Social networks, social capital, and social class

Will Barratt

How are social networks related to social class? In the simplest question form, do social networks promote social class movement or do they promote the reproduction of social class. Bourdieu, in Forms of Capital (1986) outlines social capital . "Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group." Social networks are a formalized and structuralized way to create and maintain social capital. A second distinction must be added here, that of prestige social capital. Social capital among one group, for example among membership and leadership in a union, does not have the same utility and prestige as social capital among investment bankers. Both forms of capital serve a purpose, and both groups, the union and the bankers, have access to resources that can be used for mutual advantage. However, the aggregate perceived prestige of the social capital of the bankers is higher than the aggregate perceived prestige of the union members and leaders. Further, the types and amount of resources that each social group has is different in important ways.

To reframe the question: Do people use social networking to create more prestige social capital, enhancing their social capital and consequently their social class. Do people use social netowrking to reinforce their existing social capital, reproducing social class? I believe that the answser to both of these questions is yes. Social networking is a Yes, and . . . activity. I am sure that a close and nuanced look at different types of social networking sights will reveal some important differences. After all, Facebook is different than LinkedIn in many ways.

For me Facebook, and now Google+, are ways to keep in touch with my friends and students. I am friends with most of my former students, and have slowly been adding people from my past with whom I had lost touch, and it is a regular part of establishing new relationships. After a trip to campuses in Thailand I added six new friends on facebook.

For me LinkedIn is odd. My social capital needs are met through FB or email. It is interesting to be in LinkedIn but for me does not increase my social capital. However, I continue to get random requests to be added by people who I don't already know. Perhaps this is the point of LinkedIn, and it is lost on me. I am hardly the international man of mystery, and can hardly enhance someone's social capital, so what advantage is there to others in linking up with me. I can only assume that linking with me enhances their social capital.

Seen from this perspective, email has the advantage as a social network tool. I regularly get notes from people I don't yet know. People are often curious, or occasionally contentious, about what I have written, or what they think I have written, and send me an email. I write back, building a relationship, enhancing both of our social connections and potential capital. I will too will occasionally write to someone who I don't yet know asking a question on their writing and if a relationship emerges, this has enhanced both of our social capital.

I cannot help but have a vision of people intentionally using social networks to build their social capital for personal advantage. I know that this reflects my perception of the function of that social networking software, and reflects my lack of desire to be 'collected' for social capital reasons.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258.

Photos

After listening to really smart people and old friends I recalled the power of image. When you search for images of social class you don't get much that is enlightening.



This is a colleague at a committee meeting at a national conference. The jeans and jacket makes a social class statement. It is a really nice jacket, well tailored and nice fabric.





Blue jeans with a formal shirt, tie and vest. In another era this might have been yuppie-ish, but this is a clear social class message.





Also at a national committee meeting. The jacket was across the chair back. The fabric is some manner of jean material, and the wear is visible on the lapels. Note the Harvard lapel pin that provides interesting social class contrast with the jacket. The personal identity advertisement here is clear.  Is this "Harvard Casual"?





In contrast to the jeans and jacket. This three button suit with the top two buttons done, and the tight Seville Row tailoring makes a social class statement.  This is a "trust me" suit.





Misty is the fictional majority class female student. In this photo she has a smart phone in her hand,  an upscale and attractive backback on her back, flip flops on her feet, is wearing a stylish top and is going to class.  This woman represents many of the stereotypes of the mainstream majority woman student on my campus.









Misty and Marky Majority Student.  This was posted to a Facebook site about a football game.  I read all of this as upscale casual with nice haircuts.



This is another representation of the majority campus social class woman on my campus. I was first taken by her backpack, and the branded water bottle, just barely viable.  I asked her to pose so we could see her and the backpack. This is one of my wonderful graduate students. 




Another student representing the majority mainstream fashion sense for women on my campus.  African American Misty on my campus has her own style that is a little different than European American Misty.  This is also one of my wonderful graduate students.

I have updated this on 11/11/11 to add the photos here.


These images are also at:  
https://picasaweb.google.com/114191390355712924920/SocialClassImages


If you have photos that you would like to send along and have posted, that would be great.

“People talk about class because they don’t want to talk about race.”

Will Barratt

I hear this regularly from people. It is partially true from one perspective. It is certainly true from another perspective. If you believe that the discussion should be totally about race, then this is an appropriate criticism of discussions of class. It should not pass the readers notice that if you believe that the discussion should be totally about gender, then replace “race” with “gender”, and it is certainly true. It is also true that for many people a discussion about class is easier than a discussion about race or a discussion about gender. Discussions about race and gender come with lots of baggage, accusations, recriminations, and otherwise negative experiences. No wonder some people don’t want to go there. I find that a discussion about class is a good place to start a discussion about race and gender. This is what brings me to my current response to this attitude.

“People talk about race and gender because they don’t want to talk about diversity.”

A conversation about diversity is a very different conversation than one about race. A conversation about diversity is very different than a conversation about gender. A conversation about diversity is very different than a conversation about class. While it is important to know something about gender, about ethnicity, and about class, it is really important to know something about diversity.

“Not mine, not yours, ours.”

Designer label colleges.

Will Barratt

While I was writing this morning on the chapter on prestige and class I realized that college rankings, all about money, are the same simple system that consumers get from designer labels. More expensive is better, more well recognized is better. Who needs to know more? The cultural capital necessary to evaluate product quality, from suits to shoes to colleges, is not an easy thing to acquire. It is far easier to rely on a simple ranking and a list. So, should we recognize this reality and brand our colleges using the designer label approach. Haven't highly prestigious colleges already done that with licensing for the myriad of products that use their logo? Decrying the college ranking system is like decrying designer labels. While I do both, it is like the voice in the desert. No one is listening above the hubbub of designer label shoes and colleges rolling around in the media flux.

The Unmarked

Will Barrratt

I love conceptual propinquity, when two important concepts appear near each other. I was listening to NPR this morning about Iran and the report featured Islamic fundamentalism and the hatred of "America". Those two ideas of Islam and hatred of the US presented in conjunction, in conceptual propinquity, are misleading. I am reading a wonderful article by Peter Kaufman (Middle-class social reproduction: The activation and negotiation of structural advantages) which is great. I put his article down last night as I was reading about the notion of unmarked phenomenon which Kaufman attributes to Brekhus (A sociology of the unmarked: Redirecting our focus),

Kaufman's point is that the experience of the majority class student is unmarked on campus. Listening to NPR I realized that mainstream Islam is unmarked in the media. Most of Islam is about as moderate as is most of Christianity. Most four-year college students (75%) are second generation students which makes them the majority class on most campuses. Why are the majority unmarked and therefore uninteresting? Why do we 'background' (Jane VanGalen's concept) both the minority class and the majority class student?

VanGalen rightfully argues that we need to foreground the minority class student. Yes, and we need also to foreground the majority class student.

Contrast is an excellent way to highlight something, and social class contrast is high for the minority class student on the majority class campus. Social class contrast for the majority class student on the majority class campus is just not there, perhaps because the structure of the campus and the agency of the people reproduce the majority class. Explaining water to a fish is hard, and explaining majority class to a majority class student is hard. It is important to mark all of class on a campus, as it is important to mark all forms of religion, not just the minority or extreme forms.

Classism and the 10% rule in Texas.

“We’ve lost control of our entering class because we don’t have any discretion on the admissions" William Powers, President at UT Austin as quoted the daily email alerts.

This was said in response to the 10% rule in Texas that guarantees a spot at a selective university if you are in the top 10% of your class at any school. Management of the Texas system is trying to get rid of an admissions rule that has been a resounding success for everyone except the wealthy. It seems that some Texans want to do away with the rule through their proxies in the management of the Universities.

I do wonder who the "we" is that Powers refers to. Is it the management of the universities or is it the people of Texas who the universities serve?

There is no pedagogical reason to remove the rule.
There is no social reason to remove the rule.
More students are graduating under the rule.
More students are performing at a higher academic level under the rule.
More minority students (gender, ethnicity, and class) are going to college, doing better, and graduating at a higher rate than ever before, and than they would do if they went to less 'selective' schools.

So who is being harmed by the rule? My guess is that the sons and daughters of the rich, the students who did not graduate in the top 10% of their class are not getting what their parents think they are entitled to.

Not naming class on campus

Will Barratt, Ph.D.
Department of Educational Leadership
Indiana State University

The April 24 Chronicle of Higher Education had an excellent article about class on campus, except they didn't call it that.

"Elite colleges have made headlines in recent years with financial-aid plans aimed at enrolling more low-income students. But despite those efforts, the proportion of financially needy undergraduates at the nation's wealthiest colleges and universities actually dropped between the 2004-5 and 2006-7 academic years, according to a Chronicle analysis of federal Pell Grant data."

Using my magic social class decoder ring this really says that class has become central to the distribution of financial aid in our elite colleges. This supports my idea that campuses are market segmented into luxury goods (highly selective elite colleges), mass market goods (state colleges, even those that think of themselves as selective and prestige), and discount goods (community colleges).

On January 19 the Chronicle ran an article "When Legacies Are a College's Lifeblood" that examined the recruiting efforts to attract the children of alumni to a campus. While the article did not look closely at the high prestige highly selective universities, it takes no stretch of the imagination to realize the practice of recruiting legacies is widespread. Whether or not President Bush met the admissions requirements for Yale, or was admitted because he was a legacy remains an open question.

This is not a conspiracy, this is just the way things are playing out to the disadvantage of the lower classes. Less financial aid for the poor, and more help for legacies is one way to understand how the college system works.

On the other hand, many colleges do an excellent job in recruiting and providing financial support (economic capital) for first generation students, and it should be noted that the increases in the cost of college go toward financial id and operations rather than faculty salaries.