What is Social Class?

An Analysis using quotes from the following readings:

What's Class Got to Do with It? by Michael Zweig

"We tend to think about class in terms of income, or the lifestyles that income can buy...[But class can be better understood] as mainly a question of economic and political power...Power doesn't exist alone with an individual or a group. Power exists as a relationship between and among different people or groups. This means that we cannot talk about one class of people alone, without looking at relationships between that class and others" (Zweig, 130)

and

More or Less Equal? featured in The Economist

"The classic tool for measuring inequality is the Gini coefficient. The higher it is, the less equal the society. In America the coefficient climbed steadily from 0.395 in 1974 to 0.47 in 2006 before dipping slightly to 0.463 in 2007" (134)

      

      The concept of money can be interpreted as a moderately objective concept, however the concept of power, albeit contingent upon money, is astoundingly subjective in nature. These two readings touch upon the different classes that we have constructed in society, originally based on income. The first article discusses how class is something that is usually overlooked in our society, (compared to other "identities" such as race or gender). The author goes on to simply describe that class is one of the types of an individual's identity that is not always apparent. One person cannot look at another, (most of the time) and accurately discern which class they belong to. The most salient point that Professor Zweig is trying to convey involves the concept of power. As seen in the quote above, he believes that class cannot only be defined solely based on the monetary aspects, but through the understanding of one's economic and political power. He goes on to describe the intricate levels of class and the hierarchy that has been established in society. Examining the ambiguous concept of "class" through something as objective as monetary value can be challenging, but by introducing an inherently malleable concept, such as power, we can look at "class" through a new perspective. Through his analysis, Professor Zweig delves into this idea of class, and we gain an understanding that one's power over another in the workplace, such as a supervisor or manager, may drastically change their "class"designation, even though there may not be extreme salary differences. This directly challenges the naive contention that one has to make drastically more money than another to be part of a different class. Another salient point that can be taken from this article is the fact that power, class, and status are all relative concepts. In order to have discern what the class structure in our society really is comprised of, it is necessary to take into account everyone that is involved, (as also shown in the quote above). 

      The second article discusses class from a very literal perspective, focusing on statistics and numerical findings to describe the strict divide between the rich and the poor in society. One of the major points in the article is the fact that as a whole, we have ultimately constructed a society in which "classes" are present, yet the ability to move toward the "top" is extremely challenging and highly unlikely. The article also describes how many wealthy Americans have certainly been benefitting from the financial occurrences over the past several decades. Through interpretation of the information shown in the quote above, one can see that class inequality in American society has certainly increased over the past few decades, as the Gini coefficient has moved closer toward the value of "1". The article goes in depth about the growing gap between the "elite" and the average, further bolstering the colloquial argument that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The article also explains the pragmatic realization that although many folks believe that they will end up "well-off" it is very rare that they truly end where they had believed they would. The author describes that whether a person is born into a lower-class family, or they are middle-class and believe that they will make it big some day, the chances of that actually happening are extremely slim, and are even more rare for minorities of those lower-class families. 

      Many people are strong believers in the "American Dream", contending that they can and will make it big someday starting from very little. Although this wonderfully optimistic cliche may have some validity, a more pragmatic conjecture has been shown in these two articles. I enjoyed the first article very much, as I found it truly interesting to see "class" taken from a different perspective, especially one as intriguing as power. I never thought of class in that way, and in fact, I don't actually know very much about the literal class structure of our society, so this article was truly eye-opening. I also found the intricacies associated with the many subcategories in each class to be really thought-provoking as well, due to the fact that money isn't the only establishing factor when dealing with class. I also enjoyed the second article due to its simplicity with cold-hard facts. Many people don't pay attention to the fact that class is a major identity for many people. Based on the fact that it cannot be accurately "seen" on someone, (unless in extreme cases on both sides of the spectrum), it is seldom brought up. In my opinion, "class" has become another example of one of the categories that we have made for people. Whether or not one can barely support their family or embellish their lifestyle with a superfluous amount of things shouldn't be a determining factor for what "class" they fall into. It's interesting that when we think of class within a society, we don't think of talents, abilities, skills, or integrity, but instead how much "stuff" somebody has or someone's net worth. This conditioned belief of "class" is the wrong type of "class" that we should be categorizing people into...In the past, people were revered not because they had millions of dollars, but because they made a difference, they had influence, and they impacted society in some way. It is insane to think that we live in a world in which we have allowed the top 10% of society to be immeasurably wealthier than the remaining 90%! This literally creates power-hungry humans - driven towards money and greed, rather than civility, equality, and honesty.

     These articles reminded me of another exercise that I did with my class, and it's one of my favorites. It's called the Star Power game, and it involves gaining access into groups based on the monetary value that you acquire through the bartering of chips. Once the three "groups" are established, the facilitator gives the group with the most points total control of the rules and the game entirely. It is always fascinating to see how those who gain access into the "elite" group use this opportunity to make rules that solely benefit them. Three observed and salient points that we draw from this exercise are as follows: (1) Each of us may be more vulnerable to the temptation to abuse power than we realize (2) persons who are promoted rarely remember those they leave behind (3) power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Never once when I've facilitated this game has the group in power said, "Let's make everyone part of our group, and everyone's equal". Instead, they always bolster their own growth, and seldom take into consideration of the needs of those "below" them.

      Money is purely objective, but the influence that it has on us as a society is anything but equitable...

Thanks for reading! Come back soon!