Social Class in America
Introduction
When asked about their social class membership, most Americans will describe themselves as middle class. We might conclude from this self-identification that the United States is a nearly classless society, where economic differences are of little significance. But this, as we shall see, is not the case. There are vast financial disparities, and these inequalities affect the lives of individuals individuals in significant ways.
This chapter defines social class membership and identifies the broad characteristics of five classes. It will discuss the effects of social class and spell out the consequences of being rich and poor in modern society.
Defining Social Class
The study of social class is a difficult undertaking. The workings of the stratification system are often obscure, and uncovering them requires sophisticated techniques. Our common-sense knowledge about stratification is deeply believed but often in error.
Not surprisingly, sociologists differ in their interpretations of social stratification. Stratification theories focus on varying aspects of the social-class phenomenon. Marxists are most concerned about who owns the nation's wealth and, more important, who controls the means of production. They see the social classes as engaged in a struggle for power over production--a conflict that, when resolved, Marxists claim, will lead to a new and more harmonious social order.
Max Weber constructed a theory of stratification in opposition to the Marxist view. Weber contended that Marx misunderstood social stratification because he focused too narrowly on its economic aspects. There is more to stratification, he contended, than dollars and cents. Weber offered a threefold analysis of stratification: (1) class--the economic aspect of stratification that largely determines the path your life will follow (what Weber called your life-chances), (2) power--the ability to get your way in situations of conflict, and (3) status--social esteem, or what we generally mean when we use the word prestige.
These aspects of stratification are not mutually exclusive. Some individuals and groups enjoy the benefits of class, power, and status all at the same time, but the categories are not always conjoined. Some people have a lot of money (class), a good deal of influence (power), but little or no status. Examples might be the successful cocaine salesman or the central character in F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel The Great Gatsby. Similarly, someone may have status and power but no fortune in the bank. Some presidents, Harry Truman being one instance, fall into this category. Teachers appear to have more status than they have class or power, though their status has waned in recent years.
Weber's differences with Marx notwithstanding, he agreed with the intellectual revolutionary that economic factors are important in society. He contended, however, that there is more to stratification than control of capital and production. By separating class, power, and status, Weber provided a theoretical framework wills which we can study virtually any aspect of stratification.
Criteria for Ranking
The issue of stratification prompts the question, Who is doing the ranking? Is social class a label we place on ourselves? Is it hung on us by others in the community? Or, is it attached to us by some unseen sociologist who suffers the bureaucrat's need to sort and classify people into homogenous categories?
Each approach has something to be said for it, although obviously each leads in a different direction. You might place yourself at one spot in the pecking order, those around you might place you in another, and the snoopy sociologist just mentioned might peg you in yet a third position. Which of these would best represent reality?
When W. Lloyd Warner faced this problem in the early 1930s, he dealt with it in an innovative way. Using techniques developed in anthropology, Warner undertook an exhaustive study of social-class ranking in Newburyport, Massachusetts. The system he used involved questioning people about the community's ranking system. Informants were asked what kinds of strata existed in the community and who belonged to each ranking. Of course, people did not agree on the number of classes involved or who made them up. However, by comparing large numbers of responses, Warner was able to piece together a rather precise ranking system for the community. It soon became clear that there were distinct strata, each with its own membership characteristics and its own level of prestige.
Warner then examined the characteristics of each classification. He looked at such things as the occupations of the people belonging to a class, their sources of income, the types of houses in which they lived, and the locations of their homes in the community. He found that an individual's prestige was highly correlated with his or her occupation and economic standing. This finding was confirmed in a number of other community studies. Such a conclusion may seem obvious today, but in its time, it was an important finding It meant that social scientists could safely study stratification using just a few key variables as reliable indicators of class rank. It relieved investigators of having to repeat Warner's arduous and costly method every time they wished to study some aspect of stratification.
Warner's work has had a significant impact on American sociology, although in recent years it has been criticized. Some sociologists contend that class is not simply a subjective phenomenon and disagree with Warner's assumption that "class is pretty much what people say it is." Critics are distressed by Warner's reliance on measures of prestige and complain that his techniques ignore the often hidden, but nevertheless powerful, economic aspects of social class.
America's Five Classes
Any brief description of America's social classes is, by necessity, highly abstract. Although our discussion of criteria will accurately reflect the characteristics of one strata or another, these criteria are not equally applicable to all individuals who inhabit a class. What is presented is a broadly descriptive account of the social, cultural, and personality outcomes of class. It is based upon the accumulated research findings of many interpretative and empirical studies, but it must not be read as a set of iron roles that encase all members of a single class.
Just how many social classes exist in America is a topic hotly debated in sociology today. The issue is complicated by the fact that different communities have slightly different class structures. Furthermore, a person who holds a lofty position in a small town may not have the same high status if he or she moves to a wealthy suburb of' a large city.
A social class is made up of families and unrelated individuals who share roughly equivalent benefits, such as financial assets, prestige, and power. In Max Weber's terms, they share similar life-chances. Thus, as a family changes its social class, family members will experience new social benefits or deficits, depending on the direction of their mobility.
Class I (The Upper Class)
Upper-class families make up the social elite of American society. They number less than 1 percent of the total population This group is wealthy, wields great power, and has more influence than any other single group in America. But money, by itself, does not secure placement in elite society.
Those in the upper class have, for the most part, inherited social privilege from others. The further back the family's prosperity extends (the older the money), the more secure their placement among the social elite. E. Digby Baltzell, a sociologist and himself a descendent of wealth, explains that upper-class families descend from individuals who generations earlier amassed great fortunes. These families "are descendents of successful individuals (elite members) of one, two, three or more generations ago. These families are at the top of the social class hierarchy; they are brought up together, are friends, and are intermarried one with another; . . . they maintain a distinct style of life and a kind of primary group solidarity which sets them apart from the rest of the population."
The offspring of Class I families tend to marry the children of other families in their class, thereby consolidating their fortunes and lineage. There are exceptions to this, of course, and such events are. unusual enough to provide grist for the mill of any self-respecting gossip columnist. Family stability is comparatively high among members of this strata. The class is characterized by high life expectancy, good mental health, great material comfort, high psychic satisfaction from primary and secondary associations, and easy access to the levers of power.
As will be learned in Chapter 14 (Social Class and Child Rearing: What Children Bring with Them to School), wealthy families socialize their children to uphold the family name. In this way, each generation is prepared to guard the family's fortune, reputation, and position of privilege. G. William Domhoff, a psychologist who has studied Class I extensively, has listed a few handy, though not perfect, indices of Class I membership. Among these lie includes (I) attendance at elite private preparatory schools, usually located in the Northeast, (2) listing in the social register of specified cities, (3) membership in selective gentlemen's clubs, (4) being the offspring of a millionaire or an executive earning $300,000 a year, and (4) marriage to a Class I member.
Few would deny that the upper class marshals great wealth and influence, but there is disagreement as to how far its real power extends. One group contends that Class I individuals hold inordinate power, which they protect through an informal, elitist network of class and family affiliations. The most articulate (and controversial) proponent of this view, C. Wright Mills, contended that "The men of the higher circles are not representative men; their high position is not a result moral virtue: their fabulous success is not firmly connected with meritorious ability. Those who sit in the seat of the high and mighty are selected and formed by the means of power, the success of wealth, the mechanics of celebrity, which prevail in their society. They are not men selected and formed by a civil service that is linked with the world of knowledge and sensibility. They are not men shaped by nationally responsible parties that debate openly and clearly the issues this nation now so unintelligently confronts. They are not men held in responsible check by a plurality of voluntary associations which connect debating publics wiih the pinnacles of decision. Commanders of power unequaled in human history, they have succeeded within the American system of organized irresponsibility."
Those opposing the power elite hypothesis contend that the explosive growth of managerial positions in industry has drawn to its rank middle-class individuals, who, by virtue of special training and technological competence, are well prepared for such work. By this analysis, there has been a democratization of managerial rule in the country. Upwardly mobile managers hold no class loyalty to the uppermost strata but are overwhelmingly loyal to the profit motive and to whatever organizations pay their salary. David Riesman expresses this view when he writes: "There has been in the last fifty years a change in the configuration of power in America, in which a single hierarchy with a ruling class at its head has been replaced by a number of 'veto groups' among which power is disbursed." In other words, highly competent managers, working in competition rather than in cahoots, guard the nation against a class-based monopoly of power.
Who is correct: those supporting the power-elite hypothesis or those endorsing the managerial-democracy position? The answer is not clear (debates seldom rage over clear-cut issues), but a look at the available research is instructive.
In an earlier era of American history, Class I males were often men of leisure who did not need to work. Currently, however, upper-class individuals usually hold jobs and are heavily involved in banking, corporate law, industry, and government. Domhoff examined the background of corporate directors of the top insurance companies, banks, and industrial corporations and found that 53 percent were from Class I families. Other, more detailed, studies suggest that upper-class families appear to predominate (that is, they contribute 40 to 70 percent of the leadership hierarchy) in high-level banking, law, and, business. In government, individuals of Class I origins are disproportionately represented in diplomacy, on the Supreme Court, and in the Cabinet. These are the areas where significant decisions are made and policies are established. This evidence lends credibility to C. Wright Mills's contention that America is ruled by a power elite, but it falls far short of rendering this claim indisputable. Numerical evidence does not prove that Class I individuals act in unison to protect their class interests.
Another upper-class group--we will call them the lower uppers for purposes of distinction--share all the material benefits of those above them except for lineage (that is, a family history of wealth and power). Those who have earned their own fortunes (rock stars, for example) are not likely to achieve membership in the upper-upper class. Inheritance (or what those in other classes often call old money) is an indispensable requirement for upper-upper class membership. This requirement can be frustrating to people who have ascended through two or three classes only to find their final ascent to the pinnacle of society blocked by requirements they cannot possibly meet. That, of course, is exactly why the old-line requirement was established: it protected the upper-upper class against status assaults from below.
There are distinguishing characteristics that separate the upper uppers from the lower uppers. Those in the higher reaches of the upper class do not need to work, though many busy themselves at tasks that are important to themselves and/or society. For example, they may sit on the boards of well-established foundations, prestigious universities, powerful banks, influential think tanks, or take an active role in such organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations or the Foreign Policy Association.
People in the upper-upper class often live in fashionable, nongarish houses nestled comfortably on family estates. Most upper-upper homes cannot be seen from the road and are protected by high fences and elaborate gates. The rooms of the house are filled with heirloom furnishings that sit on hardwood floors covered by old, frequently threadbare, Oriental rugs. Walls, often paneled ill dark wood, are covered with valuable oil paintings and portraits in ornate, gilded frames. Upper-upper families are likely to have new, but probably not ostentatious cars in the garage, but may prefer to drive an old and dirty Jeep, Chevy, or Plymouth around town.
Those in the lower-upper class tend to display their wealth more conspicuously and to lead lives more public than those higher up the class ladder. Their houses are usually large and showy. (Think, for example, of William Randolph Hearst's San Simeon, Hugh Heffner's Playboy Mansion in Chicago, those monuments to conspicuous consumption that inhabit the shoreline of Newport, Rhode Island, or for that matter, think of the White House.) Sometimes, we can see lower-upper homes as they stand proudly on some high piece of ground, but if not, no matter--many in lower-upper class families are willing (perhaps, anxious) to open their doors to photographers from Architectural Digest, Better Homes and Gardens, or regional journals such as Southern Living.
The lower-upper class world is depicted through countless plays and novels in the tragic tradition of The Great Gatsby and slapstick antics of "Beverly Hillbillys." Lower-uppers also are more prone than members of other classes to write (or commission the writing of) books that celebrate their own success. There is a ready market for such material because Americans have a nearly insatiable appetite for information about "the life-styles of the rich and famous." We revere success and, at the same time, take perverse pleasures in the graceless efforts of the lower-uppers to gain entry into the highest reaches of the upper class. Of course, not all of the newly rich are shunned by the older inhabitants of Class I. Some in the lower-upper class simply have too much talent and/or power to bear for long the brunt of upper-class snobbery.
Class II (The Upper-Middle Class)
The upper-middle class consists of professionals, managers, leading scientists, high corporate executives, and their families. Membership in this class does not depend solely on family background, but it usually requires extensive education (preferably at "good schools") as well as socially acceptable manners, tastes, and patterns of consumption.
Class II families are well off financially. They usually own their own homes and have two or more cars and many other conspicuous possessions (swimming pools, country club membership) that enhance their comfort and advertise their status. Because of soaring inflation rates, the salary range of this and other classes is difficult to estimate. The matter is further complicated because the salary perimeters of Class II differ when considered on a national level and within the confines of a particular community. Thinking in terms of 1988 dollars and considering the issue nationally, we calculate that the salary range of Class II would begin at $87,000 or higher.
Many members of Class II are new arrivals who successfully rode the wave of industrial expansion into affluence. Understandably, most are proud of their accomplishments and view upward mobility as the product of hard-won skill. They are often politically conservative and would prefer that government stay out of their business or professional practices. Because they have been upwardly mobile, they believe others with talent and determination can do the same. Therefore, they support only minimal welfare aid. This group does tend to support civil liberties issues, however, and will often take liberal positions on foreign policy matters.
The upper-middle class is politically active. They are likely to belong to political organizations (usually Republican), contribute to candidates, work for their election, and perhaps run for office themselves. Members of Congress, as well as officials at state, local, and federal levels, often come from this strata of society. They are frequently the major beneficiaries of national and local legislation.
A smaller percentage of the upper-middle class--what Herbert Gans has called the "liberal professional" groups to distinguish them from the larger, more conservative managerial segment of this class--are likely to take a liberal stance on political issues. It was the children of the "liberal professional" group who spearheaded the civil rights movement and initiated the antiwar movement on the campuses of prestigious colleges in the 1960s and 1970s. Far from representing an intense rebellion from their parents (as is often contended), many radical campus leaders were merely extending and putting into practice views they had learned at home.
At work, the upper-middle class are not usually policy makers but are rather those charged with devising ways to implement policy and achieve the goals of the institution. Whereas Class II individuals wield considerable power and enjoy high income and status, they are largely dominated by the still greater power of those above them in Class I. This fact does not appear to bother upper-middle class workers. Most studies show them to be highly satisfied with their work and in generally good mental health.
Class II jobs require considerable training, high motivation, mental flexibility, graceful managerial skills, a willingness to adjust to changing techniques and new work situations, and often a willingness to put work at the center of one's life. The chances of acquiring the values and habits requisite for Class II work are greatly enhanced if an individual has been raised in a middle- or upper-middle class home.
Class II men tend to marry college-educated, stylish women who share a commitment to their husbands' careers. The fast-changig role of women in American society makes generalizations in this area dangerous, but traditionally Class II women have not worked outside the home. Their work is more usually to support the husband's career plans by running an orderly, noncontroversial home and playing the role of companion (with whom the husband can unwind), organizer (who orchestrates family functions), teacher (who oversees the children's school activities), counselor (who revives her husband's spirits during, moments of depression or insecurity), and gracious hostess (who gives good parties and can impress influential people). Research indicates that not all women approach Class II marriage with the expectation of playing the role of corporate wife, but most find themselves filling that niche as their husbands' careers develop.
Child-rearing patterns among Class II families, it will come as no surprise, emphasize achievement, motivation, independence, and excellence. The young are encouraged to do well academically and to take part in extracurricular activities. Although not as affluent as the upper class, the offspring of the upper-middle class seldom lack material comfort. Some studies indicate, however, that a minority of Class II children suffer from boredom, a sense of superfluousness, and unmet needs for meaningful activity in the home and community. Ralph W. Larkin concluded a study of youth in an upper-middle class community with this trenchant assessment: "The problem [upper] middle-class youth is that the family is isolated and the bread winner is involved in an intense struggle for status. The family, as the repository of status, assumes the external manifestations of the status of the bread winner. However, the more the bread winner(s) involves him or herself in the struggle for status, which occurs in the world of work, the more the family becomes merely a material adjunct of the status struggle. The internal workings become harnessed to the strivings of the adults and the emotional tenor of the family relationships are attenuated and subsumed by the necessity to maintain or increase status. Children become fetters on the status strivings, since they require time out from labor in the world of work."
Larkin's conclusions are drawn from one study and cannot be applied to all Class II families. However, his findings are confirmed in enough other research to suggest that the problems he identifies are widespread.
The homes of the upper-middle class usually have more rooms than are needed in everyday life and can easily accommodate overnight guests and holiday gatherings. Living and dining rooms in Class II homes often are reserved for formal entertaining and, thus, seldom get daily use. The family congregates in the "family room," where magazines such as The New Yorker, Smithsonian, Forbes, Business Week, and the New York Review of Books may be piled neatly waiting to be read. On the bookshelf, there may he a collection of mysteries (usually read) and headier fare such as Churchill's History of the Second World (often unread). Meals are usually served in a "dining area" off the kitchen. Pets (pedigreed dogs are preferred) may be given names that advertise the family's sophistication and/or humor. A particularly randy canine, for example, might be called Caligula. Leisure time is spent playing golf or tennis at the country club rather than on public links or city courts. Those who populate Class II are likely to drive expensive foreign cars (BMWs, Mercedes, and Volvos) though they may temper this ostentation by claiming they are being "practical," "we got an unbelievable deal," or "the repair bills on my old car were so large that it was actually cheaper to buy a dependable new car."
Class III (The Lower-Middle Class)
The lower-middle class is largely although not totally, a white-collar class. Its members are middle-income business people, small business proprietors, independent professionals, and sometimes farmers. It also includes semiprofessionals (teachers, clergy, social workers, nurses, police officers, and fire fighters), sales and clerical workers, draftsmen, bank tellers, bookkeepers, and middle-management personnel in business and government. Such jobs require a high school education and, increasingly, at least some college training. Generally, work-related decision making in this group is allowed only within a narrow and clearly specified range of activities.
Some white-collar, Class III jobs, such as teaching, demand attention to detail and a high degree of mental activity. Other work, such as keypunching or clerical work, can be routine and factorylike. Therefore, a wide spectrum of activities, talents, values, and dispositions are represented in Class III. Clerical work can be dull and uninvolving and may demand little skill or commitment, whereas running a small business, social work, or teaching requires a high degree of commitment, involvement, knowledge, skill, and, we presume, intelligence.
Family patterns in Class III tend to be stable, though such generalizations are dangerous in an age of increasing matrimonial disarray. Husbands and wives generally share interests, participate in one another's worlds, and jointly care for the children. Parental roles are less sex-segregated than in most other classes.
Child-rearing patterns of the middle class are clearly related to the type of work clone by the primary breadwinner. Those holding jobs characterized by relative autonomy and freedom from supervision stress the importance of achievement internal motivation, high aspirations, self-control, rationality, postponement of gratification, respect for authority, and the significance of an internal locus of control. In short, parents prepare children for the types of work they themselves do. Those holding jobs in which autonomy is limited and supervision is tight are likely to train their children in obedience, acceptance of authority, docility, respectability, and generally lower status and economic aspirations. No matter what the parents' occupation, Class III children are usually taught that education is a prerequisite for social mobility.
The salary range for thus class is quite wide, stretching well above the $80,000 mark on the upper end of the scale and down to about $23,000 at the bottom (1987 dollars). Class III individuals usually live in apartments or in modest homes, which increasingly must be rented due to the recent skyrocketing prices of building or buying a house. Many individuals of the lower-middle class can trace their ancestry back to the heavy immigration of the mid- or late 1800s. Membership in fraternal orgainizations, such as the Elks, Moose and Masons is high in this stratum, as is church membership.
The political orientation of the lower-middle class is somewhat uncertain. A number of conservative presidential hopefuls have run campaigns designed to appeal to the "forgotten American." This individual is depicted in political speeches as a hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying, long-suffering, patient, middle-class American who has become fed up with liberal taxation and government meddling in business, education, and the private sphere of American life. The "forgotten American," right-wing politicians contend, is fundamentally conservative. Available evidence, however, does not indicate that the lower middle class moves consistently to the conservative ideology. This group, at least in urban America, tends to vote the Democratic ticket and to support such liberal proposals as national health insurance.
Class III individuals tend to be discontented with their lot. After reviewing job satisfaction literature, Beth Vanfossen contends that Class III individuals frequently "feel caught in the prestige squeeze between the salaried administrators on the upper side and the increasingly affluent skilled worker on the lower side." This dissatisfaction is most prevalent when their jobs are unchallenging, economically unrewarding, deficient in autonomy, and lacking in responsibility commensurate with their training. Dissatisfaction is heightened when those in the lower reaches of Class III begin to suspect their children will not be able to advance beyond the economic status of their parents.
The lower-middle class is characterized, in literature and in fact, by the desire to belong and be respectable. Middle-class- families usually lead conventional, noncontroversial lives in neat homes set on roadside lots with well-kept lawns. Friendliness and openness are valued and attention is paid to "keeping up appearances." At the upper end of the class, positions that may lead to management and executive responsibilities are highly praised. (A typical boast on a holiday greeting card might be: "Tommy graduated last spring from State University where he majored in business administration. He's now an executive trainee with the local gas company and has already been given his first promotion.") At the lower ends of the class, where jobs offer less opportunity for advancement, workers derive pride and reflected status by working in the proximity of power. For example, a secretary to the vice president of a company claims greater status than someone who works for middle management.
Lower-middle class families own smaller homes on smaller pieces of land than their upperclass counterparts. In the typical Class III living room stands a television set, perhaps nestled into a prefabricated "wall unit" of shelves and cupboards. On the top of the television (or nearby) may be displayed an array of family photographs depicting marriages, sporting events, military service, and other significant occasions or accomplishments. On a nearby shelf, there may be some neatly arranged "collectibles" and perhaps a few mail-order books published by Time-Life or Reader's Digest. On the coffee table are usually such magazines as National Geographic, TV. Guide, Reader's Digest, or Family Circle. Copies of the same publications, together with collections of catalogues, perhaps, may be found in a rack in the bathroom.
Class III bathrooms often are monuments to cleanliness. Toilet brushes and plumbers helpers (perhaps cleverly decorated), air fresheners and scouring powders, water picks and electric tooth brushes, hair dryers and hair curlers stand beside scented soaps, unguents, pastes, shampoos, and gels as testimony to the family's concern for "proper grooming." Class III bathrooms are not much different from those in Class II homes except the former are more likely to be decorated with cute artifacts (turtle-shaped soap dishes, for example) and the latter may have space enough for side-by-side sinks, a sunken bathtub, and, perhaps, a jacuzzi.
Class IV (The Working Class)
Class IV is composed largely, though again not exclusively, of workers in bluecollar, skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled occupations. There is a great diversity among blue-collar jobs the boundary separating Class III from Class IV is blurred. Some white-collar employees, by virtue of their low pay and the routine nature of their work, find themselves embedded in Class IV. Some skilled blue-collar workers, by virtue of their higher pay and technical expertise, might be considered in Class III.
Class IV occupations can be divided into skilled workers (consisting of 20 to 25 percent of the blue-collar work force), semiskilled workers (30 to 35 percent), unskilled workers (about 10 percent), service workers (about 25 percent), and some farmers and farm laborers (roughly 6 percent). Table 17-1 indicates the wide range of occupations collected under the blue-collar heading.
TABLE 17-1. Types of Work in Blue-Collar Occupations _________________________________________________________________________________ Skilled Workers Semiskilled Workers Unskilled Workers Service Workers (craft workers) (operators) (laborers) _________________________________________________________________________________ bakers assemblers car washers beauticians carpenters dressmakers construction laborers bartenders cobblers gas pump operators farm workers dental assistants electricians machine operators ditch diggers garbage collectors heavy equipment meat cutters gardeners janitors operators public transportation longshoremen nurses aides mechanics operators ushers opticians sailors printers telephone operators tailors
America is fast becoming a service-oriented, rather than industrial economy. Whitecollar workers now outnumber blue-collar workers in the labor force. The percentage of the population in blue-collar jobs has declined from 55 percent of all workers in 1915 to 33 percent in 1986. That decline was gradual from 1940 to 1970, but in the last two decades it has accelerated considerably. Many contend that declining numbers of bluecollar jobs and expanding numbers of white-collar jobs signals an upgrading of the occupational structure. This is only partly true. Certainly, some new jobs pay well and require great skill. Others, probably a majority of newly created white-collar jobs, are lowskill, low-opportunity positions that carry no authority and require little training or native ability. Some of the fastest growing job opportunities today are for fast food employees, word processors, and sales clerks. At the same time, increased reliance on automation and robotics is gradually diminishing the need for a large, highly skilled, blue-collar work force. Modernization in America appears to be doing two things simultaneously: It is increasing the skills and education needed at the top end of the workforce and decreasing the skills and training required at the low end.
A belief that has grown popular in recent years is that blue-collar workers earn higher pay and enjoy better benefits than their white-collar counterparts. Who has not heard a white-collar worker complain that his or her salary no longer compares well to that of big-city sanitation workers or bus drivers? Today, the average salary for automobile workers is 50 percent higher than that of librarians and 42 percent higher than that of teachers. Although these data may well be accurate, it would be dangerous to draw front them the conclusion that blue-collar pay generally exceeds white-collar salaries. It is important to remember that not all blue-collar workers earn the wages prevailing in the effectively unionized auto industry. A majority of Class IV families earn salaries below what the U.S. Department of Labor estimates to be a "moderate standard of living."
The economic life of most blue-collar workers is characterized by poor job security. Bureau of Labor statistics show that 81 percent of unemployed men are blue-collar workers. Once unemployed, Class IV individuals are likely to remain out of work for longer periods than white-collar employees. Leonard Beeghley notes that when plumbers, electricians, and other construction workers are well paid, it is often because their wages are a hedge against periodic unemployment.
Blue-collar workers tend to have fewer fringe benefits, longer work hours, and shorter vacations than their white-collar counterparts. They often do more dangerous work, are injured more frequently, stay disabled for longer periods, and are exposed to more numerous and serious occupational diseases than other workers. Also, their work offers fewer opportunities For advancement than are found ill other occupations. They are more likely to have to do shift work and often find it necessary to hold down a second job in order to make ends meet.
There is also evidence that blue-collar workers are more alienated from their work than other groups. One study asked workers in Chicago a number of questions regarding their work satisfaction. In all areas, white-collar workers felt greater satisfaction than blue-collar workers. One can conclude from these findings that blue-collar employees gain little intrinsic satisfaction from their work and find it endurable only by virtue of the salary it provides. (See Table 17-2.)
Table 7.2. Percentage of Chicagoans Who Agree with Various Statements about Work, by Occupation, 1972.
Higher Managers Small Clerical Skilled Executives & Lesser Business- & Sales Laborers & Major Professionals men & Semi- Statement Professionals Professionals ________________________________________________________________________________________________ I don't really expect 0% 6% 14% 22% 23% to get much satisfation out of work. My job does not bring 11 22 24 31 37 out the best in me. The most important 46 56 67 71 80 thing about my job is that it provides me the things I need in life. I have to accept my 15 21 25 41 44 job the way it is because there's nothing I can do to change it. I can put up with a lot on my job as long 47 49 61 62 70 as the pay is good. As soon as i leave work, I put it out of mind. 29 36 43 63 64 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Semiskilled Unskilled Laborers Laborers I don't really expect to get much satisfation 42 57 out of work. My job does not bring out the best in me. 41 61 The most important thing about my job is that it provides 87 88 me the things I need in life. I have to accept my job the way it is because there's nothing 59 72 I can do to change it. I can put up with a lot on my job as long 75 79 as the pay is good. As soon as i leave work, I put it out of mind. 79 78
Social scientists have frequently accused blue-collar workers of having authoritarian personalities: of being prejudiced, rigid, ethnocentric and prone to support military solutions to foreign policy problems. Archie Bunker stands as the prototypical working-class authoritarian. A number of studies challenge the accuracy of this image. For example, Clyde Nunn and his associates did an extensive study of tolerance in the United States and found no significant difference between the attitudes of white-collar and blue-collar workers if educational level was held constant. Similarly, studies of attitudes toward the Vietnam War showed blue-collar workers more likely than white-collar employees to support a cease-fire or withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The political orientation of blue-collar workers is much discussed but often misunderstood. When they vote, they usually vote for Democratic candidates. (About one-third of the blue-collar class never vote or vote only irregularly.) Their attitudes tend to be liberal on economic issues (national health insurance, minimum wage and labor legislation, and so on) but conservative on civil rights, racial integration, and foreign policy.
Blue-collar homes of well-paid workers resemble those at the lower end of the white-collar stratum: most are neat and comfortable. Three pieces of furniture typically are found in the living room: a television set, a sofa, and a comfortable chair (perhaps a recliner). Few books adorn the shelves of a typical Class IV home. Reader's Digest, TV. Guide, Popular Mechanics, and paperback romances are often favored reading material. The family car (or cars) is usually American made, often second-hand, and may have ornaments (stuffed dice, a garter, or baby shoes) hanging front the rearview mirror. Pickup trucks are also popular ill rural areas mid may have gun racks across the rear window.
Class V (The Lower Class)
Being poor means, above all else, lacking money. This statement would be too obvious to mention were it not for the fact that most Americans see poverty in outer terms. Middle-class conversations about the poor often depict them as lazy, promiscuous, and criminal. Misconceptions about the poor are so widespread that it is difficult to appreciate fully what life is like at the lowest stratum of society.
THE EXTENT OF POVERTY. There is disagreement as to how poverty should be measured, and therefore statistics on the extent of poverty vary considerably. Most experts studying poverty agree that between 10 and 20 percent of the American population lives in need. According to Census Bureau figures, about 34 million people (or 14.4 percent of the population) are presently poor. In 1984, a family of Four was classified as poor if it had a cash income of less than $10,609.
The population living in poverty is largely unseen in America. The poor often live in out-of-the-way neighborhoods ("on the other side of the tracks"), conveniently out of view of the affluent. Many poor people are tethered to their communities by a lack of convenient and/or affordable public transportation. Others are old and/or sick and cannot venture far from home. Growing numbers of homeless live in shelters or on the streets of our towns and cities. Because most poor people live out of the sight of the affluent, middle-class Americans often underestimate the full extent of poverty in the United States.
Americans have more than tripled their standard of living since the turn of the century. Although less than half of married couples owned their own home in 1915, today more than three-quarters of such families are home owners. Worker productivity has more than doubled in the last decade. Workers enjoy longer retirements than ever before. They retire earlier, are generally healthier, and live longer.
Progress has been made in the amelioration of poverty, as can be seen from Table 17-3. The poverty rate today is eight percentage points lower than it was in 1959. However, these figures tell only a part of the story. Poverty rates have been rising steadily since 1979. Some groups have been hit worse than others, and the fastest growing group appears to be children. Nearly two-thirds of all people living in poverty today are under eighteen years old. The percentage of blacks falling into poverty since 1980 has been twice that of whites. Almost half of all black children (46.7 percent) are now living in poverty and the percentage is highest (49.5) among black children under six. Children in poverty often live in one-parent households. Almost half of the female-headed families with children under eighteen presently are poor, and such families constitute about a third of the total living in poverty. Women (especially black women and single mothers) and children (especially black and Spanish-speaking children) are the groups most likely to fall into poverty and to stay there for long periods.
Table 17.3. Percent of persons below Poverty Level by Race and Sex, 1959-1984.
1959 1966 1969 1975* 1979* 1984* ________________________________________________________________________ All Persons 22.4 14.7 12.1 12.3 11.7 14.4 White 18.1 11.3 9.5 9.7 9.0 11.5 Black 55.1 41.8 32.2 31.3 31.0 33.8 Spanish-Speaking N.A. N.A. N.A. 26.9 21.6 28.4 Male Head of Household 18.7 10.8 8.0 7.8 10.2 13.1 Female Head of Household 50.2 41.0 38.4 34.6 30.4 34.5 ________________________________________________________________________
Other Americans have fared much better. The largest reductions in poverty have taken place among the elderly. Between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s, the rate of poverty for people over 65 dropped by nearly 90 percent. High poverty rates among the young and lower poverty rates among adults have led Senator Daniel P. Moynihan to suggest that we "may be the first society in history in which children are distinctly worse off than adults."
Some demographic and political facts of life help explain why children are falling into poverty at just the time that the elderly are being lifted out of it. As the Baby Boom abated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the number of children under fifteen fell by 7 percent. During the same period, the death rate for people over 65 declined by 54 percent. Their growing ranks have given retirement-aged adults considerable political clout. Understandably, senior citizens have organized to protect their benefits in economically troubled times and they have been successful. Social security benefits have been protected while funds for food stamps, education and training programs, legal aid, tuition assistance, aid to dependent children, and other social programs have been cut back severely. Politicians who neglect the health and welfare of the elderly do so at some political risk. However, children don't vote and adults who live in poverty have little political savvy and even less political power.
CORRELATES OF POVERTY. Impoverished families tend to live in substandard housing in crowded areas of the inner city. The sheer density of slum life has debilitating effects. Studies show that high-density housing is associated with stress, mental anxiety, increased mental illness, and a lessening of social connnunication. The lack of privacy that results when large families are crowded in small apartments makes it difficult to escape from family turmoil. Small arguments, aggravated by cramped living conditions, can flare into major confrontations simply because a child or spouse cannot withdraw to the privacy of a room of his or her own. The only avenue of escape is the street, which is crowded and provides its own source of stress.
Contrary to the popular myth that people in poverty lead slow, peaceful lives, untroubled by the hassles of middle-class striving, life among the poor is fraught with tension. Alexander Mood describes conditions all too prevalent in impoverished families:
"Poor families . . . are endlessly forced to trade time for money--to search for work, to moonlight, to find cheap food, to seek out an acceptable inexpensive place to live, to try to find cheap second hand spare parts for a disabled car or appliance, to try to find out how to replace the parts themselves or to try and find a knowledgeable neighbor who can spare a little time to help them out, to search for a person who would loan a little money in an emergency at less than a confiscatory rate of interest, to struggle with the vast complication of bureaucracies . . . to stave off frightening installment collectors in order to catch up with payments to even more frightening ones, to plead with merchants who have overcharged them to he merciful, to lose one's way in the maze of public transportation trying to get a day's work in a strange neighborhood, to walk and walk and walk when one does not have bus fare, to entreat the landlord to honor his commitment, to trudge all day through the mystifying maze of the county hospital with a crying sick child in search of a little reassurance, to endure sneering petty persons who dispense free public service to the poor. The debilitating struggle to keep alive without money in a complex, highly organized, society is so frightening, so humiliating so emotionally exhausting, that one's patience and strength are totally spent when one finally gets home to one's children."
It is little wonder that the homes of the poor are plagued with instability. The energy expended keeping body and soul intact leaves little time for middle-class togetherness. Sex roles in such homes are often segregated and provide less opportunity for husband-wife communication.
Divorce and separation, common now at all levels of society, are found most frequently among the poor. The reasons for this incidence are directly connected to poverty. National studies have revealed that when a low-income husband experiences serious unemployment, the chances of marriage disruption rise from 7.6 to 24 percent in white families and from 12 to 30 percent in black families. Other studies have shown that the lower the husband's wages the more likely the chances of marital separation.
These data show how public-policy decisions (such as the choice by government and industry to curb inflation through increased unemployment) are intimately connected with the private troubles of low-income citizens. A rise in unemployment will be followed by an increased incidence of divorce and, it now appears, suicide.
The problem of divorce in low-income families is not simply one of money; it involves stigma and pride as well. Studies have shown that while government assistance helps the unemployed financially, it does not add to marital stability. The stigma of unemployment and welfare aid--and all that this implies in our society--damages pride and causes friction in the home. A newly divorced young man explained to a reporter from The New York Times that his wife left him because "She lost respect for me as a man because I could not support us."
Poor families tend to be larger than those in other classes, enforcing the stereotype that poor people are sexually active and irresponsible. This fact also feeds the belief that impoverished families have children for the express purpose of increasing their Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments (AFDC). Evidence does not support these stereotypes. Sixty-eight percent of all AFDC families have two children or less.
Contrary to popular belief, poor men and women are somewhat more inhibited in sexual matters than their middle-class counterparts. Discussions of birth control methods--the nature of their use and acquisition--are viewed as an indelicate, if not a shocking, topic of conversation by many in the ranks of poverty. Reluctance to talk about such matters leaves it unclear which partner will take responsibility for contraception and further ignorance regarding family planning.
There is a stereotype that the poor have children to prove the virility of the male and the femininity of the woman. Whether these feelings are any more prevalent among the poor than among the nonpoor is a highly debatable question. One thing is clear, however: The poor do not desire large families. If the poor were provided adequate birth-control information and access to affordable abortions when necessary, the official rate of poverty would be reduced by half.
MYTHS ABOUT THE POOR. Americans have become concerned about the rising costs of welfare and social insurance programs. They are aware that almost half of the federal budget each year goes to support these programs. They are also convinced that some able-bodied people are abusing the system and that the easy availability of welfare makes families permanently dependent on social assistance. The poor are thus seen as different from other Americans. They are accused of lacking gumption and the will to break out of poverty. These assumptions are dangerously exaggerated.
Over 70 percent of the poor are people we do not normally expect to work: children and young people under sixteen, the old or disabled, students, and mothers with children under six. Increasingly, poor Americans look very much like their more affluent counterparts. As Robert Reich has noted: "Between 1975 and 1985 one out of every three Americans fell below the poverty line at least once. Half of all who did remained there only one or two years. The poor did not shun work to live off welfare: Two-thirds of the nonelderly poor lived in households where someone worked, and most of these families received no welfare payments at all."
The cost of social programs is massive and the possibility for abuse is real. However, cash assistance to the nonelderly poor amounts to less than 1 percent of the federal budget. As a proportion of that budget, the costs of programs aimed to help the poor have not mushroomed; in fact, they have not increased since 1972. America has spent billions on public assistance programs, but most of that money has gone to support very popular programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. These programs are popular for two reasons. First, the programs have been promoted, not as welfare for the poor, but as insurance for everybody. They are not seen as a mechanism for redistributing wealth, though, of course, they do exactly that. Second, the benefits of these programs are open to us all. No means tests are applied to see if we actually need the assistance we receive at age sixty-five. Thus, Social Security and Medicare have not come under popular or political attack even though they are massively expensive. At the same time, welfare programs are not popular, especially in economically troubled times, and have been vulnerable to the budget-cutting axe.
The Distribution of Income and Wealth in America
Social class is a powerful force in America that significantly influences human relationships within and among classes. The most significant determinant of class in America is economic (see Table 17-4). Thus, an understanding of class necessitates an understanding of the distribution of income and wealth in the nation.
There is a popular notion that economic inequality has diminished in America since World War II. These claims are exaggerated. Table 17-5 displays the income distribution in the United States since 1960. The percentage of all personal income received by each fifth of the population is listed. As you can see, the poorest fifth of the nation received 4.8 percent of all personal income in 1960 and 4.6 percent in 1986. The percentage received by the richest fifth rose from 42.7 to 43.7 percent over the same period. These figures show that enormous disparities of income exist in the United States, but the actual differences are far greater than these figures convey. The data on which Table 17-5 is based include only "money income" (salaries, transfer payments, property-rental income, interest, dividends, and the like). They do not include realized capital gains or nonmonetary income, such as expense accounts, company cars, company-paid club memberships, and stock options, all of which mask real income data, especially for those at the top of the economic scale. When these factors are taken into account, the top fifth of the population received over 48 percent of the nation's personal income, while the share received by the poorest fifth shrank to about 4 percent.
TABLE 17-5. Money Income of Families--Percentage of Aggregate Income and Income at Selected Positions Received by Each Fifth and Highest 5 Percent: 1960 to 1986.
Income Rank 1960 1964 1970 1975* 1981* 1986* __________________________________________________________________________ Percentage of Aggregate Income All Families 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Lowest Fifth 4.8 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.0 4.6 Second Fifth 12.2 12.2 12.2 11.8 11.3 10.5 Middle Fifth 17.8 17.8 17.6 17.6 17.4 16.8 Fourth Fifth 24.0 23.9 23.8 24.1 24.4 24.0 Highest Fifth 41.3 40.9 40.9 41.1 41.9 43.7 Highest 5% 15.9 15.5 15.6 15.5 15.4 17.0 ___________________________________________________________________________*Beginning 1975, not strictly comparable with earlier years due to revised procedures.
Income inequality appears to be growing, not diminishing. At present, the poorest 40 percent of families control a smaller share of the nation's income (15.4 percent) than at any time since 1947. On the other hand, the wealthiest 40 percent receive a 67.7 percent of the national income, the highest percentage since 1947. The unequal distribution of wealth affects blacks more acutely than whites. Almost half of all black families are found in the poorest fifth of the population but only 7 percent enjoy a place among the richest fifth.
Yearly income figures are misleading for they do not take into account disparities in accumulated wealth. Looking at figures for 1983 (the latest figures available), we find that the richest 0.5 percent of all U.S. households controlled 35.1 percent of the national wealth. The extent of wealth accumulation among the richest Americans is put into perspective when it is realized that all together the bottom 90 percent of the nation's households control only 28 percent of U.S. wealth. Compare these figures with 1962 data. In that year, a study found that the richest 0.5 percent of U.S. households controlled only 25.4 percent of the national wealth and the bottom 90 percent controlled 34.9 percent. When we look at accumulated wealth (as we have done here) rather than just yearly income (as we did in the past paragraph), it becomes clear that the distribution of resources is shifting in favor of the richest segment of the population. If wealth is power, then the rich are more powerful today than at any time since the great depression.
Trouble in the American Dream
In 1969, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare announced with pride that "The most obvious fact about American income is that it is the highest in the world and rising rapidly. In terms of gross national product per capita--or any other measure of the average availability of goods and services--the United States outranks its nearest competitors." Americans cannot make the same claim today. The performance of the economy has deteriorated to such a degree that a half dozen northern European countries now have larger per capita gross national products than does the United States. Though family incomes look as if they have risen dramatically in recent years, in fact they have declined when the figures are adjusted for inflation. For example, in 1971, the average income in the United States was $22,039 (when figured in 1986 dollars). By 1986, the median income had dropped to $21,510. The income decline of the late 1970s stalled in the mid-1980s and there have been some signs of modest recovery since then. However, one conclusion is unavoidable: Over the past decade, most Americans have not improved their income or standard of living.
A basic component of the American Dream is that hard work will bring advancement and an improved standard of living. Such expectations can no longer be taken for granted by the average citizen. Inflation and a faltering economy have significantly lessened the number of people who successfully will live out the dream. The decline in family income in America is distressing, but think how much more severe it would have been had married women not entered the work force in unprecedented numbers (see Chapter 6). The income of women has kept many middle-class families in the middle class and many working-class families out of poverty.
Even as the average income in America has dropped, the cost of self-improvement and participating in society has been rising steadily. This is especially true in such vital areas as health care, transportation, home ownership, and the cost of raising children. As a college education has become more accessible to the general population, a college diploma has become almost mandatory for access into the middle class. Entry-level jobs that once went to high school graduates now go only to those with college diplomas. It is clear that the economic forces that have brought many wives and mothers into the paid work force will not soon relent. It is also clear that most Americans in the forseeable future will have to work harder and harder, not to get ahead, but to just stay even.
The Consequences of Class
When Max Weber coined the term life-chances, he was suggesting that class membership determined, in large measure, the course of one's life. He had many things in mind: occupational status, educational attainment, income levels, choice of marriage partners, chances of marital happiness, preferred values, life-styles, and tastes--in fact, almost every social characteristic by which individuals vary. From the viewpoint of equal opportunity, Weber's conception of class-related life-chances is shocking. It suggests that the rhetoric of the American promise may not square with the realities of our practices. It further suggests that the best things in life (by which we presumably mean happiness, health, self-esteem, and love) are not free at all.
Life Expectancy and Class
At the most elemental level, life-chances must refer to life expectancy. Everyone must die, but it appears that the poor die sooner than the rest of us. Infant mortality rates are higher among the poor, and total life expectancy is lower among low-income groups. The lower strata of society experience a higher incidence of chronic diseases, tooth decay, obesity, and a number of other health-related problems. They have poorer diets and have less access to medical facilities than other classes. The poor are also the most likely to die in war and to be sentenced to death for criminal offenses.
Happiness and Class
The pursuit of happiness is a part of the American ideology, and we would like to think it is a human commodity equally accessible to all. Sadly, the evidence suggests otherwise.
Large-scale studies of happiness, self-esteem, and life satisfaction show a clear and consistent relationship between these factors and socioeconomic status (SES). To cite just one example, Leonard Pearlin, in a study for the National Institute of Mental Health, found that the self-esteem of 2300 Chicago residents was closely related to family income (see Table 17-6). Money, it appears, has much to do with psychological satisfaction in American.
TABLE 16-6. Family Income and Self-Esteem
Family Income* _______________________________________________________________________________ $8,000 $16,001 Less than to to More than Self-esteem $8,000 $16,000 $24,000 $24,000 _______________________________________________________________________________ High 24% 38% 44% 58% Moderate 21 23 29 18 Low 55 39 27 24 _______________________________________________________________________________ *1972-3 income.
Measures of friendship and love are also related to social class. Divorce rates among lower-income groups are four times greater than are found in higher income groups. If marriage stability is at all related to romance and affection, then we might have to rethink the popular idea that "money can't buy you love." Other studies have shown that friendship patterns are similarly related to economic status. One study found that 30 percent of unskilled workers (as compared to 10 percent of upper-income white-collar workers) reported that they had no close friends. A substantial body of evidence indicates that low-paying jobs satisfy few mental needs, provide little intrinsic reward, and leave workers depressed and dissatisfied.
Mental Health and Social Class
There are clear and direct relationships between economic class and rates of mental illness, types of mental illness, and the effectiveness of treatment that mental patients receive. Although poor people are more likely to suffer mental disorders, they appear less likely to seek and receive treatment for these conditions. When they do get help, they are likely to be treated by interns and residents rather than by psychiatrists. They are also more likely to receive shock treatment, to be lobotomized (an infrequent occurrence since the advent of psychokinetic drugs), and to be given drugs more frequently than affluent individuals.
Justice
Evidence abounds that the legal system of the United States does not administer justice evenhandedly. It is well known that individuals in the lower classes are arrested more frequently than individuals in the upper strata, but they are not necessarily arrested because they commit more crimes than affluent Americans. To illustrate this point, we can look at some of the evidence on juvenile delinquency. Because reform schools tend to house lower-class youth, it is widely assumed that poor children are more prone to delinquency than other youngsters. The President's Committee on Law Enforcement expressed the view this way: "There is still no reason to doubt that delinquency and especially the most serious delinquency is committed disproportionately by slum and lower-class youth.
Studies of undetected delinquency--most usually questionnaire studies that ask respondents to report their crimes anonymously--give us reason to question the Law Enforcement Commission's assumptions. It appears that middle and upper-class youth are just about as prone to break the law as are the poor. The President's Commission reached its conclusion because it looked exclusively at official records of delinquency rather than at the law-violating behavior that the self-report studies measure.
If affluent youth are breaking the law as frequently as the poor, why are juvenile prisons filled with impoverished youth? The reasons are numerous. First, middle-class children caught in a criminal act may be reported to their parents rather than to law-enforcement authorities. Police officers may take such children home rather than press charges. When middle-class children are reported to the police, their parents sometimes are able to get them off the hook by talking to friends in power or hiring expensive, effective lawyers. In court (and at every stage of the legal process preceding the court appearance), middle-class offenders are likely to conform to the American image of ideal youngsters. They are likely to have caring parents, to speak well, to dress neatly, to present a properly contrite image, and to impress officials that, with just a bit of guidance, they could avoid further trouble.
Summing up a large quantity of research on juvenile crime, the following conclusions appear warranted:
1. Juvenile crime is extensive. Between 1932 and 1983, the arrest rate for people under eighteen increased almost eightyfold. The size of the youth population has been shrinking in the 1980s and as a result the rate of crime among youth has declined somewhat. These declines, though welcome, are not dramatic. Violent crimes by persons under eighteen are still up over 250 percent since 1960. Persons under twenty-five account for one in every two violent crimes, and three out of four crimes against property each year.
2. More young people commit crimes than are ever caught.
3. Our traditional assumption that the poor are more prone to crime is probably exaggerated. However, poor youngsters are more likely to be arrested and sentenced to reformatories than are their more affluent peers.
4. Most young people violate the law at one time or another, although only a minority do so frequently or commit serious crimes.
Summary
Human beings differ not merely as individuals but as social types. Society is divided into blondes, brunettes. and redheads; doctors, dilettantes, and ditchdiggers; Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and the religiously undecided; the young and the old; and thousands of other differentiations. Some of these (hair color, for example) are of little consequence. Other factors that are tied to the social stratification system have an enormous impact.
Social stratification, the system by which society ranks and differentially rewards its members, is not unique to the United States, to capitalist countries, or even to the modern era. As far as social science can determine, all societies are stratified. However, they use vastly dissimilar criteria for stratification. Some societies take age as a sign of wisdom and give status and respect to the elderly. Other cultures reward scholarship, physical strength, hunting skills, or the ability to speak to the gods. In the United States, the criteria for ranking include
1. Family background, which involves economic status factors as well as race and ethnic origins.
2. Current income, wealth, and occupation.
3. Personal achievements, including education and job performance.
4. Status and power.
One of the conceptual problems in the study of stratification is to distinguish which factors cause an individual's status and which are a consequence of economics, power, and rank. For example, is educational achievement the cause or consequence of economic standing? We will address this and related questions in later chapters.
The American class system includes roughly five classes, each displaying its own pattern of values, behaviors, and life-chances. These classes reflect a top-heavy distribution of income and wealth--a pattern that has remained reasonably stable over time.
Income disparities between the rich and the poor have consequences in almost every area of human life. As two sociologists, Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, explain, class standing crucially influences "everything from the chance to stay alive during the first year after birth to the chance to view fine art, the chance to remain healthy and grow tall, and if sick to get well again quickly, the chance to avoid becoming a juvenile delinquent--and very crucially the chance to complete an intermediary or higher educational grade." The social lives and emotional identities of Americans are closely identified with their class affiliations. The socioeconomic distinctions that give rise to social classes also constrain patterns of association and friendship. Friendships tend to cluster within class groups and do not usually cross class lines. People may not approve of the values and behaviors expressed in classes below them, but they also feel greater estrangement from classes above them.
The story of socioeconomic status (SES) is a tale of inequality. Teachers must understand this inequality if they are to fulfill their professional obligation to provide equal opportunity through high-quality education. But, in order to comprehend fully the class system and how it works in families, schools, and society, we must peer around the corner of our taken-for-granted assumptions. The next chapter, which looks at child rearing and social class, is designed to aid in that important endeavor.