The salient influence of the media's portrayal of social class

An analysis of the following quote referenced in the following article:

Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America by Diana Kendall

"We overidentify with the wealthy, because the media socialize us to believe that people in the upper classes are better than we are. The media also suggest that we need have no allegiance to people in our own class or to those who are less fortunate" (Kendall, 449)..."The issue of class in the United States is portrayed in the media not through a realistic assessment of wealth, poverty, or inequality but instead through its patterns of rampant consumerism" (Kendall, 452)

      Some people say that one of the most influential and revolutionary changes took place when nearly every home in the United States had a television. From that point on, society was hooked, and truly fell victim to the clever marketing and advertising tactics of thousands of companies. Humans are very easily influenced, and just as it was mentioned in a previous post, are unaware of how quick they are to judge, based purely on preconceived notions...

      This article delved into the media's influence, and how rather than doing society justice, it portrays many different aspects of social class, all of which focus on the wrong thing...Rather than showing the true successes of the "average" american, it shows the pitfalls of not being wealthy, by praising many rich stars on television today. Rather than highlighting the good nature of people, the media displays the importance of brand names and a luxurious lifestyle. Most importantly, rather than accurately displaying the many hardships that some in the lower class face, the media portrays these individuals as the less than us, the stigmatized other that is destined to fail, and who is deserving of such travesties. These common misrepresentations are what is causing American society to crumble quicker than they can say "money". By focusing on the elite, and conditioning members of society to emulate those in such high status, we are denigrating everyone else, including ourselves. We are setting ourselves up for failure before we even recognize our own accomplishments! By setting the standard acceptable lifestyle at this far-fetched elite level, we are literally belittling the life that we have right in front of us, ultimately striving to be better than the rest of society, and further bolstering the competitive nature within the primitive psyche of what Freud calls the id. The value of our lifestyle should never be based on the material possessions that we possess, but based on the media's portrayal of power and the importance of brands, we have been taught differently. As represented in the quote above, one of the most important points made in this article is the fact that we have become a society that is constantly engaged in hedonistic consumerism, rather than in a search for inter-class understanding and mobility. By emulating those who have more than they truly know what to do with, members of society begin to value many things in life, and regrettably ignore those intangible items that are of true importance...

While reading this article, I couldn't help but become more and more angry with how impressionable we are as a society. Rather than understanding that a luxurious lifestyle and material objects do not make a person happy, people strive to "get rich", and it's truly terrible that this desire is noticeable at ages as young as preteens. When I was younger, my friends would watch some of those shows that involved taking a look into some celebrities lifestyles, and I always remember how it felt looking at those houses, cars, and other things, and it always astonished me that those celebrities were revered and emulated. I have always tried to live my life with the idea that money is not what will make you happy, it is love from those around you and even though some rich individuals may seem perfectly content, there are always problems, and the desire for more continues to heighten...As I continued to read this article, I kept thinking of a song, (and in fact it has been stuck in my head the entire time reading and writing this), that truly bolsters my contention...In 2002, rock bank Good Charlotte debuted the song "Lifestyles of the Rich and the Famous", and it didn't focus on the importance of getting rich, but rather that rich folks apparently were just as unhappy as the average person. (Yes there are two hyperbolic references about how being rich gets you out of certain things, but I'm focusing on the chorus and some other parts of the song). In my opinion, this was a song that dared to shun those that everyone else had been emulating, and it showed that even those "elite" folks are not untouchable after all...Some awesome and important lyrics of the song are as follows: 

"

Always see it on TV
Or read it in the magazines 
Celebrities want sympathy
All they do is piss and moan
Inside the Rolling Stone
Talkin' about how hard life can be

I'd like to see them spend a week

Livin' life out on the street

I don't think they would survive

If they could spend a day or two

Walkin' in someone else's shoes

I think they'd stumble and they'd fall

They would fall (fall)

Lifestyles of the rich and the famous

They're always complainin'

Always complainin'

If money is such a problem

Well, they got mansions

Think we should rob them

"

As a person who has always despised the idea of money representing a person's true worth, all I can truly say is that Oscar Wilde said it perfectly..."Ordinary riches can be stolen; real riches cannot. In your soul are infinitely precious things that cannot be taken from you" (Oscar Wilde)...

Here is the video if you'd like to hear the whole song...

Lifestyles of the Rich and the Famous

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!