How Social Class Figures Into Sports in America

Ok I thought I was going to be able to swing the articles I used in my annotated bibliography but after trying to combine them into an abstract for this assignment I realized that I have good articles individually but together they don’t provide sufficient enough evidence to state my point for my final paper (especially reading through your posts about your paper topics!).

My original plan: discuss the advantages and disadvantages one’s social class has on their participation in athletics. Social class has a huge impact on many aspects of sports in America affecting participants at all levels. Whether it is the lack of money available to purchase the proper equipment that puts you at a disadvantage or the advantages a person gains when participating in a sport at a very wealthy high school; every individual’s success in sports is affected by their social class.

Since social class is such a touchy subject in America to begin with, I had trouble while looking for articles to use for my annotated bibliography. While I found articles that discussed a few ways in which social class affects sports, I was unable to really find any specific examples. I assume this is because no one wants to admit that they allowed someone’s social class to affect their decision in choosing players for their sports team. Since this was to gain feedback from our classmates, can any of you think of a spin I could use similar to this topic or maybe even a subtopic that would allow me to research social class in athletics? Having been an athlete all of my life and in the athletic training program here at NKU for four years I have experienced many situations of social class in athletics. I know it is prevalent, I just believe it lacks significant publication to write a research paper.

I realize this is going to set me back, so your feedback is going to be very benificial! I would rather choose a similar topic that I will be able to obtain ample evidence on to back up my points. If any of you have any ideas similar or can think of another aspect that might be skipping my mind please let me know!

The Relationship Between Social Class and Political Affiliation

I will argue that in the history of American politics and in today's political system that social class membership or social affiliations directly affect the political decisions that we make and the political affiliations that we choose. There are certain social classes associated with either the Democratic party or the Republican party. Income and education level are only some of the social group differences that affect political choices, affiliations, or habits. My research has yielded so far that groups with low incomes tend to align with the Democrats, while groups with higher incomes tend to align with Republicans. This is just one of the many "social class" differences in political choices. I plan to provide more research to support my argument that social class does affect political preference in my final paper. I also plan on detailing which classes align with which American political parties.

Attributes That Contribute to Literacy

For my final project I have chosen a topic that centers around my interests in education. In 2004 the United States was forty-ninth in the rankings of international literacy with only ninety-nine percent of our population as being literate. In order to help the literacy levels of our country we must understand why the problem exists. We need to start by address the issues that exist in children so they don’t become illiterate adults.
In my paper I will address how gender, ethnicy/race, and social class impact an individuals literacy. I will explain why a significant gap that exists between male and female students, and why boys have lower literacy rates, lower grades, and higher drop-out rates. Why Hispanics and African Americans score the lowest in literacy while whites score the highest and why so many many indivividual who make up the lower class score twenty-seven points below the average reading level.

Economic Nationalism in American Media

Recently, the Japanese-based Toyota Motor Corporation has faced harsh and searing criticism for the defects in its more recently constructed vehicles. We've all heard of the very frightening problem with uncontrolled acceleration, but other defects have resulted in call-backs and a hefty $16.4 million fine.
Toyota is not the first corporation to have serious problems with their product, and in fact is not unique in its acceleration issues. Ford, for instance, experienced the same issues, which resulted in 20 deaths -- all attributed to human error. They faced no fine, and were not dragged over the coals the way Toyota was.
The question my paper seeks to answer is, quite simply, do American media outlets perpetrate a sort of protectionist racket that magnifies the defects in foreign products (automobiles, especially) while downplaying (or even ignoring) similar problems with American brands?
My initial answer to this question, with basic research conducted, supports the conclusion that yes, there is a measure of economic nationalism in American media, although there is no evidence to suggest conspiracy. As I complete the paper, I hope to discover whether this assumption is true in all cases, and if not, whether there is a correlation with the national economic situation -- i.e., is this behavior more likely to occur during a recession?

A Guide Through the Status System of Social Networking Sites

For the abstract of my final paper I am going to take a look at the status systems of social networking sites. Who would have thought that people classify what social networking site you’re on based on what status system you are considered in society? Believe it or not there are people out there who consider you as blue-coaler if you have a Facebook account. Each social networking sites have a caliber a people who are classified in a status system. Is this really legit? How can one classify you via the internet and what site you choose to have an account with?
I am going to explore a few of the most popular social networking sites. I am going to research each site and research each status system into which it is classified. I want to find out how these people go about classifying those on social networking sites, considering most people have no idea what your income is.

Social Class: The Past, The Present, and The Future

Social class has changed over time and there is a huge difference compared to social status in the past. Social class and social status first came about back during the times of the Civil Rights Movement, and compared to today's society has come a long way. In the social class system certain occupations are considered to be pleasing and influential while others are considered to be unpleasant and higher class jobs require more skill and education. Over the years social class has improved, but still remains an issue in today's society.
In the past, there has been a struggle with class which has dominated classes at various stages of social development. Both African Americans and White lower class people care more about achieving material success, fane, wealth, and power versus those who have already attained it. They are placing more emphasis on the materialistic things to be successful. African Americans are certainly not better off than they were in the past, and when it comes to comparing income from the past to the present it shows.
Does race show a persistent inequality in the United States? I believe that when it comes to inequality in race that it has changed over time and will improve in the future. In 1952, one-tenth of the southern African Americans could vote for the president, but in 1984 fifty five percent could vote. This certaintly has shown improvement with social status, and today blacks and whites have the same rights, when they use to not.

Women Breadwinners

Times have defiantly changed when it comes to women in the workforce. In earlier times women did the house work; the cleaning, cooking, taking care of the kids, and making sure they took care of their husbands by having dinner on the table when he got home from work. Now that times are changing and women are establishing themselves in the workforce a lot of men are not the main provider anymore. More and more women are the breadwinners of the families and we are hearing more about "stay at home dad." These husbands take the role that women use to have. They do the cleaning, cooking, and taking care of the kids. One thing I don't know is how this effects them? Does it bother them? Do they feel "less of a man" or are they happy to be the stay at home dad? Does it effect their marriage or does it not change anything. I know many men at first didn't respect women in the workforce as they should. They thought maybe they didn't deserve certain jobs or they couldn't handle it. (None of that is true obviously women can hold their own, as they have proved) How many women compared to earlier times are the breadwinners and what are their husbands feelings toward this. Also, I wonder if women like being the breadwinner or if they feel like their husbands should step it up. I know growing up in my house my father was the breadwinner, but has always told me since day one to support myself. He always says don't depend on a man to take care of you. So I have always planned to be very successful and make my own. I don't think I would mind being the breadwinner, so hopefully I find a husband that doesn't mind being the stay at home dad and take on the household responsibilities. I don't see myself giving up a career. But this might bother many women and men. I want to know if it causes psychological problem in the male? If they become depressed. I feel that a lot of men would. Then you throw kids into the mix and which child steps it up? The son or daughter. I feel the daughter would just from watching her mother. I think to a certain degree each daughter takes traits their mother has and son follows the father. (not in all cases of course) Which child is more goal driven? More motivated? Maybe the women being the breadwinner does change things, but I feel that it does and could cause problems in a marriage.

College, the over-priced ticket up the ladder

What is a college education now a days? You're told a 4 years excursion, where you'll have the best 4 years of your life. An environment to find yourself. Where you'll have an (insert high number)% job placement guarantee after you graduate. that college graduates make hundreds of thousands more income compared to non-college graduates. well, the college education is an over-rated expense that someone could by-pass. if they are focused and savvy enough they could rise above anyone who obtains a college education. in the 4 years that someone spends in college, or many times even longer for some people, a person could gain invaluable experience in the field working and honing their skills. instead of throwing away thousands of dollars of their own money or their parents money, they could save up that money to place a down payment onto a house or into their own business. since many college programs focus on research over practical experience many collegiate graduates get thrown into the working world really un-prepared to face it. AveQ states this trouble quite nicely, "what do you do with a BA in english?what is my life going to be? 4 years of college, and plenty of knowledge, has earned me this useless degree. i can't pay the bills yet, because i have no skills yet." instead of throwing away money at college, the high school graduate should focus on expanding their skills through apprenticeships and expanding their social networking skills.

Precious Dreams

The film, Precious, depicts a poor young black girl in urban America as she dreams of escape. Precious finds herself in destructive and abusive family life and escapes by imagining she is a famous starlet loved by all. She dreams of being white and thin. But she does little to escape her situation until she meets a dedicated teacher willing to love Precious as she is. Precious reflects the desires and disparities of the lower class.. Precious' survival may be dependent upon the images she sees on television and magazines. The plight of the lower class is designed to be self-perpetuating and fosters not only continued poverty but low self-esteem, depression, crime, fear, hatred, violence and a multitude of other societal ills. Class plays a role in the circumstances Precious faces but also in the treatment she receives from her family. Her economic status simply aids in the perpetuation of her class distinction. Precious has no hope of moving above middle class and being accepted. But it may also be said that she has no chance of moving into the middle class either.

What really makes up social class?

I particularly liked reading this book only because Bell Hooks addresses particular issues that many of the U.S. population are ignorant to. She writes about how we should combine race and gender into class. Where We Stand: Class Matters addresses the same issues we have been studying in other books and films but it is different in that it is told from a different point of view.

In the beginning of her book she talks about poverty. She says that “poverty in the white mind is always primarily black” and “the black poor are everywhere.” At one time I even thought this way until I saw different. Cincinnati in particular has particularly painted that picture on poverty. I have been in Over the Rhine, Avondale, and Covington and all these places have multiple races and genders that make up poverty.

I have volunteered at a halfway house, soup kitchen and drop in center and it was surprising to me to see so many different types of people that come into these places. While over in Covington I got to survey the homeless and most of them were white males who had been living in poverty for at least five years.

I found Chapter Six, Being Rich, interesting to read. I never thought about television, newspapers and magazines as ways to identify with class. I now think into more about what is shown and what I watch on TV. I believe it is important to have sitcoms, soap operas and talk shows that identify a variety of social classes. It allows multiple people to identify with particular class and learn more about the classes they aren’t in. What is shown on Television isn’t always accurate to what really happens in reality in the different classes.

Hooks suggest that many of us should start thing about class in a different perspective. I believe it may be a better way of getting somewhere in our future but the chances of it happening are slim. This book highlighted some of the same issues I have studied and discussed in most of my courses for social work.

...see opening quote...

(my title wouldnt fit)
"Who are you to judge the life I live? I know I'm not perfect -and I don't live to be- but before you start pointing fingers... make sure you hands are clean!" Bob Marley

That is one of my favorite quotes ever because I feel that it is so true! We are always so quick to judge those around us, but never seem to recognize or own up to our flaws. This book completely picked apart and made perfect sense of our ignorance. We continuously hear about the particular "ism's" that infect our culture, racism this or sexism that, yet she somehow cuts through all the social trappings and gets to the heart of it. She describes class in a way that seems so simple to see, and yet so foreign to my mind. I was blown away with the pin point accuracy of her thoughts and feel she was able to write this because she saw past the social constraints and looked at the real "problem" with society, Class.

I believe that the world today is separated by classes and people are judged by what social class they fall under. bell hooks talks about how women are treated differently by how they dress and where they go to school. She brings up topics that society does not want to deal with. She did a wonderful job analyzing and describing the way things have changed and stayed the same since she was a child.

I felt strong about the chapter dealing with real estate, and how it is manipulated by "desirables" to keep "the undesirables" out. It is sad to think that you can put a dollar amount on the color of a person's skin. I felt ashamed at times, thinking the same things perhaps at one time or another. I think it is so disgusting that we really do seem to need for others to be poor so we can feel like we have success, it should not be like that; we should want to help those around us. This reading has helped me grow as a person and it opened me up to the ways of the world.

I appreciated her chapters on living simply, and think it is an appropriate and bold call to make in a world where ‘stuff’ and ‘achievement’ are social symbols of significance. I found this description of class from page 103, by Rita Mae Brown, to be important: "Class is much more than Marx's definition of relationship to the means of production. Class involves behavior, your basic assumptions, how you are taught to behave, what you expect from yourself and from others, your concept of a future, how you understand problems and solve them, how you think, feel, act." I know that these characteristics have come up many times in our discussions throughout this course. If we all really do believe this to be the definition of class, why don’t we take all of them into consideration as we judge those around us?

Constants are Changing

I'd like to begin with an apology: this becomes heavily political. It's sort of hard to avoid politics when discussing anything written by bell hooks (sic). I'm really not trying to bait anyone.
Bell hooks, an activist in every sense of the word, set out to accomplish a great deal when writing Where We Stand: Class Matters. She talks of class being the underlying issue, more prevalent than racism, more important than sexism, more life-changing than religion. To wit; "Ultimately, more than any previous movement for social justice, the struggle to end poverty could easily become the civil rights issue with the broadest appeal -- uniting groups that have never before taken a stand together...." (120) This quote closes out chapter 11, titled "White Poverty: The Politics of Invisibility," an impassioned rant against the idea that hate and poverty is monopolized by any race. Racism, while far from eradicated, now creates far less a stigma than class.
Do you agree? Is racism less important than class in society today? For my part, I'd have to say that it is. This book was written in 2000 -- how much has changed since then? Consider the angst and rage against the Bush administration's TARP fund, or the Obama administration's rescuing of what amounts to the entire American auto industry. When I spoke with people regarding these actions as they were happening, the anger was directed at the idea that the banks were too big to fail, or in other words, too important to fail. The government was guaranteeing their continued existence in spite of the free-market principles upon which this country was founded. They were more important to America than Americans.
Hooks is not so old a woman; at 57, she lived through the 60s and 70s and the vast cultural changes that took place, but not the Great Depression, which shaped an entire generation's view on the world and personal liberty. The economic recession in which we now find ourselves is creating new challenges to ideology, and highlighting class in a way that hasn't been seen since the Depression. Yet, at the very least, America had an enemy to focus on during those horrible years. Barring a major terrorist attack in the coming years, or a seemingly impossible return to our former economic glory, America is seeing class highlighted in a way it has never experienced, and will continue to see that trend play out as the Obama presidency and its aftermath unfold.
Hooks seems to agree. In chapter 5, "The Politics of Greed," she says, "Indeed, as a nation where the culture of narcissism reigns supreme, where I, me and mine are all that matters, greed becomes the order of the day. While the sixties and seventies can be characterized as a time in the nation when there was a widespread sense of bounty that could be shared precisely because excess was frowned upon, the eighties and nineties are the years where fear of scarcity increased even as a culture of hedonistic excess began to fully emerge."
Harsh criticism, to be sure. She even goes on to address the cocaine and crack booms of the eighties as a measure of keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. This is a debate that we've had in modern culture innumerable times -- people begin to believe that the only way to move up in class is to start selling drugs. A young, poor black man sees no opportunities in what has been touted as the "real world" of American society, and looks elsewhere for ideas.
I can't say one way or another whether this is truly the case; I didn't live through the progressive decades, although I did make it through the late eighties and early nineties. Certainly there is no question that conservatism and individualistic ideas have pervaded for some time, and several events in American politics bear this idea out -- the perceived failure of the Carter administration, the election of Ronald Reagan, the fall of Soviet Communism, the Republican Revolution of 1994. One could argue that the backlash against President Obama's policies is a sign of this. Yet one could argue just as convincingly that the sixties and seventies were equally individualistic. Young people sought out a different lifestyle, one that helped them to feel whole or at peace, so to speak. Is the argument that greed is what drives recent and current political trends applicable?

To be honest, I didn't think I was going to enjoy reading this book. Hooks has a reputation that marks her as a bit... well, obnoxious. For God's sake, she uses lower-case letters in her name on purpose, just to make a point! Why do that? I still don't understand that bit. It's like the Miss versus Ms. argument -- just let it go!
But I have to admit, however, that I came away from this book with what I hesitate to call a different perspective, but certainly one that is more developed. Her tie-ins with race and class and sexism augmented some of the opinions that I held beforehand, and I frequently found myself in agreement with her opinions, and engrossed by her anecdotes.
Was it the same for you?

When Life Throws a Curve, Take a Chance

I have never seen the movie Good Will Hunting and after watching this movie I think it's an incredible movie, and I couldn't believe I have never seen it before. This academy award winning film is about a genius who has a philosophical gift for math. Will, the intellectual math wiz lives in a run-down neighborhood where he lived an unhappy and rough life. Will does not attend college because he can't afford it. He constantly is getting himself in trouble by fighting guys in the neighborhood and shows no respect towards others. He has assault charges against him and was abused as a child, which explains why he is lives life on the edge and is so violent. He makes his money by being a janitor at a local college in his hometown which is living life in the lower class system. Will has a passion for math and you can tell this from the very beginning of the movie when Will proves the graduate level algebra theory problem the night Professor Lambeau posted it. Not only does he solve that theory, but he quickly solves another problem that took Lambeau and his colleagues two years to prove. The therapists that Professor Lambeau schedules to meet with Will to help him doesn't work, because Will has a hard time connecting with them. He can not relate with them. Lambeau wants to clean Will up and progress with his prodigy skills so he turns to his college roommate, Sean.
I think that when he was saved by Professor Lambeau and put on probation plus attend the therapy sessions that Will eventually makes something of himself. He deserves to be around smart intellectual people like his girlfriend Skylar, who attends Harvard University. His genius intellectuality needs to be challenged and should be noticed. I think that when Will starts his therapy and being pushed by Professor Lambeau that he doesn't like it, because he has never been told he is wonderful before, or told that he is great. He is being noticed for once in his life, and doesn't know how to take things seriously. For once in his life, someone wants to listen to Will. Sean wants to know about his life and his feelings. He wants to understand who he is as a person, he cares about him. He doesn't have to talk, and he proves that during one of their therapy sessions when Will and Sean just count the seconds on the clock until there hour of therapy is up.
I think one of the main theme's in this movie is fear. Will sets himself up for future failure so he can avoid the danger of emotional pain. I think that when it comes to Will, he is afraid to take chances because he is afraid to fail which is why I think he has never tried to apply his brilliance. He just settles for what he has, and has never been told to make something of his self and to succeed in life. He is afraid to break free of the lifestyle he grew up in and to challenge himself to something that interests him, such as math. It's almost as if he has a fear of success and a fear of life in general. He has never put his talent to use, and it's almost as if he feels trapped. When Professor Lambeau discovers him solving his math problems, Will automatically fears he is "caught" and in trouble and immediately becomes defensive and runs away. I think he has a fear of life in general because he is afraid to lose the life he has. Being with his friends and Skylar is the happiest he has ever been, and he is afraid that if he pursues his genius math talents that everything in his life will be taken from him. He holds himself back a lot during the movie, because he is in fear.

I think my favorite part of the movie is when Chuckie tells Will…"you don't owe it to yourself, you owe it to me." Chuckie tells Will that it's an insult if he is still a laborer in twenty years, because he would give anything to have what Will has. Will is sitting on a "winning lottery ticket" and he needs to finally move on and make something better of himself. Will is finally told by someone he trust that he needs to move on and better himself, rather than living underclass in the society in which he grew up in.

Good Will Hunting aka Cinderella Story?

While watching Good Will Hunting I actually forgot how good this movie really was. Of course, being older and having a more mature outlook on life probably helps. Not to mention that both actors are handsome! =) This was almost your classic Cinderella story, but instead involving a guy. Will, was an orphan who was incredibly intelligent concerning mathematics. On the other hand he was a lost soul and had a lot of physiological problems concerning his past. No one every wanted to take a chance on Will. He was just known as the janitor in the MIT building. Professor Lambeau saw different, when he discovered Will was the one solving the almost impossible Math problems overnight. Professor Lambeau was wondering why this guy was cleaning floors, rather than doing math problems. It is almost like he stereotypes will in the so called “janitor category”. In the end Will is the so called “Cinderella” because he lands a job with a successful company.

A status confliction that I want to point out is when Will starts to get involved with Skylar, the med student. Will thinks that he is of lower class when meeting Skylar because he knows that she has inherited all this money, and can afford to go to med school. Will is afraid to love and to be loved because of his childhood. There is a scene in the movie when Skylar and Will get into it involving money and love.
Skylar says: “What is your obsession with this money? My father died when I was 13 and I inherited this money. You don't think that every day I wake up and wish I could give it back? That I would give it back in a second if I could have one more day with him? But I can't, and that's my life and I deal with it. So don't put your shit on me when you're the one that's afraid. Will: I'm afraid? What am I afraid of? What the fuck am I afraid of? Skylar: You're afraid of me! You're afraid that I won't love you back! Fuck it, I wanna give it a shot! At least I'm honest with you.
I think this scene opens us up to how scared Will is. He learns where Skylar inherited the money from, and how she did not ask for her dads death. She does not like having all the money. Does money always bring happiness?

Another scene where were see ourselves in a social status is when Will and his best friend, Chuckie get into it. Chuckie knows the ability that Will has. Chuckie does not want his best friend to be a brick layer (like himself) for the rest of his life or janitor, when he knows that he could be making a whole lot more working for the high end companies. Chuckie says “Oh, I don't know that. Let me tell you what I do know. Every day I come by to pick you up. And we go out we have a few drinks, and a few laughs and it's great. But you know what the best part of my day is? It's for about ten seconds from when I pull up to the curb to when I get to your door. Because I think maybe I'll get up there and I'll knock on the door and you won't be there. No goodbye, no see you later, no nothin'. Just left. I don't know much, but I know that.”

I think this film brings a lot of speculation regarding status and education to the table. The past few weeks the books and movies we have been watching each have a theme regarding class, money, and education. I think this movie goes to show you that anything you put your mind too you can achieve, no matter what your past is or your education. The past is the past, look forward to opportunities in the future.

Good Will Dreaming

I would first like to mention that I forgot how adorable Minnie Driver is. With that said, let's start a discussion on the film, Good Will Hunting.

There are so many things we could discuss about this film in relation to class. Dr. B, you were right...I watched the film again and noticed things I had not bothered to notice before. For example, how about one of the themes being the need for middle class identity to be inexplicably tied to their professions? I loved that Sean (Robin Williams' character) had a "superior" education and he got meaning and identity from being who he is, not what he does or who he does it for. Yet, his almost nemesis, Professor whats-his-name (already blocked it out) couldn't comprehend this. In fact, he viewed the decision to not be great when you could be great, a waste and a big mistake. Part of his problem was how he defined being great. I think he felt that to be great, others must notice you are great. But is that really a reasonable or logical way to live your life? I would venture to say absolutely not. Life should be more than your job and certainly shouldn't be tied to what others think of you. Yet the professor could see it no other way.

I enjoyed picking apart Will's character during the film. When I watched it years ago I did the same thing but there were a few things I didnt notice last time. For instance, I picked up on Will's discomfort among the middle class. His discomfort was so intense that he knowingly drew attention to how he was like his friends and avoided anything that demonstrated his differences. Will seemed to find comfort in his belonging. Of course, considering his childhood, one could understand the desperate need to belong. He was treated as an insignificant as a child and he learned to treat himself the same as an adult. This mechanism also served to protect him from the disappointment and rejection of others. His emotional distance kept him safer but his ordinary demeanor kept others from singling him out. If you compare his behavior to that of his friends in the Harvard bar, his attitude changes a bit. No longer is he content to blend in or belong when his friend is threatened. He clearly demonstrates his ability and uses it to put his foe in his place. He does so because he knows this jerk is a phony and doesnt even think for himself. he knows that this phony does not expect to be outsmarted by someone like Will. It gave Will great pleasure to prove him wrong.

Chuckie at one point tells Will that he awaits the moment when Will doesnt answer the door when Chuckie shows up to pick him yup for work. He wants and expects Will to use his talent to take him to places that Chuckie could not go. Chuckie is all too aware of his status and does not seek to change it, but accepts his lot in life. Is it true that Chuckie could not alter his class or position? Is he being realistic about his situation or just a pessimist? Would an education have been wasted on him? I suppose only Chuckie knows that part. An education is only worth what you do with it. But he certainly seemed to be well aware of Will's potential and didnt find the need to keep Will down to elevate himself. Instead, he gained some pride in pushing Will to improve his lot.

Was it also noticeable to you that Sean was the epitome of a straggler (which caused him great distress at times). But that coming from a blue-collar background gave him a set of values and guidelines that were highly contrasted by those held by his roommate and other classmates. In fact, I would say that Sean was probably pushed to choose a more spiritually rewarding career over a prestigious one because he was disgusted with who and what he saw in those people & their professions. Sean wanted instead to be his own man and be lead by his heart. The contrast between him and Professor Lambeau was immense and their ideas and values vastly different. In the end Sean learned to practice what he preached, Will learned vulnerability leads to real living and Professor Lambeau....well, we hope he learned that rules, prestige, awards, notoriety and social elevation is nothing more than a bag full of #@%$ at the end of your life.

Bittersweet Straddling

Lubrano did an excellent job of keeping me interested. His insight was thought provoking and the reading provided a lot of first hand examples and at some points in the book I could actually feel the emotion of the author or the candidates that he interviewed. One story that really illustrated the difference in classes particularly caught my attention. I'm not saying that this one is any better than the others, I just remember the way it made me feel.

Joe Terry, a person interviewed by Lubrano gives his account of going out on a date with a girl from the upper class. In it he details the hours of work he did collecting scallop meat for a year in order to take this girl out on a date. When he finally took her out he said that it occurred to him that she had no idea how hard he'd worked to be able to take her out. He says, "I remember being struck by the distinct feeling that it wasn't the event for her that it was for me. And I had intended it to be a big deal for her. It became clear in a moment that she just had no idea of the sacrifices a person like me would have to make to take her out" (171). I just remember feeling sad after reading that story. I can visualize the effort that Joe put in, and it's a story that definitely stuck out to me.

When Barbara Peters went for her first weekend home from college, her family told her "not to get too big for her britches," and that she wasn't that much more intelligent than them just because she went to college. This kind of blows my mind and makes me sad at the same time. I just can't imagine being discouraged on my first weekend home from school.

The interview with Anthony Lukas was even more disturbing to me. He almost has no relationship with his family simply because he attended college (65). His father even became violent at one point when Anthony tried to debate his opinion.Once again, I just can't imagine a reaction like this from my parents. Anthony said that he believes that his father was jealous that his son was going places that he couldn't go. My father is so proud of me for being in college. He wasn't able to go when he was young because there wasn't enough money for him to go. That is probably one of the things that he's been most happy about in his life, the fact that I was able to go to college.

I think that this book does such a good job of accurately describing what it must be like for people in the middle - in limbo. The interviews provided so many perspectives and stories. I thought it was very interesting when the author brought up the perspective of working class parents who have middle class children. Children who didn't have to work for as much as their parents did, or children who just had much more than their parents did. I imagine that having middle class children when you're from the working class might be bittersweet. I can see how the parents would be happy that they'd been able to provide many things for their children, and sad if they feel that their children don't appreciate the hard work it took to get there, sort of like Joe Terry's date story.

Lubrano's Limbo made me consider more things about class than I already had. So many examples and perspectives were given. Each one made me understand a little more about being a straddler. I think it's a tough position to be in whether it's with your family, at school, with peers, or with love interests. Someone in an earlier blog mentioned that their father was planning on reading the book, I was telling my dad some of the things that Lubrano and the interview subjects said - and he also plans on reading the book! After reading I remember feeling happy about where I came from (believe me - not upper class! Haha) and very happy to have the parents that I do.

Straddling Is Stressful!

Straddling Is Stressful!

First off I want to start by saying I really enjoyed this book. Lubrano did an excellent job of explaining the transition of blue collar to white collar which personal descriptions the whole way. This book was extremely easy to read I found myself wanting to read on because he made such interesting points. My father is actually starting to read it because a number of things he described about his journey and others I feel that my dad can relate to almost exactly.

I love that Lubrano starts is Introduction section of the book with “I am two people” This little phrase examples more than I could have imagined before started to read this book. I never thought of people feeling like that are two different people because of what they came from and where they are now. I love that he ingeniously uses the term “Straddlers” and that they are in “Limbo” to describe the transition between blue collar and what we know of as the middle class. There arnt two better words to explain this phase.

I feel like the majority of this book the blue collar parents’ just want what is best for their children. When he talks about his father being a bricklayer and how his father had build many colleges, condos, and office towers that he wasn’t even allowed in. he says “once the walls were up, a place took on a different feel for him, as though he wasn’t welcome anymore.” I feel like this could represent a lot of the feelings the people had throughout the book. Also he talks about when the white collar kids of blue-collar parents look or a place of work they are looking for a career not a job. I feel like this message is powerful because a lot of the blue collared parents (same as his dad) just wanted their kids to have a job, an income no matter what. The children, on the other hand, wanted a career no matter what the money which is were there could be a misunderstanding. He said his dad told him “Make as much money as you can, to pay for as good a life you can get.” Obviously his dad just wants him to be well off, but he wanted different things out of his career not just the money. I feel like these were a perfect example of his “clash of values” because the kids from their parents just have different values.

Straddlers for me is an impactful word because it is the truth. When interviewing the author lets us know that many of these people feel that they don’t know how to act when in certain worlds. Such as under the Office Politics the author gives examples of how his father would react to certain situation and he is trying to tell his father that in the office you cant do that. For example, his dad says “Next time, you grab the guy by the throat, push him against the wall, and tell him he’s a big fat jerk.” Obviously this would never work in the office, but his father doesn’t understand that. Also of the interviewees were straddlers for not know how to act or changing even their tone of voice when with certain people.

When the book talks about Identity changing and how college corrupts, I can really get a feel for how these people feel. I agree that as the book says “College is where the Great Change begins.” I truly feel that if someone is from a blue collar family and they are pushing themselves to go to college they are already changing. They have different goals and dreams so they are already becoming these “Straddlers.” When Greg Andrews the history professor says, “Every bit of learning takes you further from your parents” I agree with this statement to a degree. My father was the first and only member of his family to go to college and graduate and his parents could not understand him. I feel like to this day they still to not understand his accomplishment because his parents and siblings’ cant relate so they don’t understand. Is this true in all cases? No, but I am sure it is for a lot of people and the few examples in this book.

As a whole I thought this book was really good. I like that it opened my eyes to certain things I may have overlooked in the past and raise some very good points. Now I find myself wondering do the “straddlers” every get comfortable in each side or will they always have the stress of not completely fitting into one or both sides? Can the blue-collared parents ever truly understand their white collared kids? Will they always feel like they are two people?

lets all straddle in this world together

i found this book to be much easier to read then the Fussel book. it was interesting to hear about all the success stories that these straddlers lived through, and also the pain that came with this success. many of these people that Lubrano interviewed had shattered relationships with their family for years, and with some of them for life. i'm reminded about Maria who had a father who told the relatives that his daughters would be going to college when they where younger, but when she was old enough to head out and her parents found out that she was going, her family took it as betrayal to the family. her mother exploded at her saying "what did you do?" like she just helped commit murder or something. she told Lubrano that she was only accepted again slightly when she was 54 years old and she moved back close to the family teaching at some local school. another story was dot's, the young black girl aspiring to become something better then herself, she had a talent in her writing and even had a voice to charm the record companies to make a deal with her. though her mother would have nothing of it, thinking that since she was a black girl that she shouldn't get her dreams up high enough just so they can be knocked down. finally when she was working on her masters and was asked to write i auto biography, and after talking to her mother about this, she prayed over her heavy heart. finally her mother had apologized for all the trouble that she had cast upon her daughter many years ago. with growing up in families that value nothing on education and everything on the work ethic to get you by in life, it's very hard for young aspiring individuals to break out of this "black hole" environment, as lubrano describes it, and become that shining star that they wish to become.

Lubrano also talks about W.E.B. DeBois' notion of the Double Conscious. This idea focuses mainly on the African American culture and their struggle to either assimilate into the white American culture, or keep their African heritage. in a sense they are both, much in the way that lubrano describes the stragglers, struggling between two cultures but not fully immersed into one. i thought that bringing this idea up was a good correlation between the sense of being both working-class, but then also having your foot into the middle-class. not sure of where you fit in, and leaving some ideologies behind in order to fit into the new world.

another thing that stood out in my mind was the story of Michael who was a devote christian, and came from a very traditional christian family. as a boy he was a leader in the church giving passionate speeches and sermons, and his family and community were very proud of him. well he started to follow a girlfriend to her college classes, sometimes the main reason why guys get up and actually do something (one reason why i got into choir way back in the day), and he enjoyed the classes so much he started to take them himself. he started to take many philosophical classes and classes on evolution. he noticed that he was starting to open up his beliefs and started to question his religious ones, posing philosophical questions to the sunday school children about life. almost Kantian questions asking about the abstract of reality. the parents went crazy and started regarding him as an outcast. one day his mother came to his church on campus while he was working on his graduate degree. this was a nondenominational church with a full contemporary service, and when his mother heard the guitar music playing in the church she broke down. eventually she blamed his girlfriend for leading him into an educated life and away from god. to wrap it up, he is now agnostic (good choice in my opinion) and when he got married to his fiancee they decided to have a judge marry them instead of a priest. which you can only imagine how his family reacted to that.

just a few things to think about:

~ how do you think the Double Conscious affects the relationships that the straddlers have to deal with as they progress up in the world.

~do you think the more scientific knowledge you obtain, the more you are driven away from religion (or at least the mainstream religions. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)

~do you think that the "Black Hole" families are afraid to lose their long standing traditions, or do you think it is more of a fear that they will feel inferior to their children.

also if i can find the article, i'm going to post a link to W.E.B DeBois' Double Conscious article so you can check that out if you'd like. i'm finding articles about his article, but not his article. so i e-mailed a previous prof. to see if he'll e-mail me a link.

Sometimes you have to fake it til’ you make it!

Working Girl exposes only a fraction, of the reality, of what it really cost to make your way up the social chain in America. In the film, two social class are represented, the working class and the upper class business professionals. The main character Tess is of the working class and her super objective is to become a professional business women. Her class was revealed by the way she dress (style of clothes, jewelry, make-up, and hair), her friends, how she talked, employment history, and educational institution. What I love most is about Tess character is her ambition, her determination to accelerate in life. She was confident in the direction in which was going in life. She made the decision not to be pigeonholed or weighed down with the life that society “suggested” for her. It was very clear in the when Tess told Cyn that, she was taking her own direction in effort to trying to make her life better -- “I am not going to spend the rest of my life working my ass off getting nowhere just because I followed rules that I didn’t set up.” One of the things that I pointed out in this in particular scene was the attitude that Cyn had towards some of Tess career decisions life style changes. Cyn played the supportive role but in this scene she was a little unsure about Tess’s vision in life. She even said to her, “Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear—doesn’t make me Madonna—never will.” I felt that that statement was a direct blow at Tess overall life objective, suggesting that Tess was trying to be something that “she’s not.” It attitude is often times common for friends and family members see you stepping outside of traditional boundaries, going after something that has never been done before. There was a young woman from Kentucky, In People Like Us, who went through the same thing with her family after she made the decision to move to Washington D.C to following her dreams come becoming a writer. She talks about the rejection that she suffers from her family because she chose to live beyond the social class that she was raised.

Name dropping and fashion were other things that I saw in the film working to mimic the lifestyles of the rich and successful. While Tess is stripping Katherine ski boots, she is giving her the details about her hotel room. When Katherine finds out that is it’s a first floor room she is light-weight disgusted, she goes, “Did you give them my name?” I thought it was funny because upper class people go far the penthouse suite; an expensive and comfortable top floor room, or something exclusive and secluded. Whereas, middle class people and especially lower class people go for the most affordable/cheapest, the one closest to the exit so it’s not too much of a hassle transporting luggage. Throughout Tess transition from rags to riches she really began to adopt the look of a successful business woman. When she walked into her first business meeting with bulk accordion folder with the rubber around it, I felt really bad for her because in that atmosphere, it just screams poor. I never realized how something as simple as not carrying a briefcase to business meeting, gives of a look of inadequacy, a lack there of. :-/ High fashion tailored clothing are a part of the upper class wardrobe and the accessories that help fit the part, especially amongst the business professional. Upper class professional women have a classy, very elegant, timeless look. The film revealed that some women have no as to what a timeless look, looks like until they are confronted or taught, like Tess. However, I think Tess was full of class to begin with. She at least faked it until she made it.

In this class the discussion of rather or not, class means money or is it a state of mine comes up a lot. Based on this movie has your opinion changed or has it stayed the same? Is class achievable?

I'm not gonna spend the rest of my life working my ass off and getting nowhere just because I followed rules that I had nothing to do with setting up!

I chose this quote from the movie as my title because I felt like it best summed up the issues of social class we have been discussing thus far in our blogs. I found this film very interesting because it effectively illustrated a hierarchy of men and women through a business deal that was completely realistic. In the beginning of the film we are introduced to Tess, a secretary by day and a college student by night. As she turns 30, her dream remains unrealized; because her education was not acquired at a prestigious school, she cannot gain entry to her firm's training program for recent college graduates. Ironically a topic that we all seemed to want to discuss after reading Fussell’s book last week, her boss tells her she didn’t wasn’t as qualified as those who graduated from “Harvard and Morgan”. I felt this was a cliché example in the film of Fussell’s “college swindle”. Are the diplomas from the colleges and universities such as the examples used in this film actually “better” than one from any other school in America, or have the members of society placed these stereotypes over the years by using their names in situations such as this movie? The only way anyone would for sure know if a degree from Harvard was actually “more beneficial” than a degree from NKU would be to attend each college for the same degree. Although that is unrealistic, I truly believe that we have chalked up so many of these “prestigious” institutions over the years and that we should take some of the blame for the fact that one colleges name versus another colleges name at the top of your diploma can ACTUALLY make or break your chances at receiving a job that you are equally qualified for.

Next I want to address the issue of money and position we see in this film. At the beginning Tess was a lower/middle class citizen. Taking the ferry and walking to work every day where we see her serve those higher than her in the company, all while she wastes the talent we later find out she possesses to achieve great things. Once the incident with Katharine occurs is where I felt the movie started to unfold and we see the horrors of money and social class start leaking out. Tess knew a person like “her” would never be heard by any of the people she wanted to meet with to discuss her new radio idea. When she fell into Katharines position and wardrobe at work, she was set. It amazed me how differently she was treated once she cut her hair and started to wear clothes with $6,000 price tags on them. For the most part she was a very smart and confident woman throughout the film, but didn’t feel until she received a title higher than “secretary” could she meet and discuss her ideas with the presidents of the other companys. In a way she was being coached by the woman that we witnessed in People Like Us. She quickly adapted to the dress, workplace and social events of the upper class. She cut her hair, wore designer clothes, looked more confident at work and was attending weddings and other business events that she originally wouldn’t have ever been invited to. This movie was a great example in showing the social class you are associated with can easily be changed. All it takes is nicer clothes, a better job and getting to know the who’s who among the crowd you are trying to fit in with. I tried and tried to find pictures of Tess from the beginning of the movie to the end but didn’t have any luck but I’m sure you are all able to picture the difference.

In the end this movie didn’t fail to aggravate me once again. The underlying message of this film really pissed me off just thinking about how often something like this I’m sure really happens. How many times in the workplace situations and ideas like Tess’s get stolen every day by people “higher” in ranking than her and they never get credit for it. And just because of their rank in the company they get away with it, how right is that? Sure the Katharines of the work world may have gone to Harvard but it’s the Tess’s from NKU that have the ideas that change the world! J

Trust and the Two-Way Street

Working Girl is a classic study in class structures in a modern world. The amount of one-liners alone that represent the very strict appearance that the class structure represents is astonishing – “I’d love to help you, but you can’t busy the quarterback with passing out the Gatorade.” “You can bend the rules plenty once you get to the top, but not while you're trying to get there. And if you're someone like me, you can't get there without bending the rules.” “I'm not gonna spend the rest of my life working my ass off and getting nowhere just because I followed rules that I had nothing to do with setting up, OK?”

Okay, so maybe, as a film, it could have been better directed, and I, personally, could have done without Carly Simon. But throughout, the question of class saturated the plot. For instance, the concept of the two-way street: Katherine’s way of offering parity to Tess, at least ostensibly. Tess finds herself believing that she can move forward as long as she trusts in Katherine, whom she sees as her ticket to a better life. Yet unwittingly, Katherine inspires her with the idea that as long as she’s willing to make something happen and not wait for it to happen, her life will work out. Or rather, she’ll “get what she wants.” Yet it’s only when Katherine betrays Tess’s trust, lying about her radio idea, that Tess begins to really listen to the ideas that her upper-class guide put into her head. That’s irony, right there. Who doesn’t like irony?

And not only that, it applies directly to what we’ve discussed about the idea of “fitting in” with the upper class. Right off the bat, Katherine doesn’t seem to think that Tess, a lower-class secretary, could possibly have come up with a solid business idea. As she begins to accept that it was Tess’s idea, she nevertheless grabs it, and tries to run with it as her own. Even if Katherine really does believe that Tess’s idea won’t be accepted if it’s pitched as coming from her secretary, she’s really doing nothing to help Tess by pretending she came up with the idea on her own. This seems obvious to say, but I worry that there’s some argument that would say, “Well, if Katherine doesn’t propose it as her own, the idea gets canned, and nobody wins.” In a pragmatic reality totally devoid of any sort of ethics or principles, yes, I can see that, but...

I suppose I shouldn’t argue with myself, least of all about ethics.

In any case, some of us, myself included, have had some trouble reconciling the idea that there was an upper class lifestyle to along with the economic fact of being upper class, and that to move upward in class one would have to somehow become a part of that lifestyle. We’ve talked about the Fairy Godmother that guides one into their new place in life, and said that it would pretty much take that (a Fairy Godmother) to really be upper class. Yet in this film, the Fairy Godmother tries to screw Cinderella over, and Cinderella has to work her way in by herself. Or perhaps it’s Jack’s character that’s really the Fairy Godmother? What do you think? Obviously Tess’s business plan doesn’t work without Jack’s support, but the plan never happens at all without Tess’s initial ambition, and willingness to take a risk.

Another issue I ran in to with this film was the first and simplest question that it raises: how likely is this story? Can a lower-class person with a good idea have that idea heard, one way or another? Or do they need a liaison to the upper class? Have you ever experienced something like this, especially in the financial world? I don’t deal much in business myself, and find the white collar a bit itchy, but I’ve worked in food service long enough to know that there are very real disparities in the way the classes are perceived. Maybe it’s just me generalizing people, but I almost always have a good idea whether someone grew up poor, middle class, or upper-middle class. Could a story like Tess’s actually happen, or would she stick out like a drunk teenager (or, if you like, a sore thumb)? Jack seems to think that Tess is out of place when he first meets her at the open bar, although he doesn’t know, because she’s acting the part. She nearly slips up and blows her cover as she gets drunker (more drunk?), but she maintains a measure of presence of mind, and actively tries to hide her origins. Is her story at all likely? Why or why not?

A couple of things, in closing, to think about:

· Tess’s night-school degree marks her as lower class before fifteen minutes pass in the film, but isn’t brought up again at all, even when she’s exposed as being lower class.

· Tess’s character becomes more refined and, let’s be honest, attractive over the course of the film. Her hair changes, her jewelry changes, her accent starts to disappear, her clothes change. Why would the director make that choice while filming?

· Was that really Alec Baldwin?

· Katherine’s character carries the implication of having slept her way to the top throughout the film.

· We get very little background on Jack, but we’re obviously supposed to like him (has Harrison Ford ever played a bad guy?). He’s a hard-working guy who gets hung up on ethical questions – why vilify Katherine and glorify Jack?

· Is Katherine the only villain in the film? Why is she the villain?

· This is probably less relevant than I think it is, but did you notice that the people catering the wedding reception were all black? Another director’s choice – what does it say?

No One Ever Got Rich Over Estimating What The American Public Wants To Taste!

(I decided to post early because there is five blogs you all will have to comment on and it may be more convenient time wise for you:)

The movie Working Girl can be related to what we have already been discussing about this past week on social class. This movie provides great representation of what we have seen in People Like Us and read in Fussell’s book about the differences between social classes.
I believe Tess makes up the lower middle class of Staten Island. She lives in a small apartment with her boyfriend, rides the Staten Island Ferry to work, uses taxis, or walks to where she wants to go. Like most females in her office, Tess works a typical lower ranking job, as a secretary for two male managers that hardly have time to see her or care about what she says. Tess is educated, friendly, and well known at work but she cant seem to get into the Entrée Program. In the movie her managers think it is because she is “up against Harvard and Morgan grads” and her five years of night schooling, honors degree, secretarial time, and Christian Lyons Test don’t measure up to get her the job she wants. Here it is evident that Tess may have been over looked possibly because they employer has pinpointed her into a certain class and does not like how or where she has obtained her higher education from.
Katherine Parker is an upper middle class woman who is at the top of her department, mergers and acquisitions, at the firm Petty Marsh. When she arrives the office grows silent, the workers scramble to get back to their desks, and sit down to look like they are working. Katherine seems to have her head on straight, enjoys spending her money, boss’s people around, establishes ground rules, enjoys looking attractive, and likes impressing her other male colleagues.
Tess lands a new secretarial job for Katherine and discovers how different it is than what she is used to. This is the first time Tess has worked for a woman, been encouraged to share her thoughts, and viewed a manager as a possible mentor. Katherine never asks Tess about her educational background or about other secretarial experiences but instead expects Tess to do her job well, and live up to the standards she expects. Katherine believes Tess should be, “ tough when it’s wanted, accommodating when you can be, accurate, punctual, and never make a promise you cant keep.” She views Tess as “Her link to the outside world” suggesting Tess must handle the little people and make Katherine look good while doing it. Katherine persuades Tess to accept the same views she has on life by saying things like, “watch me Tess, learn from me,” and “ You don’t get anywhere in this world by waiting for what you want to come too you, you make it happen!” The way Katherine talks to Tess reminds me of the lady in People Like Us-How to Marry the Rich and how she was telling the other women how to dress, act,stand ect.
After Katherine’s skiing accident Tess soon learns how an upper middle class woman often lives. In the movie Tess walks around Katherine’s house admiring her possessions such as her artwork, make up, exercise bike, jewelry, and clothing. Her friend Cyn equally becomes mesmerized by the house the big chandelier, and how much one of the dresses costs. Tess moves into the house and begins living her life as if she is in a higher class, which allows other people to view her differently- just like people in Fussell's book. Mick even tells her she looks “different and classy” when he sees her at the engagement party. She wears Katherine’s expensive clothing, says things that Katherine typically would, and even goes to two events Katherine is invited to. She even uses what she has learned from Katherine to attract a handsome investment broker and says things like, “I have a head for business and a body for sin.” She doesn't think twice about going to see Mr. Trask at his daughters wedding reception, just so she can get her foot in the door. Showing up to the Union Club and being in the presence of Owen Trask seems to overwhelm her.
At the end of the movie Tess learns that her true job as Katherine’s secretary may not have even allowed her to present her idea. Katherine makes a big deal by storming into their meeting and stating “She is my secretary!” This alone shocks everyone and Mr. Trask is embarrassed because a secretary has tricked him.
Tess identifies her class and low ranking job by telling Jack “ If he knew she was a secretary he would have never booked a meeting with her.” She even tells Owen Trask, “ Well no one was going to listen, not to me. I mean you can bend the rules plenty when you get upstairs, but not while your trying to get there, and if your someone like me, you cant get there without bending the rules.”
This movie gives pure examples of the different individuals that make up the hierarchy of business and of social class. One newly recent reality show, Undercover Boss, is the complete opposite of the overall just of this movie. High Executives of a particular company are disguised and are put to work in the companies lower ranking jobs. These executives learn how the employees are treated and how dangerous, and hard these jobs are for individuals. At the end of the show they often reveal the true identity of these executives and they make changes to their company that benefit the little people that make things happen.If you haven't seen this show I would recommend it.-Sunday night's on CBS (channel 12) @ 9p.m.

Social Class..Can't be Avoided

"Class: A Guide through the American Status System" is about the many different levels of class in the American society. The book is about what really makes up class characteristics. This book was very amusing; I had a hard time reading it because it seemed to frustrate me mostly. Paul Fussell talks about how class is exposed everyday by what we do, say, and own. He thoroughly describes the customs and symbols of the American class system through nine classes in which you can clearly identify which one you belong too. In his description of the nine social classes the one that I found most interesting was the "Top out of Sight" class. These are the Billionaires and Millionaires who are so wealthy they can have enough money to buy their own privacy. We never see them because they seclude themselves from the world. They live in the houses where you can't see from the streets. I would never want to be apart of this class system, because these specific people don't want to be apart of the outside world. There are so few of them in that specific class system that they do not fit in with the inner society, and the inner society doesn't accept them because they feel like there better than everyone, wouldn't have anything in common with the people, and have different values and morals.

He argues that class has nothing to do with money and is more about how one is raised and how one perceives them self. In his book, Fussell states how each social class portrays themselves even though economically there are only two classes, the rich and the poor. He says that people of lower social class tend to believe that class is defined by the amount of money you have. The middle class believe that money has something to do with it, but they believe that education and the type of job you have is equally important as well. Then there is the upper class, who believe that the necessary criteria for such social class is the taste they perceive, their values, the clothes they wear, and the behavior in which they act. To the upper class, the amount of money they are making and the education they received isn’t as important as the necessary criteria the author stated. I think that when it comes to defining what social class you belong too, that it can't just be about how much money you have, because no one knows for certain how much money you make, and that’s personal. It is very difficult to escape, culturally from the class into which you were born. It's hard to be someone your not, and to act "rich" just to fit in.
Fussell compares the life of two different families and the two different families are completely different, but are making the exact same income. The income they are making is equivalent to that of a garage mechanic. The difference between the families is that one family lives their life like an upper middle class family. There living room is full of bookshelves; they drink fancy drinks daily and shop in the city, but the only reason they are living their life like this is because they want to be seen as rich. It was so important for that family to come off as wealthier than they really are, because they want everyone to view them as "rich" rather than just "average". It proves that families with the same income can have nothing in common and live life completely different. Just as the example that I just stated, Fussell discusses living within a certain social class because of preference.
It makes you wonder why people choose to live their life as if they are rich. The part that frustrated me the most was when he described the difference between social classes by the way they sit and stand. "Upper -middle class tend to have controlled precise movements. The way they use their arms and where their feet fall is dramatically different from lower-middle class people, who tend to swing their arms out rather than hold them closer to their bodies". Are we stereotyping someone because of the way they sit and move their arms? Does that mean if you don't have controlled arm movements you're not living in an upper-middle class society? Fussell goes into great depth about the social class system in the American society. He goes into great detail about the middle class and provides examples about the differences between the middle class compared to the upper class. I never realized how our society operates and interconnects with each other.

Everyone has an Opinion, Everyone Counts...

When reading the book Class: A Guide Through The American Status System, I would have to agree with Bridget, I would be lying if I sat here and blogged about how wonderful this book was. I had a hard time reading it, but the author Fussel, did make some interesting points. One of my favorite points he made in the book is when he said "Actually, you reveal a great deal about your social class by the amount of annoyance or fury you feel when the subject is brought up." I never even thought about it that way. It would have never crossed my mind that peoples actions and the way they respond to the matter can detect what social class you are from. For example, in the book, he said that the upper class people love talking about it, they love the attention that they receive. It makes complete sense to me, that some upper class people present themselves in a way, so that you know they are upper class, nothing less. Whereas the lower class people are upset and furious when talking about social status. I just really thought this was interesting and I'm wondering now that I'm aware of this, If I will notice peoples reactions.

Of course money is a way to define what social class you are. I think we all know this and we are all aware of the way some people present themselves when they have a lot of money. It is sad to think that our society is solely based on money, especially when our economy is struggling. Fussel also states that "in the middle, people grant that money has something to do with it, but think education and the kind of work you do almost equally important".I would have to agree with this statement, maybe because I would classify myself in the middle class. I am lucky enough that my parents could afford to send me to college and pay for my education, so I can be successful and make a living for myself and one day my family. I have heard the saying: "just get the piece of paper ( a degree) and you'll be fine". Is this really true considering todays economy? How many college graduates are graduated and still don't have a job?

Another thing I want to comment on is when a Boston blue collar man is talking about when he thinks of a really rich man he thinks about the estates and the house that you can't see from the road. Fussel calls this " the class in hiding". They like to be the house away from the street or on the islands. In a way, how can you fault them? I can see why this can be considered as " the class in hiding" but in a way, they seem to be minding their own business. How can you fault them? Who are we to judge if they have worked hard and have deserved there estates?

I'm sure each of us think of social class in different ways and probably interpreted this book in many ways. I think we think that we understand social class because of how were we were raised and what social class we were born into. Will we ever truly understand each meaning of each social class? Probably not and I think that is OK. A quote I want to leave you with is another one by our Author, Fussel: ..." It is very difficult to escape, culturally, from the class into which you have been born" What do you think?

Class: Background Noise or Elephant in the Room?

This entry is in response to the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System by Paul Fussell. I would be lying if I said I enjoyed this book but I would be wrong to leave out some of the pertinent and interesting material covered by the author. I spent much of the reading fighting off annoyance and disgust and yet searching for something to validate what I was reading to be of value. 'Know thy enemy as thyself' isn't just a cliche but also an approach to the study of social class in America, according to the author's assertion that though we are bound to social inequalities it doesn't mean that we can't study them. It is with this notion I strongly agree. Yet our modern world is changing rapidly and the common theme of social class distinction, as a political torch to be carried, is inspiring mob mentality with each side wildly bashing the other and eager to join in on the beating. So I find the issue of social class much like the author does, a touchy one. Yet the author fails to discuss this. Is the study purely academic or is there a hidden cost behind these revelations? I think there is a cost we are not prepared to pay.


The author states, "...we lack a convenient system of inherited titles, ranks and honors, and each generation has to define the hierarchies all over again." I cant think of a more appealing way to deal with social class than this. Each generation or few generations have the opportunity to do things differently. We are not bound by the constructs of titles, royalty and rank in the same way other societies are bound. We can start anew, constantly reworking the system ideally to achieve optimal social identities. It is this very system of which I am so proud to be a part of. I simply can't imagine being born without the possibility or dream of improving my own or my family's lot in life. I can't imagine the rigidity of inherited titles and royalty with no hope of aspiring to anything different than your father's occupation. Yet in this country there is that possibility. But this author would have you believe it is an unachievable dream to which we are all victims of belief. I suppose one could agree if the goal to achieve was to belong to the upper echelon of old money, but it is greater aspirations we should have in mind. Why should we think it would be any easier to infiltrate a group of old money socialites or a tight knit group of cerebral physicists? Sometimes you simply can't have everything your way even if you are beautiful, rich, powerful or famous. Life in any form does not permit you all of your heart's desires. A socialite may thrive in her own environment yet she must convince herself that it is beneath her to socialize with a chemist or a mountain climber because she can't compete. The same can be said if she is trying to fit in with a group of men, there are always going to be things that separate each of us from another and yet we can still find common bonds to tie many of us together. Still we would be silly to imagine that our efforts would ever rid us of class or inequalities. That is a Utopian dream and a socialist's impossibility. It is far more logical to deal in realities.


The realities are that we are flawed and are unable to produce anything that is not flawed. That doesn't mean we should give up and go home but there is a certain amount of humility that comes with knowing our own limitations. No one prospers through blind ignorance. It is just that each of us wants to belong somewhere and our nature has favored our preservation through exclusion. As the author pointed out repeatedly and in far too great detail, there are distinctions we make between ourselves and others. These distinction consider hair, weight, speech, clothing, skin, jewelry, shoes, money, job, family name, car, parents, breed of dog, neighbors, the way we walk, where we vacation and so many more. I do find these distinctions frivolous but none of use can consider ourselves immune to them all. I accept that life does not guarantee me all that I wish for and I know that this applies to everyone regardless of class. Life is what you make of it and money doesn't buy happiness are just cliches but real life wisdom. It wouldn't hurt us to remember the lessons of those before us. Are we so arrogant to think we have all the answers?

Harsh Reality

This film really showcased the harsh reality of social class. I was completely aware of some of the differences in social class, but I guess I had never seen them presented as they were in this film. Some of the interviews, comments, and viewpoints were absolutely infuriating! I'm not sure of the backgrounds of the other students in this class, but some comments were truly offensive to me. I'm very proud of my background and to see others belittle an individual's accomplishments based on their lack of "class" or material posessions really upset me. At one point in the film a British woman said she would never drive a Volvo. Then she said, "I 'd certainly never drive a Ford, it's probably stolen!" That statement offended me! I can't tell you how many people that I know who drive Fords.

In the beginning of the film a picture of an older gentleman is shown to several people. Their reactions were unbelievable to me. One of the reactions that stuck with me through the end of the film was, "He's definitely lower class, look at the screen door behind him." I guess that bothered me so because I have a screen door, my parent's have a screen door, most of my friends and family do as well. Ouch! That hurt. It is never fun to look at where you come from and to feel like you are worth less somehow because you aren't born into wealth and privilege.

Another offensive comment came from the woman about to be married. When she talked about how much lower her fiance was, it disgusted me. I thought, "How embarassing for him. How could he possibly marry someone who truly considered herself to be so much better than him?" Her statement about police officers being low class made me so angry! I've personally experience people like this, and it never fails to repulse me.

I'm from a very rural area and Tammy's story spoke to me. It almost brought me to tears to see a woman trying so hard just to get by. Instead of taking the easy way out and living off of government support, Tammy walked 10 miles to work every day. I have met many people in Tammy's situation and I was proud watching her. She has pride and she refuses to lower her expectations for herself by giving up on work, giving up on her dreams of going to college, or giving up on her children. Tammy's son could have easily been perceived to be kind of a jerk, but I felt very sorry for him. He was obviously very insecure about his home, his family, and himself. Years of poverty and rejection have taught him that he must be different from his family in order to be accepted, so he rejects his family almost completely. It truly broke my heart to hear his mother say, "really - he's in the same class I am. He's just trying to prove to his friends that he's in their class, but I know different."

The section of the film titled How to Marry the Rich was, for me, almost painful to watch. It seemed absurd to watch a "self help consultant" make a profit from teaching an outsider "how to fit in" with a class that's nearly impossible to fit into if you're not born into it. The woman, the beneficiary of these lessons, seemed desperate to me. I know that I'm judging her, but I just can't understand paying a person to try to teach you to fit in. Most of the interviews with wealthy people showed a sort of snarky criticism towards those "beneath them." It almost hurt to watch the woman be hopeful about the lessons she was learning because in my heart I feel like no matter what that woman did with her life, she probably never truly fit in to the class that she so desperately wanted to be a part of.

One author asked, "is it possible to ever change social class successfully?" He answers his own question by saying, "I don't think so. I think that you are for a lifetime in the class in which you grew up." I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, but in most instances, I would bet that he's correct.

I think that for some people the most cruel, harsh reality of the American dream is that you CAN'T always move up and fit in. We're taught as children that we can be anything that we want to be if we work hard enough. We're taught that anything is possible. So in a way this video could be sort of heartbreaking if you still believed that you could make lots of money and become part of the upper class. In reality, no matter how much money you make, you'll probably always be judged by the class above you. Either you haven't had your money long enough, you don't spend it the right way, or you don't come from the right family.

"You're 50 yrs old and still worried about what your friends think." What's class got to do with it?

I haven’t had a whole lot of classes that focused on social issues or class issues. I took sociology my first semester and pretty much glided through the class without picking up a whole lot of information from it. Other than that the only class I can remember that I’ve taken that addressed social issues was my Africana Philosophy class, and this class focused more on racial issues and racial identity then a social class issue. So by watching People Like Us: Social Class in America, it opened my eyes to the social struggle that happens throughout our country and how bad it actually is. I’ve been aware about the different social classes in America but I’ve never thought about it being a detrimental part of America and still used as an oppressive construct in our society.

In the first section of this film, Bud or Bordeaux, I was really taken in by the argument in Vermont. The argument the town got into was over what food company they would build in the town to serve their citizens, and their options were between a supermarket chain and a small environmentally conscious specialty store. The problems that arose between the two were that the supermarket supplied a great selection of food at a reasonable price but the specialty food supplied a healthier selection of food and better quality food for a higher price. Many of the people in the town were lower income families who couldn’t afford the higher priced food items, and people were arguing over which brands should be supplied for items as simple as bread. An interesting statistic that they pulled was that Americans consume about five loaves of white bread for every one loaf of wheat bread. Growing up on wheat bread myself, and the fact that I can’t stand white bread due to the insufficient nutritional value of the “bread,” I found this quote to be quite shocking. I was highly amused though at the elderly lady who described what was in white bread and her facial reactions as she explained that it was just starch, egg, and I think milk. The town meeting was also an interesting part of the film where one of the council members was trying to explain the pros of the smaller food store, and the elderly citizens that were there were arguing back quite furiously. This whole debate just opens your eyes to how much our food implies where we fit in our society, and it’s sad how some people will look down on others when they see what kind of food someone else consumes.

The next section was call High and Low and what captivated me in this section was the WASP, the White Angelo-Saxton Protestant class. This whole part really bugged me, pardon the pun. The WASP’s just seems to be an elitist class of society and you can only get into it if you were born into it or if you were able to obtain a vast amount of money and are able to pretty much train yourself to act like them. It’s almost like an old style of an aristocratic system born in modern America. A high brow group of people that go to balls, plays golf, and has rich people gatherings. They seemed to marry only other WASP’s and looked down on anyone trying to get into the society that could not, or would not “fit.” It really annoyed me when the main white WASP gentleman doing the interviews described an event he went to where he seen a WASP couple having a good time dancing but he described them as not being aesthetically pleasing enough to even be a part of WASP. He was wondering how they got in and thought that the standards of being a WASP were getting to low. It was just really blatant discrimination on the sole basis of appearance.

Also in this section they talked about the Jack and Jill club. This seemed to be a Who’s Who club for young aspiring black students, which seems to be like it could be a good thing, but it turned out to be nothing more then just one more way to separate different student and place them into different class structures. One of the things that they talked about is how some of the graduating students from this club would look at the yearbook for that year to see who would be going off to the same college they were going so they may be able to maybe match up with them and court them; making sure they were dating someone of a higher class, and making sure they married up. On the flip side it showed a group of mothers talking about the program and one of them asked a friend, who had a child in the program, about getting her an application so she could enroll her daughter, and her friend completely blew her off. So this program became just one more thing for some of the lower class black Americans to hurdle over to “feel accepted.”

The third section was called Salt of the Earth, and if I remember correctly I think the story on Tammy was in this section but I will focus on another story since Alexandrea already expanded quite nicely on this story. There was a young woman who grew up in KY, southern I think since they were saying they were an hour away from Nashville, on a farm with her family. She went to college for writing, went to Washington DC, and wanted to raise herself up in the social class and become a writer. Since she was a small town girl, and always has her small town niches, she has a little trouble assimilating into the big city society. Now since she left her hometown and tried to make something of herself, she is also almost treated as an outcast in her home town just because she left. Some of her old friends and even family feel abandoned. One thing that was stated was a quote that they used which was she “got above her raison.” This meant that she tried to fit into a social class higher then her up bringing. When she visits home now her dad won’t even talk about what she does in DC, it just makes him too uncomfortable to talk about it. This notion by itself is sad, since within their own family they’re letting class relations sour their family relationship.

The last section is titled Belonging, in which this section focused mostly on high school cliques which we’ve all experienced this social outcast system. I was mostly a choir/band geek myself. They conducted many interviews with students from Anderson High School and this was a school with the demography of a higher class of society. They even interviewed a few teachers and some even said it was a little uncomfortable when they drove home and their students had much nicer cars then they did that their parent bought for them. These kids all recognized all the different cliques that were around, and that they mostly hung around others that shared pretty much the same social status as them. Some of the girls said that they would hang out with other kids with social classes outside their, but just never had the chance. In my opinion this is completely conceited, since the opportunity for them is open every single day if they just take some initiative. The girl who made the most sense out of everyone interviewed was the out casted, nerdy girl. She said she didn’t really care what others thought of her, and she didn’t mind if she was by herself as long as she was true to herself. Those are wise words that it’s a shame none of the other people interviewed in that school seemed to portray.

To close this entry I want to just reinstate how this film is an eye opener to the idea of how class affects every single one of us in some of the slightest ways. Some ways may be even subliminal with how we present ourselves, to something as obvious as our material things we like to flaunt. Which I am no exception, I have a leather jacket that I love to wear during cooler weather because it makes me feel more confident. This has been an age old issue from the beginning of human consciousness, and I don’t think we as human beings will ever be free from the idea of a social class structure.

P.S. can you get my title reference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdey7Qa52nM&feature=PlayList&p=C6D871A2A8C3C8EF&playnext=8&playnext_from=PL&index=7