Our stratification system puts many people at an advantage, while many others at a disadvantage. In the first chapter of the book, Kerbo talks about the differences between being brought up in a very poor family vs. a very rich family: Michael vs. David. Persons that are at the bottom of the stratification system face a number of disadvantages that can affect the possible selves of these individuals, affecting their future. Possible selves are future selves that the individual can see themselves being, eventually giving them a better chance at achieving these goals. For example, if one grew up in a home with no books or educational material, then they might not be introduced to the cultural capital needed to succeed in our educational system, and later on in life. These individuals not having this cultural capital are put at a disadvantage from day one, then fall behind. Being behind, they don’t have people telling them they can do this or they can do that; they don’t have any sense of direction. They can’t see themselves as successful in the future (possible selves), so their chances of being successful are slim. So, they end up falling back into this cycle of having no social mobility and staying in the lower class for generations. Social mobility is individual or group movement within the class system, but this can be very hard to do, especially if you start from the working class or lower class (Kerbo, 12). Where we are placed in the stratification system is beyond our control, but affects our lives tremendously (Kerbo, 10).
I personally believe that much of everyone’s current story is founded in our stratification system. When class placement is hereditary, it is referred to as ascription (Kerbo, 10). Our stratification system is primarily based on ascription. Although these people have no control on where they are placed, they will either be put at an advantage or a disadvantage. I have lived a very blessed life and I thank a lot of that to me being placed on the higher end of the stratification system. This country stratifies its individuals by race, class, gender, ethnicity, etc. among others. I am a white, heterosexual male who comes from an upper-middle class family. Being from the upper-middle class, I grew up in a home with plenty of books and educational material (cultural capital) that gave me an advantage from day one. Additionally, my race grants me privileges every day of my life. When I go in public, I never have to think of my race; many other races do. Today, police brutality and minority oppression are big headlines in the news. As a white male, I understand that I generally have a positive relationship with the police. For example, I have acted in ways around the police that I know, almost for sure, that if I weren’t a white male, I would be dead or in jail right now. People of other races don’t get that privilege. Also, in the school system, it is clear that white individuals are favored by school authorities. I was called on more and was given the benefit of the doubt much more than my peers of other races. This gave me confidence, ultimately leading me to see myself in A.P. classes (possible selves). Persons of color at my school who were never called on didn’t improve at a fast rate like me and the others who were called on; therefore, my A.P. classes tended to be mostly white, sadly. This whole idea of future, possible selves, is so huge in my eyes. If you can’t see success in your future, then success likely isn’t in your future. As a white person, I grew up with children’s books that were nothing but white people. This made me feel like I was in a country that loved me and embraced me. I can only assume that my African-American and Mexican peers felt the opposite. I wanted to succeed and give back to my country. I’m sure my minority peers felt different. I personally believe my gender has determined my life chances as well. I am male; the hegemonic position. I have two sisters and we were raised much different, which I believe has affected my life chances. I was told I could be a doctor, lawyer, business man, etc. My sisters were told they could cut hair, be a teacher, or a stay at home mom. One of my sisters is about to graduate with her teaching degree, and my other sister cuts hair; funny how that works out. My point here is that these people telling us what we could be when we grew up served as a self-fulfilling prophecy. My sisters were told they could only be these things, so this persuaded them to act in a way to achieve this. Men have the advantage of having more expectations, leading to more chances of success. Today, I am about to graduate the University of Colorado with a 3.9 GPA and a clean criminal record. Clearly, my race and gender were huge in helping me accomplish these things.
2
Class can be defined as a grouping of individuals with similar positions and similar political and economic interests within the stratification system (Kerbo, 11). Kerbo discusses different perspectives on how class is defined. The realist places emphasis on class boundaries, where people identify themselves as members of a particular class and interact most with others in the same class (Kerbo, 141). The nominalist believes that most important are the common characteristics groups of people have that influence their life chances and share of valued rewards in society; like education level, occupational position, or bureaucratic power position (Kerbo, 141). There are also subjective and objective definitions of class. The subjective view places the emphasis on whether class has meaning to the people in the class (Kerbo, 141). The objective view stresses particular life chances or economic characteristics people may have in common (Kerbo, 141). There are also continuous and discontinuous views on class rankings. The continuous view being that class should be considered ranks on a scale (Kerbo, 141). The discontinuous view being that we can find class divisions with distinct boundaries, and that divisions between classes are more important than differences within class divisions (Kerbo, 141).
Kerbo discusses that to find some of the objective factors behind class location, we have to look at occupational structure, the bureaucratic authority structure, and the capitalist property structure. We need to understand how people’s lives are affected by these structures and how people are ranked in each. Kerbo says that after examining the divisions created by these structures, we can talk about how our class system converges (Kerbo, 141).
Positon in the occupational structure is referring to one’s relation to the market (Kerbo, 142) People are ranked in terms of skill level and usually receive higher rewards with higher skills. Rewards are given based on the job’s importance to the people who are in control of the rewards given (Kerbo, 142). So, if your job is more important to the ruling class than someone else’s job, then you will receive a higher pay, or reward. With bureaucratic organizations, the focus is with organized authority or power structures (Kerbo, 142). There are different divisions formed in relation to bureaucratic authority. In different organizations, there are usually top positions like president, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, etc. Below this, are there are staff positions. Below this are many-layered authority positions. Then, there are low-skilled positions at the bottom. The very bottom consists of employees performing various types of labor within the organization (Kerbo, 1420. Within the capitalist property structure, there is a division between those who own the means of production and control the property and the profits that come from it, and those who don’t do any of these things (Kerbo, 142). Basically, this is how people are tied to means of production, or in other words the relations of productions (e.g. bourgeoisie and proletariat) (Kerbo, 142). Kerbo said, “we can define class as a group of people who share common objective interests in the system of social stratification” (Kerbo, 143). Now, with these three structures in mind, we can label some one’s position in the class system.
Personally, I believe that this is an accurate way to define class, but not an accurate rubric to define stratification and how rankings are determined. These three structures provide a concrete way of measuring social class: you can identify one’s position in the market, the level of power one has in an organization, and one’s relation to the means of production. These three structures do accurately make up class; I can’t think of another way to measure class. With that said, these three structures do not completely define stratification and how rankings are determined in American society. There are certainly additional factors that affect our ranking in society. What comes to my mind first are race and sexual orientation. Today, there has been outrage over President’s comments about the (primarily black) NFL players protesting police brutality and racial injustice in society. Trump called these players “sons of b*tches” but the white supremacists in Charlottesville “fine people.” To me, this shows that black people are at a lower ranking than white people in American society. Also, minority oppression and institutional racism that put white people at an advantage shows how we are ranked by our race. W.E.B. Dubois discussed the problem of the color line, which highlights my point on how we are ranked on race. The problem of the color line, to keep it short, is the darker you are, the more you are judged in society; the darker your skin is, the less chance you have to succeed. So, if you’re white, you’re ranked low, but if you’re black, you’re ranked at the bottom. Also, sexual orientation determines our ranking in society. Today, there has been a lot in the news about legalization of gay marriage, transgender in the military, transgender bathrooms, etc. If gay people still can’t get married, and transgender individuals can’t serve in the military or go to the bathroom of their choice, then it is clear that these people are seen as less in society’s eyes, which is insanely unfair. Clearly, class is just one aspect that determines our ranking in society.
3
After reading the chapter about the American class system, my perception of my class position, along with my perception of others class position, has changed. Prior to the reading, I assumed that one’s position in the class system was based on income and assets. Now, I realize it is based on your occupation, your level of authority at your job, and your relationship to the property structure (Kerbo, 142). Overall, my perception of the upper class changed the most. I used to think that if you made a six-figure salary, you were categorized as part of the upper class. Now I realize that there are other factors that tie in, like fame, wealth, power, education, etc. My perception of my class system has changed slightly as well. I would still consider my family a part of the middle class, but now I know the indicators that show that we belong to this class. My father makes an income that fits into the middle-class range, he owns his own business but there are still people ranked higher than him in his field, and he has no sort of fame attached to his job; therefore, I would categorize my family as members of the middle class.
After taking the online quiz, I am somewhat surprised at the questions asked. Although I was not surprised with my results, there are a couple questions that I came up with that I would ask in addition to the ones already asked. Because Kerbo (151) mentions prestige and fame being necessary factors in upper-class membership, to better assess if someone fit into this group, I would ask, “How likely is it for you to be recognized when you’re in public?” or “At your job, approximately what percentage of the employees know your first and last name?” I think this could somewhat predict if these people have high levels of fame or prestige. I think the second question could possibly help predict someone’s rank at their job; mostly because I would assume that if everyone knows who you are, chances are that you are ranked higher up and have some level of authority at work. Also, I think the amount of money you are willing to share can show where someone fits in the class system; therefore, I would ask “when walking past a homeless person, how much would you be willing to give them?” Overall, I think this assessment asked a wide variety of questions that can accurately predict someone’s social class position. There were questions that I would not think of when measuring social class; like the questions about the emotions displayed in the individual’s eyes. I didn’t realize that one’s perception of emotions can show where they fit into this system. This quiz certainly opened up my eyes to the different indicators of social class position.
4
In terms of membership, economic power, and political power, there are certainly differences between the upper class and the corporate class. To be a member of the upper class, you have to have a certain level of wealth, fame, and power: all three, not a combination of the three (Kerbo, 150-156). Only about 0.5-1% of the whole population are members of the upper class. Another important factor of upper class membership is being a part of certain social institutions, like social clubs, private schools, elite universities, debutante balls, summer resorts, etc. These social institutions form a sense of class consciousness and social solidarity that helps this class obtain their political and economic power (Kerbo, 153). The upper class has control over the economy because of its control of the biggest corporations through stock ownership (Kerbo, 161). Control of corporations mainly comes from the major stockholders. Stockholders have the ability to elect corporate directors who then represent their interests (Kerbo, 161). Day-to-day management of the corporation falls in the hands of the executive officers, who usually answer to stockholders and their representatives on the board of directors (Kerbo, 161). These corporations usually control stock in other corporations, which highlights why stock ownership is big in the upper class’ economic power abilities; corporations are all ran by the same people. Besides stock ownership, economic power of the upper class stems from upper-class backgrounds of economic elites. These economic elites generally come from upper-class families. These economic elites gain club entry without the background. So, even if upper-class families don’t own enough stock to control the corporation, their people are still there as board of directors and top executive officers (Kerbo, 163). The upper class has political power as well. They have direct participation in government mainly because of their membership as a part of the president’s cabinet. These cabinet members represent the interests of the upper class, so they can give the president information to guide his policy decisions to ensure that upper-class interests are maintained (Kerbo, 165). The upper class also gains political power through campaign contributions. It costs a lot of money to obtain a major elective office; therefore, the upper class will donate money so the elected official will keep their interests in mind (Kerbo, 170). The upper class obtains political power through congressional lobbying as well. The goal of a lobbyist is to make friends with congressional leaders by giving them trips, small gifts, parties, etc. and providing them information that favors the interests of the upper class (Kerbo, 171). This requires a lot of money; this is where upper class members step in. The upper class also shapes organizations to shape policy. The upper class donates money to fund and guide research on important questions through foundations and universities, then process the information through policy-planning groups that are sponsored by the upper class that make direct recommendations to government and influence opinion-making centers, which influence the population and government leaders in favoring specific policy alternatives (Kerbo, 175). All of this political and economic power serves to maintain the upper-class dominance in society.
The corporate class is similar to the upper class. They are a group of people who hold key positions of authority in major corporations (Kerbo, 183). Their influence doesn’t stem from wealth, but in control of corporate resources. These individuals are chief executive officers or board members of a major corporation, and usually board members of other corporations simultaneously (Kerbo, 184). This corporate class has control of the means of production. They are similar to the upper class but their ranks are permeable. The size of these major corporations highlights this class’ economic control; their performance, profits, losses and layoffs affect the lives of millions of people (Kerbo, 184-186). Like the upper class, much of their influence within a corporation is the control of large amounts of stock in that corporation (Kerbo, 187). Having ownership of large amounts of stock leads to you having a lot of say in the decisions made by the corporation. Another form of economic control of this corporate class stems from interlocking directorates. This gives them a way to maximize control. Interlocking directorates are the linking of two or more corporations through one or more of their board members (Kerbo, 192). These are important because they lower competition between corporations, represent outside influences over the corporation, provide ways to share information about corporate plans, help provide unity among top corporate officials, and help promote unity in corporate dealings with the government (Kerbo, 192-193). Certainly, the corporate class and the upper class have similarities and differences when it comes to membership, economic power, and political power.
Personally, I believe that the corporate class has dominance for a variety of reasons. The most important reason being that their profits, losses and layoffs affect millions of people (Kerbo 184-186). If it’s affecting millions of people, then that highlights their dominance. Also, Kerbo (157) mentions the fact that the upper-class power has decreased with the growing emergence of the federal government since the Great Depression. This growing power of the federal government takes away some dominance of the upper class, further highlighting my point that the corporate class has the dominance. In Karl Marx’s book, the Communist Manifesto, he talks about a possible scenario where the proletariat grows tired of the exploitation and alienation of the bourgeoisie and they revolt, overthrowing this ruling class. This new class is now the ruling class, allowing for them to be in control of the ideological superstructure that stems from the new material, economic base that changed due to the overthrowing of the bourgeoisie. This new class has no idea how to appropriate the property in society, therefore all ownership of private property will be destroyed and classes will disappear. Personally, I think the chances of this occurring are slim, but this is the only chance our society has to create a more equitable distribution of income and wealth in the United States.