3.03 The Middle

 Part 1:  The Middle

Putting the Dimensions of Class Together

All of the elements that we have been exploring combine to form a rough picture of social class.  There is not a universally accepted model for social class but income, wealth, education, location, prestige/power all can arguably play a part in determining class.

Using your knowledge of what the median American looks like, let's evaluate social class in America.  Think about these guiding questions as we go along today:

• What are the different classes in the US?
• Is there a middle class, and if so, what is it?

1.  After our introductory lessons to social class, what does the median American look like?  Please list the following median: 

wealth

income

education

location

prestige

2.   Knowing the median is the middle American (50th percentile), what is your opinion about how large should the middle class be?  That is, how much above the median and below the median should be considered the "middle class"?  (For example, should it be 80-20, 75-25, 60-40, or something else? And then what would you consider the other classes?  (There is no right answer here, just want to get you thinking.)

Gilbert's Model
Sociologists have used different models of social class to explain how social class disaggregates in the United States.  The table below is based on Hamilton College professor Dennis Gilbert's 1992 model of social class.  Look at the table and notice how Gilbert uses multiple measures (job, income, education)  to parse out the classes. 

3.  Which class do you think your family is, based on Gilbert's model?  Do all three components for your family fit his model?

4.  What do you think about Gilbert's model?  Any questions or criticisms?

Joan Williams' Model

Another model for the class structure is from Dr. Joan Williams who wrote the book White Working Class; Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America.

Dr. Williams' book came out of an article she wrote about the 2016 election posted here in Harvard Business Review.

Her article and her model of social class focus on these groups:

The "poor" class

• the bottom 30% 
• making less than 40K
• median income of $22K

The "working" class

• the middle 55%   
• approx. $41K - $131K
• median of $75K
• 
  

The "professional-managerial elite" or "PME"

• the top 14% on earners and at least one college degree in household
• earns more than $131K per year 
• median of $173,000

Dr. Williams explains that most Americans believe that they are middle class - whether they make $75K a year or $173K a year.  But these households have very different lifestyles and values, as she explains:

You can read her article here or watch her Ted Talk below.  The following TED Talk by Dr. Williams.  It is about 15min long, but it is insightful. 

Here is her Ted Talk:

 

5. After reading Williams' article posted here in Harvard Business Review or after watching the Ted Talk above, what do you think of her assessment of the contrast between the professional managerial elite class and the working class?  Do you understand why she is saying that this results in a political divide?

If you want to watch additional videos or a shorter one or see additional resources, check these out:

• Here is a 2 minute explanation by the author on Youtube.
• Here is a 4 minute interview with the author on Fox News.
• And Williams started a project to address the education divide called Diploma Divide.
• (Extra) For more about her work, see these:
• Review from Harvard Magazine here.
• Review from Financial Times.
• Review from Medium here.
• Powerpoint slides here.

Other sociologists that support Joan Williams' thesis:

Robert Wuthnow's The Left Behind; Decline and Rage in Rural America

Princeton University sociologist, Robert Wuthnow explains the dynamic that Joan Williams describes in his book The Left Behind; Decline and Rage in Rural America that location has strongly affected how rural Americans feel and how they vote.  

Here is a 2018 interview with Professor Wuthnow from Vox.

From Princeton U. Press:

What is fueling rural America’s outrage toward the federal government? Why did rural Americans vote overwhelmingly for Donald Trump? And, beyond economic and demographic decline, is there a more nuanced explanation for the growing rural-urban divide? Drawing on more than a decade of research and hundreds of interviews, Robert Wuthnow brings us into America’s small towns, farms, and rural communities to paint a rich portrait of the moral order — the interactions, loyalties, obligations, and identities—underpinning this critical segment of the nation. Wuthnow demonstrates that to truly understand rural Americans’ anger, their culture must be explored more fully. Wuthnow argues that rural America’s fury stems less from specific economic concerns than from the perception that Washington is distant from and yet threatening to the social fabric of small towns. Rural dwellers are especially troubled by Washington’s seeming lack of empathy for such small-town norms as personal responsibility, frugality, cooperation, and common sense. Wuthnow also shows that while these communities may not be as discriminatory as critics claim, racism and misogyny remain embedded in rural patterns of life.

Arlie Russell Hochschild's Strangers in their Own Land

In her 2016 book, Strangers In Their Own Land; Anger and Mourning on the American Right, renown sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild explains the deep story behind the Tea Party support and the rise of Trump which stems from growing social class inequality happening at the same time as civil rights equality which leaves many White Americans feeling like they are left behind by the government and that they are "strangers in their own land."

 

What I found most intriguing in her book was the concept of the "deep story", or a story that shapes the way people feel.  It doesn't matter if the story is real or true or not.  What matters is that the story is believed to be true so people shape their feelings and actions as if it were real.  Dr. Hochschild's idea is explained on NPR's Hidden Brain, 

In her new book, Strangers in Their Own Land, sociologist Arlie Hochschild tackles this paradox. She says that while people might vote against their economic needs, they're actually voting to serve their emotional needs. Hochschild says that both conservative and liberals have "deep stories" — about who they are, and what their values are. Deep stories don't need to be completely accurate, but they have to feel true. They're the stories we tell ourselves to capture our hopes, pride, disappointments, fears, and anxieties.

Kohn and Lareau

Family shapes people differently based on the social class of the family.   In her book Unequal Childhoods, Annette Lareau explains that parents from working-class households emphasize following rules and discipline while upper-middle-class parents teach their kids to take risks, negotiate, and think creatively.  Lareau explains how these different parenting methods shape children from different social classes:

• Upper middle-class families encourage negotiation and discussion and the questioning of authority and it can give the children a sense of entitlement.
• Working-class and lower-income families encourage the following and trusting of people in authority positions, and these parents do not structure their children's daily activities, but rather let the children play on their own. This method teaches the children to respect people in authority, and allows the children to become independent at a younger age.

Lareau explains these differences in her research.  Her book, Unequal Childhoods is explained in the Atlantic here.  And there is an excerpt available here.

Lareau identifies these two styles:

Concerted Cultivation: The parenting style, favored by middle-class families, in which parents encourage negotiation and discussion and the questioning of authority, and enroll their children in extensive organized activity participation. This style helps children in middle-class careers, teaches them to question people in authority, develops a large vocabulary, and makes them comfortable in discussions with people of authority. However, it gives the children a sense of entitlement.

Accomplishment of Natural Growth: The parenting style, favored by working-class and lower-class families, in which parents issue directives to their children rather than negotiations, encourage the following and trusting of people in authority positions, and do not structure their children's daily activities, but rather let the children play on their own. This method has benefits that prepare the children for a job in "working" class jobs, teaches the children to respect and take the advice of people in authority, and allows the children to become independent at a younger age.

Student discussion:

Why do you think each social class shapes kids these ways?  Brainstorm your own hypothesis here.

Analyze either your family or a family you know - which style do you think they are and why?  Can you give a specific example?

Conclusions or questions about the reciprocal connection between education and income?