The sociologist Lawrence Mead states that, "If poor people behave rationally, they would seldom be poor for long in the first place." I don't know what evidence Mead is using, but I fully believe this to be nonsense. I don't understand how a sociologist could possibly make such a claim if they are supposed to understand the notion of social class and economic stratification. In general, being poor does not have its roots in irrational behavior, but more often depends on what socioeconomic group you fortunate or unfortunate to be born into. Whether people want to believe it or not we pretty much have a caste system in the United States. It is my belief that, for the most part, individuals who are born very low on the socioeconomic scale stay low and those who are born high, stay high. There is some room for movement in the middle, but this is usually much more difficult than we would like to believe and actual social acceptance by another class is also rare.
The system is designed in such a way that it usually keeps low people down and high people at the top. For example, during the Wasp Lesson section of the film, People Like Us, the high socioeconomic group of the Wasps is discussed. A Wasp member discusses how people have to be born into the Wasp class. To paraphrase the speaker, it is not something that someone can just become, but that someone just is. The speaker talks about how the process of becoming a Wasp starts as soon as someone is born. The schools, the kinds of people and kids they will interact with and their social paths are all picked out for them from birth. From the very beginning, the children are groomed and shaped into what is desired and what is required for acceptance into their social class. Another example is the part in the film that discusses social structures in high school. In the section, the advantage that higher socioeconomic classes have over lower classes is mentioned. In response to these examples, Mead might claim that the lower class’s lack of privilege may be overcome through rational behaviors and social maneuvering. In truth, the opportunity to move through social ranks is rare and seldom easy to do. This idea is exemplified by the story of Tammy as seen through the film People Like US. Tammy is born in the lowest of the low working class in the United States. She has had little to no opportunity (or funds) for higher education and for a higher paying job. She must walk over 10 miles to her work place (in a fast food chain). She can barely make enough money to support her small family, so how can she climb the social ladder? She has no means of paying for a higher education for herself or her sons (which is now a requirement for economic and social climbing). She wasn't given (to my knowledge) the type of education from which she could receive scholarships. She is pretty much stuck from my point of view. The best she can do is hope that she can support her children and that they might be able to inch their way up to the next class level.
In reality, one of the few ways someone could make a jump in the social class system is to obtain an identity or tittle that brings a level of prestige with it such as becoming a doctor. Even this has its challenges. First, you need to have the right educational background and financial funding in order to even try and become something like a medical doctor. The way the field is designed also makes it very difficult for anyone to become a doctor. This is done intentionally in order for membership into this field to be rarer. This exclusivity allows for the field to hold onto a higher level of prestige. In reality though, even if someone does achieve this tittle, they still might not obtain social acceptance among the other members of the class they join. If you really think about it, social class is just a bunch of clubs or groups that stand on one another in a multi-story building. Each club is more exclusive than the next (this allows it to claim a higher level of prestige and superiority over other clubs). It is in best interest of the higher levels to keep members of the lower levels in their place (or at least lower then themselves). This allows the higher levels to maintain their prestige, advantage, and dominance. When it comes right down to it, it is just a game of maintaining deep rooted power and privilege.
In addition, there is an interesting chart provided by The New York Times that displays thier view of econmic class and what characterists label each class. The link to the chart is, <http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html>
No comments:
Post a Comment