Decade after decade we continue to see the same class structure in the United States, simply reproducing itself over and over again. Social sciences have many different answers for why this is the case, but there seems to be one institution in particular that is responsible for the continued reproduction of the class structure. In Jay MacLeod’s Ain’t No Makin’ It, he illustrates that the main contributing factor for continued social stratification is the educational system. In his book, MacLeod follows two groups of males, one mostly white, the other mostly African American, throughout their lives in hopes of learning how things such as economic status, race, education, family situations, and relationships impact one’s success in their careers and in life. I found the most interesting of these factors to be education, because it is one that many people have mixed opinions on. The US educational system was designed to be “the great equalizer” (Lee and Burkham 1), in a sense that it provides all children with the knowledge and resources necessary to succeed in the working world. So, the question remains, how is it that something that was designed to be a great equalizer is actually the primary cause of repeated class structure?
Chapter two of Jay McLeod’s Ain’t No Makin’ entitled “Social Reproduction in Theoretical Perspective” discusses the main contributing factors of social stratification and class reproduction. One of the most important being obviously, the educational system. MacLeod discusses the two varying opinions on the education system and its role in social reproduction. The first is the general opinion, “In the popular mind, school is the great equalizer: By providing a level playing field where the low and the mighty compete on an equal basis, school renders social inequality superfluous” (MacLeod 11). However, the more interesting opinion is that of the reproduction theorists. “Reproduction theorists, in contrast, show that schools actually reinforce social inequality while pretending to do the opposite” (MacLeod 11). The research MacLeod conducts with the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers seems to work in favor of the reproduction theorists.
What is it about the educational system that reinforces social inequality? The answer lies in the research that Jay MacLeod conducted for his book, Ain’t No Makin’ It. The two groups of males that MacLeod writes about In Ain’t No Makin’ It are the Hallway Hangers, and the Brothers. The Hallway hangers were a mostly white group of boys who had been living in Clarendon Heights, the town in which both groups attended high school, for a while. They grew up in rough homes, most of them with absent fathers or brothers in jail, leaving them largely without proper male role models in their lives. This lack of authority lead to their self-destructive behaviors including being involving with drugs, alcohol, and violence, with street smarts as their self-proclaimed greatest assets. Due to the environment they had lived in, most of them felt as if no matter what they did, they wouldn’t be successful, believing they had no opportunity for social mobility. The other group, the Brothers, were vastly different. The brothers were mostly African Americans who moved into Clarendon Heights during their early childhoods, much different from the Hallway Hangers whose families had lived in the heights for two to three generations. They all had some sort of role models in their live, whether it’d be supportive fathers, well accomplished siblings, or encouraging parents. The brothers generally believe in the opportunity structure, which provides them with incentive to succeed, leading to them performing well in school and being involved in other activities. Other than attending the same high school and being members of the lower class, the two groups differ entirely.
Based on the knowledge we have of the two groups, and the idea that, “Education, then, beyond all other divides of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of men—the balance wheel of the social machinery” (Gonzalez), it seems reasonable to conclude that the group who tries harder in school will be more successful later in life, in this case that would be the Brothers. While this is true to some extent, the success of the Brothers is largely underwhelming. When MacLeod visited the groups eight years after high school, the results are slightly surprising, and very telling. While the Brothers did end up better off than the Hallway Hangers, many of which were then involved in illegal activity, jailed, or struggling to make ends meet, they were not as successful as they should’ve been if education truly is “the great equalizer.” Most of them failed to make it out of the lower class, and struggled to support their families with jobs that were most likely not reflective of their capabilities. The lack of social mobility for the Brothers despite their belief in the opportunity structure and hardworking attitudes indicates a problem in some institution in society. Since the United States’ educational system is supposed to be the institution that sifts through and rewards those who work hard, it seems most reasonable to blame it for the Brother’s lack of success.
The educational system impacts both groups in similar ways, despite the Brothers’ desire to succeed and work hard compared to the Hallway Hangers determinist ideals which lead to a lack of motivation. First, looking at how the educational system impacted the brothers. As previously stated, the Brothers believed in the opportunity structure, and felt that what they put in to their educational experience is what they would receive in return. The sad truth is that for the Brothers, the effort and mindset that they contribute to their schoolwork seemed to have very little influence on their overall outcome. The greatest reason for this appears to be the teachers. The teachers at Clarendon Heights showed biases that made it far more difficult, in fact, nearly impossible, for the Brothers to perform as well in school as those who the teachers favorited. The teachers, coming from the middle class themselves, seemed to have little interest or faith in the lower-class students, and put much less effort into their well-being. Jay MacLeod explains the treatment the Brothers receive from the teachers and the educational system using the Bourdieusian Theory on Cultural Capital.
Bourdieu argues that Cultural Capital has the largest influence on who is able to be successful using the current educational system, and comparing his theories with the lives of the Brothers and the Hallway Hangers, they appear to hold true. Bourdieu acknowledges that students enter the schooling system coming from a variety of different classes. The one who has the greatest chance of success, and will reap the most benefits from the educational system, are who he refers to as the “dominant class.” “Children from this class enter school with key social and cultural cues, while working class and lower-class students must acquire the knowledge and skills to negotiate their educational experience after they enter school” (Lamont 155). The most obvious areas where the Brothers and the Hallway Hangers differ from their middle-class classmates is in their linguistics and speech patterns. Due to the backgrounds both groups came from, and the families they grew up in, their language is not as sophisticated as some of their other classmates, often containing slang or lacking a rich vocabulary. This immediately sets the groups apart from their classmates, and triggers the implicit biases that the teachers may hold about how linguistics relates to intelligence. It is clear that the Brothers in particular possess the intelligence and determination to succeed, but they have a very difficult time getting that across because of the language barrier. This causes the teachers at Clarendon Heights to think much less of them, and therefore not put forth as much of an effort, or provide them with as many opportunities as they would with their middle-class classmates. Michele Lamont, American sociologist at Princeton University provides good analysis of this in her article, “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments.” Though the lower-class students could make an effort to improve their vocabulary and expand their knowledge, “they can never achieve the natural familiarity of those born to these classes and are academically penalized on this basis” (Lamont 155). These are things that are out of the students’ control, yet weigh so much on their educational experience.
These ideas are what makes Bourdieu’s’ idea of cultural capital, which can be defined as “widely shared, high status cultural signals (attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge, behavior, goods and credentials) used for social and cultural exclusion” (Lamont 156) so important. This is especially true when elements such as the tracking system come into play. Very common in today’s secondary, and even elementary schooling system in the United States is the tracking students. Students are placed into different groups or “tracks” in school which vary in levels of difficulty, course load, faculty prestige, and opportunities provided. One major issue with the tracking system is that students are often placed into these tracks prematurely, and the decision making of who is placed into what tracks is sometimes a gray area. This is especially unfortunate for lower class students such as the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers, because since they initially lack the same cultural capital of their middle and upper-class classmates, their likely to be placed into a lower class, regardless of their determination to succeed, or what intelligence might be hiding behind their poor linguistics. The tracking system alone disproves the educational system of being “the great equalizer.” How could an institution be an equalizer, if it itself divides the students into tracks, and provides each track with a different education?
Some believe that the tracking system does not negatively affect the educational system because they feel it tailors a student’s education to their own particular need. However, the more accurate opinion seems to be the one that American Sociologist, Adam Gamoran, presents in his article, “The Variable Effects of High School Tracking,” which is that, “Tracking adds to inequality when placement in a high-status track permits students to gain more than if they had been assigned a lower track.” On the flip side, being placed in a lower status track can decrease a student’s motivation as well as their belief in the opportunity structure. In the case of the Hallway Hangers, who already felt as if they had no chance of success after schooling, being placed in a low track that essentially confirms their suspicions, only gives them less incentive to try, and less hope of any social mobility in their future. In the Brothers’ case, they had the skills, hope, and mindset one would deem necessary to succeed, but because of factors out of their control, such as their cultural capital, they were also placed in a lower track, prohibiting them from reaching their full potential.
When MacLeod revisited both the Hallway Hangers and the Brothers in their forty’s, the Brothers’ were still more well off than the Hallway Hangers, but the majority of both groups still remained in the lower class, most feeling like they did not achieve their goals and aspirations. Both groups expressed to MacLeod that they feel some personal blame for this, and wish they had tried harder in school, or possessed a firmer belief in the opportunity structure from a young age. However, the sad truth is that, even if they had made more of an effort, it’s very well possible that their outcomes would’ve ended up very similar. The education system, and in particular the tracking system are the ones to blame for this. Both groups were always reminded of their lower-class status throughout their education, being placed in less difficult courses, not having access to the same opportunities as more well-off students, and not being taken as seriously by teachers. Compared to the students of the middle and upper classes who received every tool necessary to succeed, and simply had to put forth enough effort to take advantage of the opportunities they were provided with in order to be successful. This is what makes the current educational system a factory of social stratification. Students enter the schooling system in a particular class, are constantly reminded of that status, and are treated in a way that simply prepares them to be a continued member of the class that they were already apart of. In this way, the education system cannot be considered “the great equalizer,” and it is more so accurate to refer to it as the opposite. Unfortunately, until the tracking system in schools is removed or significantly modified, the educational system will continue to reinforce social stratification, and social mobility will become less and less of a real possibility.