Your class will soon be graduating from college. Some of your friends keep saying how their parents will buy them cars and pay for their holidays abroad. Is the most you can hope for a family photograph? Whatever one gets on graduation day is a clear reflection of their social class.
According to Nasseri, social class is the distinction between groups and individuals these distinctions are different from one society to another. Conversely, these divisions are also visible and different in one society. It is on the basis of age, gender, religion, education, and income that classes arise. Class in the United States is on the basis of age, education, and occupation. Furthermore, there is upper class, middle class, and the lower class (Distribution of wealth in America, n.d.). These differences in class are responsible for such things as where one lives, their friend to which schools they will attend and the kind of jobs they will hold; thus the rise of inequality. To sociologists, social class is a major determiner of beliefs, behaviors, lifestyle, and more importantly, life itself. Consider this, when the Titanic sank, 97% of the first-class survived, however, only 84% of the second and 55% of the third made it (Gilbert, 2007). Nevertheless, the question remains whether the class division is a matter of human nature or it is a changeable thing, which might be overcome by some approaches in the future prospective.
Firstly, according to Mantsios, (2003), one cannot only look at dollar figures and percentages if they seek to understand inequality. Even access to basic amenities can tell it all. It is evident that the distribution of wealth and income in the United States is skewed in favor of the upper class, even though it is rather a touchy question, which is being barely discussed publicly. Those who have gone to the best schools and can access the best services. Very few have a lot of the wealth and the small remainder is for subdivision among the middle class and the lower class, which is where most of the population falls. One also cannot analyze class differences on the basis of appearance. Mantsios opines that America has been successful at hiding poverty (Class in America-2003 312). However, it is generally argued that class does not only affect one’s lifestyle and material wellbeing rather that it also affects ones physical as well as mental well-being. Accordingly, there is a link between social class and health. The lower class is more susceptible to certain diseases such as mental and heart diseases. Moreover, the lower class cannot access the best health care services (2003). The unequal distribution of wealth and the rising income inequality is responsible for the perseverance of classes (Devin, 1997). According to Harold Dalton, cultural myths inculcated to as in our families are also to blame (279). Most people grow up thinking that what they were born into, how things are in the way they are supposed to be.
Wealth is an indispensable aspect of social class. Wolff posits that wealth refers to the material possessions that one owns. This includes all the total assets one owns, from real estate to stocks and shares. After subtraction of debts, one then arrives at their wealth or what can also be referred to as net worth. Accordingly, the best way of measuring the distribution of wealth is by carrying out household surveys. From this, it can be easier to ascertain the levels of inequality. In the US, the inequality levels have been shown to be rising. The rich only seem to be getting richer. For instance, in the survey carried out in the US in 1998, it was established that a large proportion of the wealth was owned only by a few. Thus, the richest 1% of households owned a whopping 38% of the wealth. Furthermore, the top 5% of the rich households own over half of the wealth in the US, about 59%. Ultimately, the bottoms 20% are more often than not left with nothing (2003). Thus, the ‘have’ and the ‘have nots’. By 2004, the bottom 60% of households only held a meager 4% of the national wealth. (Distribution of Wealth in America, n.d.) This results in classes, the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class (also the working poor). There are also subclasses within them such as the upper and the lower middle class. While the upper class can be classified as a capitalist who earns their income and make wealth from their assets, the upper-middle class are just usually well paid educated managers who rely mostly on their incomes. On the other end, the lower middle class comprises low-level managers while the working class comprises the low-paid unskilled workers (Wolff, 2003).
This has important ramifications, for one, it means that the children of the wealthy can attend better schools and will hold better jobs later in life. This is very different from those who are not wealthy and just struggle to get by in life. The same goes for access to health and even other social services. Those who have plenty have not troubled at all. Closely related to this is the power element (Wolff, 2003). Those who hold the most wealth, also happen to be the ones who hold political power as well. The result of this is that they are still going to make policies that are in their favor and seek to enrich them even more. Ultimately, it can also be argued that wealth is closely related to income. According to the distribution of wealth in America, not only does the bottom 60% of the households possess only 4% of the national income but they also just earn 26.8% of all income. Moreover, the argument is that for wealth to have a noteworthy impact on one’s standard of living, it first has to translate into a high income (Distribution of Wealth in America, n.d.). Thus, the more income one earns the more potential one has to create wealth. This is the reason the rich only seem to be getting richer. Think about it. They have more wealth with which they can use to make even more wealth.
Social mobility is possible, however, Dalton opines that the first step that should be taken is to challenge the myths we have grown up believing are true. Social mobility according to the Canadian encyclopedia is,
The movement of people from one social position to another. There can be upward or downward social mobility. Upward social mobility refers to when people to a social position that is higher than where they were before. This can happen for instance in such cases as when one gets an inheritance which considerably increases one’s wealth. Conversely, as a result of a weak economy and unemployment which results in poor returns on investment and even low incomes, people may slip lower in their social class (2008).
Thus, it is just a myth that most of America constitute the middle class. The truth is there are very rich people and there are very poor people. Even the middle class itself has people who earn more income than others and can be considered to be wealthier than their other middle-class counterparts.
The perspective, which might be achieved in the future is the socialistic approach. This approach aims at eliminating the class hierarchy to create a society where everybody is equal. It is important though to distinguish what in particular does someone expects as the notion of the concept “socialism” is so vast. This approach has been applied by the people throughout the centuries starting with Platon and further on. It became a popular approach after the French revolution and a following capitalistic oppressing system where there existed rich bourgeois and hard workers, who had to do their labor day in day out, wearing themselves out and giving astronomic profits to the owners of factories and so on. Thus, the rich class made a profit out of somebody else’s work, namely their employee’s work, which nominally was much as high as the “work” done by the bourgeois. So, achieving the result, done by the socialistic approach the society might look really attracting and having the same income. Moreover, it is really a good theory for those, who are somehow oppressed now by their social standing either in money or education, as so far the de-jure claim of the society to be equal and classless appears to e nothing but a well-presented fairy tale for the rest uninitiated people to envy this at the de facto stage.
Still, needless to say, that each of the perspective approaches should be tested first, and as it has been proved many times by scientific researches in general and by history itself in particular, that the socialistic one, fails to be a worthy result to achieve as it appears to be more like a Utopian dream than like a reality to be lived out in our brutal life. It takes only to remember the social countries, made in the 20-th century to realize, that a socialistic approach is historically and politically impossible as the social society makes its own hierarchy of classes, but artificially created. So, why not live in the society we have now. It is natural for people to be divided into rich, poor, and somehow balancing in between these two. This viewpoint is supported by the words of the scholar, investigating the nature of the theory of socialism and the possibility of the embodiment of it into real life, who concluded that “the Classless society looks more and more like a Utopian illusion.” (Webpage)
It is not less important to define the definition of the word ”class” for a person, as, as the investigations have shown, for different people, the classifications of people rests on different basics. For example, the lowest class (as it is classically called) tend to say that the main difference is money, while the top of the richest class opposes this viewpoint, saying that verification of the classes within any society has nothing to do with money or occupation (1967), but rests on values, pulled out by the people, their objectives and the rest non-material matters. The middle class associates the division with both money and occupation, but pays way too little attention to these matters, mentioning that the dignity and values, prized do matter a lot for the division. Consequently, while there is no agreement on the definitions, or the viewpoints are so complex within one society, it might be assumed, that the biased-formed opinions can not achieve or wait for a consensus. My opinion is that the original society we live in is versatile by its nature. While one is eager to make more money and is able to do that, he will be realized in the life, the other one, either more lazy or unable to make money or lacking educational or whichever more background will not earn as much as the first man. So, should one take money away from the first one to give it to the second one? Of course, even if the answer is “yes”, and one-day people will be equal if not in their intelligence and self-virtues but in the material matter, then in a week or two some people will manage to stand out again, having more money, as it is their nature to earn it, while the other people will be poorer as their talent is not earning money but spending it or just not enough desire to earn. The nature of a human being can not be changed by anyone at some cause. So, why not take the opportunity today in this society, trying to improve oneself, one’s arrogance, passions, desires and rather controlling them all be happy to live every day and to seek personal happiness. In fact, it is definitely not embodied in the bank cheque.
The research sources, making statistic data, look at the question of stratification in the following way. The graph, presented by the U.S. consensus bureau detects the stratification within the society, relying on several principles.
Attainment is related to both occupation, as seen above, and income. This graph shows the educational attainment of individuals age 25-64, employed full-time, by occupational field. (U.S. consensus bureau)
It is understood that social stratification in America has seen the rise of social classes. As the word “class” is polysemantic, different people tend to forth assumptions about the basic differences which make some classes of a higher or a lower standard. Still, taking the classical division into consideration (i.e. according to the aspect of wealth) the top class is, the richest 1% holds a massive 38% of all the wealth in America meaning those who do not fall under this bracket have to fight to stay relevant. These classes have their basis on education, gender, race, income, and wealth. Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible through social mobility to move from one class to another. However, the odds are clearly against the ‘have nots’. The ‘haves’ will still go to the best schools, access the best services, hold the best jobs, and use their wealth to make more money. And the question arises at this point, can it be changed somehow. Can man equalize all human beings? The answer to which humanity has received from the history and then from the results, made by the scholars, which are quite firm that the theoretical equality of people looks more like a Utopian dream than like a reality. It is too good to be true. Moreover, one can not overcome the nature of humanity, making some artificial conditions for the so-called justice to triumph as class divisions persevere as a vital structural characteristic of modern human culture. Consequently, being unable to change something in the world in the Global understanding, we should cultivate self-control and control of our desires somehow to be able to enjoy life as it is, not paying too much attention to the matter of class divisions as it is not very material.
Works Cited
Dalton, Harlon L. “Horatio Alger.” Rereading America. Ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2007. 279, 283.
Devin, Fiona. Social class in America and Britain. Belford UK: Edinburgh University Press, 1997.
Distribution of wealth in America. n.d. 2008
Figure. US Census Bureau report on educational attainment in the United States, 2003″.
Gilbert. Social class in America. 2007.
—Mantsios, Gregory. “Class in America-2003.” Rereading America. Ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 312
—Mantsios, Gregory. Class in America in Rothenbergs, Paul S. Race, class and gender in the United States: An integrated study, 2003.
.Nasseri, Hedyeh. Social Class in America. EzineArticles.com. n.d. 2008.
The Canadian Encyclopedia. Social mobility. 2008.
Wolff Edward, The wealth divide: The growing gap in the United States between the rich and the rest. The Multinational Monitor (2003): vol 24(5)