Rachel Risinger

April 26, 2010

Class Blindness: Incendiary or Benign?

To be an American means that one is unable to discuss “class.” Taken as a whole, this statement is at once incendiary and also completely benign. As an American, it does not occur to me outside of academic exercise, that in other countries and societies in this world that class distinctions between individuals and social groups based on religious affiliation, race, gender and even the occupation of an individual’s ancestors exists. Embarking on the research to discuss class stratification in America quickly taught me that there is very little agreement among scholars as to definition of class in America. America is supposed to be a completely egalitarian society, where everyone has the same opportunity as everyone else to achieve as much status, read as wealth, as the next person.  Sociologist W. Lloyd Warner summed up the American feeling towards class as being “somewhat like man’s alimentary canal; he may not like the way it works and he may want to forget certain parts of it are part of him, but he knows it is necessary for his very existence. So a status system, often an object of our disapproval, is present and necessary in our complex social world.” (Warner p 10) However, the complexities of discussing class distinctions becomes far too broad because in our egalitarian society there are just so many special interests that seek to define class according to their own beliefs and prejudices. And, as with most published material, the one who pays for the publishing is the one whose opinion comes to the forefront.

Seemingly, although racial prejudice is one bad habit many Americans of all stripes can’t seem to give up, wealth is the great determining factor of “class” among the populace of our great nation. The acquisition and successful manipulation of assets and capital is the great equalizer in this country. To belong to a particular level in the social-class system of America means that a family or individual has gained acceptance as an equal by those who belong in the class. The behavior in this class and the participation of those in it must be rated by the rest of the community as being at a particular place in the social scale. (Warner p. 23)

Although there are instances where position is inherited, class assignment as birthright seemingly has more to do with the individuals continued cultivation of “the families’ good name” than with the growth of assets. Individuals born or wed into certain populations will always enjoy a certain status, regardless of true material wealth. Religious affiliation and membership in social organizations can generally be maintained regardless of economic success. While religion seems to also be a great determiner in matters of social class within the American construct of the concept, and gives adherents loads of networking opportunities, I don’t feel my secular upbringing lends itself to an objective analysis of the impact of organized religion and the function of class assignment in America. Life has taught me to acknowledge my limitations gracefully. Social organizations are just as dependent on participation of members as they are on the wealth of members, because participation evidences a commitment to the cause, which ultimately brings in more members.

Discussion of class in and of itself demonstrates a far to basic point of reference for the divisions of “class” within any given society. That the methodology of asset manipulation available to any given population , the information and necessary training to access the benefits of the technology available, to achieve asset acquisition and manipulation creates within the society class differences among individuals. The less complicated technology available to a given group provides more access by more members, therefore leading to an increased sense of enfranchisement in the technology and the benefits its use brings to the population of the social group. However, there will always exist an education gap between individuals and groups within any given society and the more complicated a technology is, the more education its use requires therefore the more valuable its operation will be. The individual or group who can successfully navigate more complex technology will ultimately reap higher rewards. 

One of the first and clearest distinctions of class among individuals in the readings we undertook in this semester of Multicultural Literature came in Toni Morrison’s “Song of Solomon”

Macon Dead Sr., fears the idea that his wife and sister would have communication with each other on any level, feeling that his status as the local land holder and developer would be diminished if the two women in his life compared notes.  This indicates in Macon Dead a very strong sense of the idea that people as associated more with family connection than they are on individual efforts or accomplishments, which, depending on the situation on finds oneself in, is true. Macon Dead let himself believe that he was in love with Ruth at the beginning of their relationship, and continues to exercise the notion that his former love for her cancels out the rather pragmatic decision he made as a young many to marry the daughter of the town’s sole black doctor rather than another woman without Ruth’s financial and social connections. Unfortunately for Macon Dead, Sr., his idea of love for his wife does not require that he respect her. It is through his general disdain for her and her efforts that he evidences his desire for her absence. Macon clearly questions his decision making skills when it came to choosing a wife, because as long as her father was still alive, the financial benefits of being married to the town’s sole black physician never materialized, and Macon was subjected to social stratification in the home by his  father-in-law, by whose efforts the home was provided. Seemingly, the class division that existed between Ruth and Macon prior to their marriage was only exacerbated by the decidedly unromantic realties of married life that confronted the young couple after they tied the knot. Macon felt that position would be bestowed upon him, and was disappointed when he found out he had to earn his own status, without the financial backing of his father-in-law. And Ruth got to pick up the emotional tab for this slight for the rest of her marriage. Perhaps W. E. B. DuBois offers the best comment on this when he says: “the first impulse of the best, the wisest and richest is to segregate themselves from the mass…they make their mistake in failing to recognize that however laudable an ambition to rise above, the first duty of an upper class is to serve the lowest classes. The aristocracies of all peoples have been slow in learning this and perhaps the Negro is no slower than the rest, but his peculiar situation demand this in his case the lesson be learned sooner.” Macon learned how to have money and assets; however, he never learned to respect himself or other people.

 In one twisted act of seemingly unselfish fatherly advice to Milkman he reveals his philosophy of asset accumulation, trying to undo Milkman's fascination with his newly discovered aunt Pilate her way of life that does not require the multitude of trappings and employment that the life he's known in his parent's house. Macon Sr. also reveals his disdain for his sister's rudderless and Spartan existence. "Own things. And let the things you own own other things. Then you'll own yourself and other people too." (Morrison p 55) which takes on an unsettling demeanor when one takes into consideration that Macon Dead Sr. and what remains of his family are the descendants of slaves. One would think that among the most odious ideas that would be entertained by a man whose life was stained by the taint of slavery would condone the idea of "owning" people through obligations.

If it is indeed inherent in any society that the “upper class” ensure the health and welfare of the “lower classes” then surely there is no better place to practice what one preaches than in the home. Macon Dead Sr.’s, total disregard for his treatment of his wife and his sister indicates a complete disregard for humanity on a most basic level. Frasier E. Franklin stated, because of its struggle to gain acceptance by whites, the Black bourgeoisie has failed to play the role of the responsible elite in the Negro community… they have no real interest in education and genuine culture and spend their leisure in frivolities and in activities designed to win a place in Negro “society.” The single factor that has dominated the mental outlook of the Black Bourgeoisie has been its obsession with the struggle for status. (Franklin p. 25)

Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that one of the best comments I found on class in America is this one from Dame Edna,

 "One of the biggest advantages of a democracy is you can have a slave class with a clear conscience!" It sums up our approach to each other quite well. As long as the person occupying “other” status is compensated for their labors, those occupying majority status don’t have to feel anything is wrong with the stratification which exists in our society today.

Bibliography

(DuBois, WEB, 1986, The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. New York: Benjamin Bloom. }

Frazier, E. Franklin., 1968, Black Bougeoisie. New York: Collier Books

 Heilpern, John. Review: Dame Edna, The Royal Tour. The New York Observer, October 24, 1999.

Morrison, Toni. The Song of Solomon. Vintage Press, New York. 2004.

Williams, Melvin D. The Black Experience in Middle-Class America: Social Hierarchy and Behavioral Biology. 2001, The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston New York.

Warner, W. Lloyd., Meeker, Marchia and Eells, Kenneth. Social Class in America. 1949,    Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago