Well, here it is-- the blog you've all been waiting for. My introduction and use of blog sites over the past months has given me enough knowledge to now write a blog on a topic of my own choosing! This blog will highlight the American class system. I'll give a historical backdrop in which others will add their thoughts, add-ons, or conclusions in relation to this topic or subtopics i.e. education, class perception, etc. I want to focus on today's class system, and assimilate politics and education into the equation. Since different classes have historically voted in certain directions (suburban and fiscal Republicans, young and poor, or wealthy, very well educated Democrats), I want to see how you all feel about trends in political ideals and their relationship to class structure. Does one simply vote with his neighborhood? Are high school janitors really worth less to society than corporate CEO's? I want this blog to help redefine the meaning of social hierarchy.
Why is this important? This subject is of pressing importance to me because of the social motives and personal evaluations that go along with this topic. Though social class is undoubtedly framed upon the basis of economic status, contemporary society can benefit from "under-classes", their evaluation of the world, their work ethic, and disregard to fictional sociological facets, i.e. political awareness, citizenship, social function, etc. I believe that there is a lot to be learned, albeit not academic, from our uneducated mothers, store clerks, even the homeless. I am interested in incorporating an academic perspective to unacademic social system that is ubiquitous and sometimes undetectable. Indeed the bottom line of existence is what you pass on to others. It might as well not be idealistically exclusive.
So what do I expect to gain and distribute in this blog? Well, I want there to be a resurgence of an actual culture in America. Does anyone else find it ironic that the counterculture of the 1960s and '70s has the most affect on modern youth than any other time in the past 100 years? The formality in the '60s for people in finally break away from the grey suited, business rigidness of their father's generation eventually led to growth within American culture, almost exclusive in its context. We experienced a public, governmental accreditation of civil rights and equality that only now is being fully realized with a bi-racial president. Indeed I see the future of America not unlike an ideal or civic generation, but a generation of hopeful individual with a clear path for familial success and career prosperity. Isn't this what is really best? But I guess it all stems from a healthy, refreshing outlook on American culture and the cultivation of the seeds our parents once planted in their ambitious youth.
The use of the internet is probably the most vital tool in my hope for this acquisition to happen, however. Equal access of this blog and many others like it allows not only the well educated to weigh in on this topic, but also provides everyone else to add their opinion, and perhaps learn from those who have experienced greater enlightenment in this subject. Please help me in providing a clear focus, maybe even motivation, to those who have no other outlet. Lets recreate a democracy in text, not in a corporate meeting room or in Congress. Contribute your thoughts, be specific, and remember that nothing is off limits.
4 comments:
Neall
This topic has been of general interest to me as well. I decided to explore the topic last year for my state-mandated Senior Exhibition, focusing more specifically on socioeconomics in urban vs. suburban schools. I went to North Kingstown High School in the oh-so-suburban North Kingstown, RI. 97% of my school's student body was white. I decided to spend a few days as a student in an urban high school that highly contrasted my own in terms of ethnic diversity and priviliges. Shea High school is in Providence, RI. It is considered a low-performing school, has high drop-out rates, high teen pregnancy rates, and barely receives enough funding to get by. My job was to observe all these factors from a student's perspective, as best I could.
What I realized is that there's really an explanation for all of this. These students aren't less motivated because the school's test scores are low--most of them don't even SPEAK the language the test is in (but have to take it anyway if in a level 1 ESL class and over the age of 16)!!! These students aren't careless because of the high drop-out rates--many of them are unable to fulfill one-size-fits-all statewide graduation requirements, or must start working full-time to contribute to their families' financial stabilities! And because of the school's low performance and overall low income from taxes around the area, the school will have less of a budget to work with than mine will.
Its so easy to draw faulty conclusions about other social classes and subcultures off of a word like "low-performing." Later in life, these kids will be discriminated against for their lack of education (many will not go to college), which is such a shame. Hopefully one day this country will learn to fully embrace/incorporate the subcultures that give it such vibrancy. Thank you Neall for opening this topic for discussion.
Miranda Black
American University
I think that education and social class structure have a clear relationship; education can effect a person's social and economic standing, but a person's economic standing can also effect his education. While public schools and universities make education available to everyone, there certainly is a flaw in the system.
For my sister's high school senior project, she spent a few days attending an inner-city high school; which varied immensely from our homogenous suburban high school. This inner-city school has students speaking 53 different languages, while almost everyone at my high school spoke English as the first language. As my sister interviewed the students and principal of the school, she saw first-hand the relationships between the quality of education at a school and the school's funding.
Rhode Island has standardized tests that are given to all juniors in all high schools; however, the tests are only available in English. This poses a problem at a school where a large percentage of the students are in ESL classes and still learning English. How are all students expected to accurately represent their knowledge on subject when they first need to worry about getting the language right? These tests do not accurately represent the school or students.
How does this effect the school's funding? The state provides better funding for schools that perform best on these tests. The major flaw of this system is clear at the inner-city school; many of the students cannot do their best on the tests because of the language barrier, although they are by no means less intelligent and would do much better if the test could be taken in their first language. In America, the cultural melting pot, I would hope that different cultures and languages would be taken into consideration in schools. However, as a result, the school receives less funding, further lessening the school's ability to improve their test scores in the future. This situation clearly shows an unfair relationship between funds and quality of education.
Another example of the relationship between economic standing and education is found in the college application process. Although many colleges and universities claim to be need-blind, I have a hard time believing it. On the application for most schools, it asks "will you be a candidate for financial aid?" Why would this matter if a school was need-blind. Why does Bowdoin College only have 43% of its students receiving any financial aid, while UMass Amherst has 78% receiving financial aid? I think a person's economic standing effects his ability to get into some of the best colleges and universities, therefore effecting his education. To me, the correlation between economic standing and education is unfair, but definitely present in today's society.
Even in baboon troops. class structure exists. Even without formalized titles like the human class structures, each baboon knows its place within the class structure. It is innate within all societies to know ones place in the hierarchy.
We also must not forget about how certain schools are feeds into the Ivy League such as Andover, Milton, and Exeter. While others are feeds into universities superior to even the Ivy, namely Eton over in England (feeds into Oxford and Cambridge, both superior to Harvard)
What sort of feeds are the public schools? They are feeds into undemanding community colleges without any influence where they take classes on construction working. Alternatively, if you are academically outstanding then a mediocre college.
How one speaks, what one wears, which schools one attended, and other factors all attest to the rigidness and durability of the class system. Even when you make it to the top economic strata, engine powered fiberglass yachts are a red flag that you are nouveau riche. Yet, if you built a teak sail powered schooner you would be accused of striving and/or affectation (as opposed to having good taste) since you would be passing yourself off as inherited money to avoid the nouveau stigma. Either way you lose.
Of course, I was simply using yachts as a metaphor for something deeper (dressing a butler in tails instead of business casual could have also been used to illustrate the point). That is the top 1% have an obvious desire to "Defend the capital" from "Intruders" and to ensure that the "fake" stays in fake egalitarianism to be used as a carrot and stick technique (e.g.: "If you work hard you too will have a better future for your children" Is anyone really fooled by this propagandon? Especially since working-class positions tend to be hereditary? Also take note of how saving was frowned upon during the great depression (unless, of course, you were upper-class. In which case frugality and saving are virtues) As Einstein said: "Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results")
We must also remember there was an eugenic movement in the 19th century that was a bastard child of the artificially created man-made divisions of "Royalty" "Nobility" and "Commoner" which was justified by the "Divine Rights of King's" since in America there weren't any official titles of nobility (learning from the French Revolution it wouldn't have been wise to have an overt social hierarchy, it had to be subtle. "Equal Justice under the Law" is meant to fool the proletariat into thinking that it's included. However those in the know it only includes WASPs and corporations.)
While public schools are built in order to give the impression of "Giving everybody an education" private schools exist to ensure the rigid social structure remains in tact.
Post a Comment