[ The insidious myth of meritocracy belies increasingly insane
levels of inequality in the US that prevent even younger generations
born into the middle class from achieving “the American Dream,” if
by that we mean stable housing, secure employment, and the opportunity
to do as well or better than one’s parents.]
[[link removed]]

CLASS CEILINGS  
[[link removed]]


 

Allison L. Hurst
April 17, 2023
Working Class Perspectives
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The insidious myth of meritocracy belies increasingly insane levels
of inequality in the US that prevent even younger generations born
into the middle class from achieving “the American Dream,” if by
that we mean stable housing, secure employment, and the opportunity to
do as well or better than one’s parents. _

, wsquared photography. Source: Creative Commons

 

Most of us have stopped believing in the myth of the meritocracy. The
myth promises that the ablest or most intelligent or hardest working
get ahead of the rest.  Most everyone realizes this is not true, yet
we continue to act as if it is. We tell our children to stay in school
so they can move up, not down, the class ladder.  A specific version
of that myth is the idea that “anyone can be President” in the
United States regardless of accidents of birth like color of skin,
geography, or gender.  Children are often reminded that Abraham
Lincoln was born in a log cabin, as if anyone born in a trailer in
Appalachia or an East Los Angeles _barrio_ or public housing in
Detroit can follow his route. Such stories imply that those who
don’t move up are to blame for failing to “pull themselves up by
their bootstraps
[[link removed]].” 

The insidious myth of meritocracy
[[link removed]] belies
increasingly insane levels of inequality in the US that prevent even
younger generations
[[link removed]] born
into the middle class from achieving “the American Dream,” if by
that we mean stable housing, secure employment, and the opportunity to
do as well or better than one’s parents.  Yet we still believe that
if you go to the right schools and do well, you can actually pull
ahead, no matter where you were born or what you look like.  You
probably know someone born into poverty who is doing relatively well
today – maybe even yourself. But doing better isn’t necessarily
actual class advancement.  A slew of studies in recent years document
the persistence of inequities that keep working-class people from
achieving economic and social parity with their peers, even when
similarly educated or occupied. 

[[link removed]]

One massive study in the UK
[[link removed]] found that even
when those from working-class backgrounds land prestigious jobs, they
earn, on average, 16% less than colleagues from privileged
backgrounds.  Sociologists Daniel Laurison
[[link removed]] and Sam Friedman
[[link removed]] coined the
term _the class ceiling_
[[link removed]] to
describe this phenomenon. Drawing on 175 interviews with individuals
from four relatively elite occupations – television, accountancy,
architecture, and acting – they uncovered a complex system of
barriers to class advancement.  Working-class people lack access to
the social networks that give some employees an edge over others. They
may not be familiar with “the rules of the game” and other
cultural expectations. And of course, they also face outright
discrimination based on accents and other instances of overt
classism.  Yet some occupations are less classist than others, which
provides some hope that we _could_, if we had the will, reduce or
eliminate many of these barriers. 

Political scientist Nic Carnes [[link removed]] has
identified a similar class gap in political representation. In _The
Cash Ceiling_
[[link removed]]_,_he
argues that many from working-class backgrounds would be qualified to
run for office. Indeed, there are more working-class Americans than
middle-class Americans, and there are no educational or occupational
requirements for becoming a politician.  Furthermore, working-class
candidates do just as well as other candidates — _when they run_. 
The problem, Carnes finds, is that they _can’t run_ because of
practical burdens like taking time off from work, but they are also
passed over by political and civic leaders who prefer middle-class
candidates.  Here again, social networks matter. 

My own research
[[link removed]] demonstrated
similar obstacles for low-income, first-generation, working-class
college students.  Even when they get into selective colleges and do
well academically, they fare less well than their more privileged
peers.  I argued that colleges often _amplify_
[[link removed]] pre-existing
advantages, rather than ameliorate them.  Among many other
factors, who you know matters in getting first (and subsequent) jobs
[[link removed]],
and working-class students simply do not have the same access to
social networks as many of their peers.

Recently, the _American Sociological Association’s_ Taskforce on
First Generation and Working Class Persons in Sociology
[[link removed]] concluded
a five year internal study of class discrimination and class impacts
within the discipline.  The Taskforce’s Survey of ASA members
showed significant classed outcomes influenced by compounding effects
along the career path.  Sociologists from working-class backgrounds
are less likely to hold long-term tenure track positions in top
programs, in part because they didn’t attend “top tier” graduate
programs, which in turn reflects that they didn’t go to elite
undergraduate schools. And class absolutely affects that initial
choice.  All along the way, class works in both obvious and subtle
ways to limit advancement for persons of working-class origin.

Along with my fellow researchers José Muñoz
[[link removed]] and Elizabeth M. Lee
[[link removed]], I have been interviewing graduate
students and faculty in sociology who either grew up poor or
working-class or were the first in their families to go to college. 
The interviews reveal some obvious and subtle ways that class ceilings
get imposed.  One of the striking findings so far is that many of us
walk away from privilege and achievement for the opportunity to work
in more familiar surroundings.  We’ve heard people say that they
were just “more comfortable” working at the local regional college
where the student body looks more like them and where they can “make
a difference” in students’ lives.  Meanwhile, some who do work in
more privileged private institutions or renowned flagship
research-centered universities encounter a lot of classism and often
resort to “hiding” a big part of their identities. 

At this point, you might wonder why you should care about whether
highly educated successful people from the working class work in R1s
or local colleges.  There are a couple of good reasons why you
should.  First, much of the most influential research is produced at
those “top” institutions, which confer professional access and
power along with funding and attention.  If people of working-class
origin aren’t involved in that work, academic knowledge about
working-class people in general will always be incomplete and
sometimes just wrong. We’ve seen how that worked with knowledge
about gender, race, and sexuality. Recent history reminds us that the
academic gaze on the working class has a tendency to exoticize its
object.

Second, making the class ceiling visible can help put the final lie to
the myth of meritocracy and enable us to create a new narrative about
how America works and a better vision on how we _want _it to work.
We could create a world where everyone can earn a decent wage for an
honest day’s work, enough to raise a family find a place to live,
and make a good life.

It is time to confront the core problem of the myth of meritocracy: it
embraces a hierarchical system that distributes a decent living to a
favored few and insists that others deserve to be left
behind. Michael Young,
[[link removed]] the
British sociologist who coined the term, warned us about the dangers
of true meritocracies decades ago.  Inevitably, he cautioned, they
would devolve into caste systems, where those born into educated
families would reap the rewards of their parents’ and
grandparents’ access to power while everyone else would be blamed
for their impoverished lives.  Eventually, those at the bottom would
rise up out of righteous anger and envy and topple the whole
structure. 

That couldn’t actually happen, could it?

_Allison L. Hurst is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the School
of Public Policy at Oregon State University, where she teaches courses
on the sociology of higher education, class inequality and social
mobility, and sociological theory. She is one of the founders and
current President of the Association of Working-Class Academics. Her
current research explores the school to work transitions of college
graduates._

* Income Inequality
[[link removed]]
* Generation Z
[[link removed]]
* The Tyranny of the Meritocracy
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]