Authority and role derives from a person’s position (within the family, community, organization, etc). Statements are determined to be true or not depending on the position of the person making them. To challenge or question a statement becomes a direct challenge to the person making it. To elaborate on someone’s statement is rude because it usurps the authority of the speaker. On the other hand, professional/managerial families are person-oriented. Children (and others) are seen individually and can have significant role flexibility. Because of this orientation, children of this class are more likely (and more encouraged) to challenge statements and make their own. Once again, this can place those from the working class at a significant disadvantage in some situations.

It should be stated again that socialization into social classes is not just about how we are supposed to be as “classed” individuals, but our expectations of others. For example, colleges generally operate under the culture (if we want to call it that) of the upper middle class – what Gos referred to as the professional/managerial class. People within these institutions are expected to behave within the norms and rules of that class and are judged negatively for not doing so. The standard becomes the upper middle class standard. Those who succeed are generally those who follow those “rules;” however, if you don’t know those “rules” then it makes success much more difficult. People who “don’t fit” are seen as less intelligent (or even stupid), and possibly as rude. They are then going to be treated by others within the organization in a harsher manner which also has impacts on their success and comfort within the organization.

One of the pervasive myths about social class in the United States is that anyone can move up the social class ladder. We are taught that the opportunities and possibility of movement is open to every one if they get the education and work hard. But is this a reality? What if all (or even a significant proportion) the people in the lower and working decided to move up? They went to college, got their degrees, and entered middle class professions. What would be the consequences of this? What assumption are we making? To believe that all we need is to get the prerequisite education and skills for those positions that are going to “move us up,” we also have to believe (or assume) that there are an unlimited number of jobs in those higher paying occupations. Reality tells us there are not unlimited positions. Therefore, such a move would dramatically increase the number of “qualified” people for a limited number of jobs. As the number of qualified people increases vis a vis jobs available, competition among prospective workers increases and employers lower pay – workers are a dime a dozen. As the pay decreases, certainly both the social class represented by those position as well as the status the positions hold, also decreases. In short, the social class system in the U.S. is not structured for the mass movement of people up the social ladder, and self-correcting mechanisms (such as the one discussed here) maintain the system (and the people in classes) largely in their places.

Social Structure and Social Class

Once we start thinking about social structure in relationship to social class, we start wondering how we missed it. The structural implications of class are all around us so pervasively that we learn to not see them for what they are. Our neighborhoods definitely reflect class (and race which is discussed in the next chapter) structuring through the types and quality of housing, as well as who lives in these neighborhoods. In part because of the class segregation of neighborhoods, our K-12 education system reflects social class structuring with higher class schools receiving more and better resources than lower class schools.

We see class structuring through occupations from ownership of corporations to jobs characterized by menial labor. This structuring both constitutes class in the public mind and reinforces it. We know that it is unlikely that a beautician in the corner “Happy Hair” is going to become the CEO of Super Cuts. We know that the person prepping the house across the street for painting is not likely to be a software engineer. We attach status to occupations, supposedly based upon the skill required and importance to society; however, these assignments frequently do not stand up to close examination. Some jobs have high status and corresponding high pay, but others do not. For example, the President of the United States receives about $300,000 a year which is less than even low paid CEOs of moderate sized corporations. On the other hand, professions morticians make an upper middle class wage (usually), but the status of the profession is considered very low by most people.

Maintaining Social Class Boundaries

We have discussed boundary maintenance processes several times throughout the previous chapters. Boundaries are at work and enforced in the case of social class as well. We know, at least intuitively, at different social classes do different jobs. Let’s examine the relationship between socialization and social structure in the following example to see how the boundaries operate. We are constantly told, and statistics support, that there is a relationship between education, occupation, and income. We generally assume that if an individual increases their education he/she will increase their income (generally because we assume they will get a better paying job). Underlying that assumption is that there is a direct relationship between education and income. In other words, six units of education generally results in six units of income. I have had students who assume that because I have a Ph.D. that I must be upper class since a Ph.D. represents the most educational units it must also result in the highest pay units. Or conversely, that those in the highest social class must have the most doctorates (actually this distinction falls to the upper middle class). Keeping these things in mind, please examine Diagram 4.2.

Who are we, really? What is that other people think is important about us? Upon first meeting, we can usually categorize people by sex and race, but not necessarily by social class. Among the first questions asked when we are first introduced to someone is “what do you do.” This simple question, we presume tells us a tremendous amount about an individual. We think we know her or his social class, educational background, whether she/he is a hard worker or not, what kind of neighborhood she/he lives in – in short we assume we know a significant amount about the circumstances of a person’s life, likes and background from their response to a simple question.

The frightening thing is that, we are frequently pretty close to the mark. The reason we are is because of our unconscious knowledge of social class and how it works. I argue that it is unconscious, because generally when we challenge someone on whether people in social classes share anything other than income the response is “No. Everyone is an individual.” We have learned specific things about social class, and we also enforce them.

Let’s say that the person we meet has a Master’s degree in Public Policy and they are working as a maid at the Holiday Inn. We run this through our social class computations and all our information and myths about social class and come up with some interesting conclusions. We may assume that this individual a) may have a degree, but really isn’t good enough to get a job that fits his education; b) that he is essentially lazy and doesn’t want to work hard enough to do what he is capable of; or c) we may assume that there is something wrong with this person – drug or alcohol problems, psychiatric problems, or a criminal history.

What is also interesting is what we generally don’t assume. Why wouldn’t we assume that there were no jobs in Public Policy or related fields? We might not want to assume that because it would counter the belief that education directly corresponds to a particular type of position that directly corresponds to social class. We might not want to assume that because we are working very hard on our own education and want to believe that the only people that fail are people that choose to fail. We don’t assume that he prefers to be a maid, because who would want to be a maid. We don’t assume that his father is the owner of Holiday Inn, Inc. and that he is being groomed to take over the company.

Diagram 4.2 Class, Occupation, and Education Example

How then do we interact with this guy? Most likely, based upon our assumptions we respond to his “maid” status and not his educational status. He is in a lower class position so we respond to him as a lower class person.

Let’s take another example. The overwhelming majority of us are going to spend much of our lives working, and for most of us that will be within the context of some organization or business. Our position will dramatically affect our lives and the ways that others in the organization see us. Let’s say that you have a B.A. in Computer Science, are a certified Network Engineer, and you are working as a file clerk in MegaCorp’s accounting department. Do you think that people (and the organization) are going to see you as a person with valuable technical skills or as a file clerk? When MegaCorp decides to set up a committee to plan for expanding their network their newly acquired Whoopie Technologies, are they going to put you on that committee? Are they even going to ask you to transfer to the expanded CIS Corporate Network (CISCN) department so that the company can utilize your valuable education and expertise? Probably not. Let’s say that you want to transfer to a position that is opening in CISCN. There is a strong possibility that you will not be accepted for transfer, because after all you are a file clerk. If you had been any good as a Network Engineer you would never have ended up as a file clerk.

So you get fed up with MegaCorp. They won’t acknowledge, or let you use your skills and education. They denied you a transfer and promotion on what you believe are totally bogus reasons. Therefore you apply for a Network Engineer position with Quantum Corporation. You work up your resume and apply but you don’t get the job. Is it because they have better qualified applicants or because they wonder why someone with your qualifications would have been working as a file clerk? However, they do see you have some technical skill so they ask if you are interested in working on their tech support line.

Unfortunately, the above examples are not a “worse case scenario,” but a typical scenario. They are making the same assumptions, and coming to the same conclusions that most people do - because that is the “formula” and the stereotypes that we work with.

The boundaries are maintained in yet another way. If we look back at Diagram 4.2, it is clear that there are educational components to occupations. We assume that education is readily accessible so that if someone wants to “move up” all they need to do is go to school. There are a variety of problems with this assumption, and many of them are grounded in social and personal reality, and these realities are not especially separable from each other.

If you are from the lower or working class, the odds are that the grade school and high school you went to were not the equivalent of a middle or upper middle class school and almost certainly not the equivalent of a private school. For all the effort to put computers in every school in the nation, we have thousands of poorer schools that have libraries that haven’t bought new books for fifteen years, or that are closing entirely. We have schools that haven’t been able to purchase text books in almost as long. If that is the quality of your K-12 education, how likely is it that you will be well prepared for college (all other family and community and school environments aside)?

Let’s say that you are from a middle class family and you make it into a state college. You work hard and get your education, get your degree, even graduate at the top of your class. Do you believe that your degree from your state college is the equivalent (in the labor market) as if you had gone to Harvard, Yale or Brown? Most likely it is not.

Assuming that you did get an excellent education in your school that others view as less than excellent, will people judge your graduate school or job application based upon your completion of a course of education or on the reputation of your school? Most likely on the reputation or assumptions about your school. Is this fair? No, it isn’t fair, but it is unfortunately real. Most employers are not looking at how well you did, but where you went to school and whether you got your degree. Most colleges do look at how well you did in high school, but a 4.0 average from a school with a poor reputation is generally not judged as the same as a 4.0 average from a high school with a reputation for academic excellence. The differences are real, and the consequences of people’s perceptions are real, whether we want to admit them or not. For all that we want to believe that we are being judged on our “individual merit,” whether than merit is seen or not is heavily biased.

So you are from the lower or working class and you decide you are going to college. No problem many would say, because you most likely qualify for financial aid. With the lowest college costs running somewhere around $5000 a year and state colleges averaging somewhere over $10,000 a year, you are looking at owing a minimum of $20,000 for your Bachelor’s degree (and most likely significantly more than that). For many people from these classes that is more (sometimes many times more) than the yearly income of their families. From personal experience, I can tell you that just the thought of that much debt on an education is enough to stop some in their tracks. The families themselves may see that as a daunting expense. While valuing an education, they also are faced with day to day survival. In that struggle, investing in the future takes a back seat over paying the rent. Hard physical realities with social and emotional consequences. But also with consequences that apply to entire classes of people - not just an individual here and there. That is the reality of social class. Further, there are hard realities to each social class.

Institutionalizing the Social Class System

My intent here is not to provide a comprehensive examination of the institutionalization of social class, but to give you a broad sweep of some of the processes and effects of that institutionalization. Like other forms of social stratification, the social class system has a long history in the United States. From the intrusion of Europeans into the Americas as conquerors and colonists, to present day divisions, social class has been a presence. Certainly there has been increasing complexity in looking at social class over time as more factors and social change has intervened. From the early colonists onward there has been an evolution of both the composition of the classes and the mechanisms for their operation. By now, most of you know that the Constitution of the United States was not originally intended for everyone. The statement “All men are created equal” applied to white male land owners as they were the only ones who had the right (or privilege in you prefer) to participate in the political life of the nation. Certainly that has expanded over time, with generations of struggle on the parts of millions of people.

Originally restricting political participation to a select group was an institutionalization of a class boundary which was enforced by law. Even as political participation expanded beyond property owners, their original advantage was maintained – both through law and through other social institutions such as education and the economy. Those with privilege had access to education, including university education, prior to public education was instituted. Even after broad public education started, there were restrictions for non-white groups, and in higher education the almost universal exclusion of women and people of color. These historic restrictions have eroded very slowly and it wasn’t until relatively recently that most formal barriers to higher education have been removed by law.

While the classes have evolved over time, they build upon each other. Earlier in this chapter we looked at what impacts the social class of our families have on us. If we take that and stretch it back over generations, we begin to get a sense of the cumulative effects of social class. Ability to own property, get an education, and accumulate wealth in one generation passes on to the next. A change in laws or access in 2000, does not create a “level playing field” though it broadens possibilities. One example would be home ownership. There has been a tremendous broadening of home loans to those below middle class standing. However, generally speaking, the loans that the working class are getting are not the same as the loans the middle class are getting. A typical program to get low income and first time home buyers into the market provides a competitive interest rate and allows closing costs to be “rolled into” the loan. There is also generally a stipulation that the homeowner must keep there home for a minimum amount of time (usually 5 - 7 years). If they sell the home before that time, they lose all equity that they had in the home and the excess reverts to the lender or sponsoring program. They may also need to take a home ownership course and pass a test before they are approved for the loan.

If low income homeowners get a loan through “conventional” means they are likely to pay a significantly higher interest rates (or increased points) to obtain the loan. In this era of home equity loans, middle class and above homeowners are more likely to get low interest, revolving credit loans, while those in lower income brackets get significantly higher interest and lump sum loans. This places low income homeowners at significant risk of losing their homes and many of them are.

Higher class has its advantages. Over the last decade we have seen a wave of gentrification sweeping the nation. Gentrification is the purchasing and revamping of lower income areas for middle class (and above) home ownership. It may occur in downtown areas where older hotels, and business are converted or torn down and new structures built such as condominiums for upper middle class (usually younger) professionals. It may be the transformation of working and lower class neighborhoods into upper middle class neighborhoods. Developers and those with financial resources purchase homes and “rejuvenate” them. This increases the property values which increases the taxes which drives lower income homeowners and renters out of the neighborhood. Gentrification can be seen as a reverse process of ghettoization. The primary difference being that white middle class (neighborhoods) are seen as being devalued because of the nature of people moving in (generally people of color). Gentrification is driven by financial resources, but ghettoization is driven by perception and stereotype. Gentrification removes lower income neighborhoods driving the residents into the margins, while ghettoization transforms neighborhoods, but middle class homeowners move to other middle class neighborhoods (or newer housing developments (generally).

The above reflects forms social class differences and institutionalization. Another in a related vein would be the decision to create the suburbs which was largely funded by the federal government in two ways - financing of roads and financing of home ownership. Starting largely after World War II, the government essentially created the suburbs by offering low interest loans to returning soldiers. New housing developments outside the city (also frequently federally subsidized) went up and were filled by white veterans and their families. At the time another form of institutionalization barred relators from even showing property in “white” neighborhoods to people of color. This left those without the financial resources (or institutional support) in the cities, and largely outside the loop of property attainment.

Maintenance of the Social Class System

By now you are familiar with the Maintenance of Stratification Systems model. Based upon your readings, research and experiences complete the model for social class below. For simplicity’s sake I have just included three classes Upper, Middle, and combined the Working and Lower classes. You can expand that to other social classes if you wish.

Putting it Together 

This chapter has given you a broad overview of social class socialization and structure. While we can (and frequently do) talk about social class holistically, it has different implications for women and people of color. Social class is constructed, but it is constructed within the larger context of the total stratification system. Broad general discussions of social class minimize, or make invisible, that there are significant sex and race differences in both what social class is and how it is experienced.

You should have a good grasp at this point of how cultural and structural issues shape social class and our experience of it. My hope is that you have an awareness that social class is not simply a terrain over which we travel, but how it is integrated into our lives.

Looking Forward

We will look at race and ethnicity in the next chapter in a fashion similar to what we have done thus far with sex and class. At the end of that chapter, there is a discussion of how these three constructs interact with each other.

Suggested Reading and Resources

Allyn & Bacon's Sociology Links: Social Class and Poverty http://www.abacon.com/sociology/soclinks/sclass.html

American FactFinder http://factfinder.census.gov/java_prod/dads.ui.homePage.HomePage

Levine, Rhonda. 1998. Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements and Theoretical Debates.

Social Class Home Page http://www.src.uchicago.edu/SocialClass/

Veblen, Thorstein. The Leisure Class.

Key Concepts and Terms

capitalist

income

objective approach

quintile

reputation approach

social class mobility

social class

subjective approach

wealth