Social Class Book Publishing

Will Barratt

I am new to the book writing world and business, so every part of the process of writing, editing, and selling my new book has been fascinating to me.  While I believe that my topic is important and that the book should required reading in every diversity class, I also recognize that others don’t agree.  I suspect that people avoid the book the same way they avoid talking about social class.

I get the occasional positive email from colleagues and others who have read it and like it, but overall the response has been underwhelming.  Perhaps the book is like The Princess Bride.  The movie did not do well at the box office, but over 25 years has become a classic.  Perhaps not.

I have become very interested in the Amazon page for my book because it shows me my rank.  In July I ranked in the top 1,000,000, in late August I ranked in the top 200,000, and seem to have settled at around 400,000 to 500,000.  The August boom was for the fall semester of book orders. 

For me, the interesting part of the Amazon data is the section “Customers who bought this item also bought”  I can recognize many books required by my colleagues like Identity Development of Diverse Populations, and Multiculturalism on Campus.  It is the odd ones, the books I don’t recognize, that puzzle me.  Moral Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture puzzles me.  My response is to add another book to my reading list.

I started writing with a specific audience in mind.  John von Knorring , my publisher at Stylus who understands books, text, information, and media on a very deep level, suggested that I write the book for a larger audience.  He was right.  I had been reading on a wide level so why not write to a larger audience.  I had been consuming blogs like Social Class & Quakers by N. Jeanne Burns (http://quakerclass.blogspot.com/), and Education and Class by Jane Van Galen (http://educationandclass.com/), so why not write to a larger audience.  I had been reading books like Tearing Down the Gates (Peter Sacks), Higher Education and Social Class (Louise Archer, Merryn Hutchings and Alistair Ross), and The Psychology of Social Class (Michael Argyle), so why not write to a larger audience.

The question of course is how large the audience is.  Is there no audience for topics on social class or is it that people don’t want to confront social class in the US?  Those writing on social class comprise a small group, especially exploring social class as a personal characteristic rather than an economic or sociological trend.  Those reading about social class also seem to comprise a small group.  Apathy, satisfaction, and intentional disinterest all have the same behavioral consequence.  Is it that people read about ethnicity and gender because they don’t want to read about social class?

My publisher tells me that if you are a faculty member that you can get an exam copy if you are thinking about adding the book to your reading list for a class.

http://www.styluspub.com/orders/examrequest.aspx?ProductID=278156

If you want to buy a copy after reading some of my blogs, then you can get a 20% discount using the code WBBLOG at the checkout:

http://stylus.styluspub.com/books/bookdetail.aspx?productid=278156

Stars, winners, special people, losers, and hierarchy: How social class is different from gender, ethnicity, GLBTQ, and other forms of difference.

Will Barratt

When Kurt Vonnegut received the Eugene V. Debs award in 1981 he spoke about how people divided the world into stars and bit players. 

Sheldon Kopp, writing in If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him notes that when you make someone special you diminish yourself, and conversely when you make yourself special you diminish others.

The single index finger pointing upward meaning “We’re number one” may be the most obscene gesture in the world because it means that everyone else is a loser, second place, an also ran.  It overtly states a hierarchy with the gesticulator in a superior position.

The L for Loser gesture with the thumb and forefinger placed on the forehead is used by adolescents of all ages to indicate that you are a loser, and therefore I am a winner.

Social class is about hierarchy, about being a star, winning, and being special.  Gender, ethnicity, GLBTQ, and other forms of diversity are about difference, about belonging to some category. 

The seemingly ubiquitous nature of stars and bit players, special and not so special people, and winners and losers are part of what creates social hierarchy or social class.  I would hazard a guess that the nature of hierarchy is part of the nature of the human experience.  Yes, hierarchy is evil, wretched, and creates an overclass and an underclass.  Yes, hierarchy is all around us and is co-created and re-created every day by every one of us.

I am suggesting that social class is different from gender, ethnicity, GLBTQ, and other forms of human difference because the inherent hierarchical nature of social class is fundamentally different from the inherent non-hierarchical nature of gender, ethnicity, GLBTQ, and other forms of human difference. Most diversity is about categories like male and female, European-American and African-American, and so on.  Of course a close look at these categories reveals the truth that the boundaries between categories are not always clear, and that the categories are not always mutually exclusive.  In spite of these problems with categories, they remain categories.  Categories do not constitute a hierarchy.  My measurement colleagues will notice that this is the distinction between categorical or nominal variables, like gender, and ordinal variables, like how much money you have.

Winning, Losing, and Hierarchies

How do we determine star status, number one status, special status, and winner status?  Therein is an interesting question.  Among a league of ten college football teams playing against each other on a Fall Saturday, five of the teams will win and five will lose, not counting potential ties.  The team with the most season wins is number one.  Professional sports teams have regular and post season play, eventually one team emerges as the winner and all others sink into the media abyss of losers.  This winner and loser status is based on direct data.  Determining the superior team when teams don’t play is not based on direct data.  “Well the players in the xxx conference are tougher, meaner, taller, faster,  . . . so they are superior”.  Once there is no direct data, then arguments based on unexamined assumptions break out.

There are data-based hierarchies, for example standings of college teams within a league, and non-data-based hierarchies, for example standings of college teams between leagues.  But, you say, between-league comparisons are based on data too.  No, I say.  Comparisons between leagues may use quantitative metrics, for example yards per play, completed passes, and whatnot for US Football, all of that data was created within a specific league context and cannot be used for comparison between leagues.  I suggest that sports pundits use the data in a way designed to confound and confuse the comparisons, to act as a distraction, to act as the illusion of quantitative certainty, when in fact between-league predictions in sports is a matter of unsubstantiated belief.  Within-league team comparisons are a matter of head to head competition – literally.  Between-league team comparisons are matters bereft of fact and are consequently matters of belief.

Winning, Losing, and Social Class

What has this all got to do with social class?  “Everything” to quote Yoda. 

Data views of social class, that class is personal income, use the direct evidence of income hierarchies to equate with social class hierarchies.  Personal Income hierarchy= Social Class hierarchy.  That is; PI_h=SC_h.  That sounds scientific doesn’t it?  Income is a nice metric, a nice way to measure something.  I make $20 and you make $18.  I win, you lose.  I am a star, you are a bit part player.  I am number one, you are a loser.  It would be nice if social class was that simple.  The metrics of income and wealth alone are not enough to capture the reality of personal social class.

Bourdieu, in Forms of Capital, notes that the idea of economic capital, income and wealth, can be supplemented with the ideas of social capital and cultural capital.  Forms of capital all have the advantage of being, more or less, quantified.  That is, I have more than you, or you have more than me.  This capital-based idea is a more nuanced view of social class than money alone, but is not a full and complete view of social class.  Capital can create a nice hierarchy, but that hierarchy misses many elements of personal social class reality.  On first glance the quantity of economic capital, social capital, and cultural capital keep everyone in the same league, so all of the comparisons are within-league.  In reality not everyone plays in the same league.  You can have high prestige cultural capital, for example knowing a pinot noir from a pinotage, and / or you can have low prestige cultural capital, for example knowing the standings for NASCAR. You can have high prestige social capital, being able to form allegiances with people who have power and money and / or you can have low prestige social capital, being able to form allegiances with people who have tools to work on your house or car.

Another direct evidence view of social class is educational attainment.  Educational Attainment hierarchy=Social Class hierarcy, or EA_h=SC_h.  I have a Ph.D. and you have a M.S.. I win, you lose, etc.  This gets complicated when you add the non-data-based prestige values of various undergraduate or graduate schools, and factor in the prestige hierarchy of disciplines.  Is a Math degree from Door Prairie State University equivalent to an English degree from an Ivy League /   Seven Sisters college?  Prestige is largely data free when it comes to educational institutions and disciplines.  The research on college rankings tells us that rankings are either about perceived prestige of the faculty or about student and institutional income.  Neither source of rankings has to do with how well the faculty members teach the students.

Values Hierarchies and Social Class

Income, capital of many sorts, and educational attainment are the primary data based comparisons that can be made about personal social class.  The assumption is that more is better.  The idea that more is better is a value judgment.  Money, capital, and educational attainment are a won/lost record in personal social class, and winning in these metrics of social class is generally thought to be better than losing in these metrics or social class.  Other ways to talk about social class have no data that can be arranged in a hierarchy of more and less.  

While income, educational attainment, and capital are quantifiable ways to explore personal social class, social class as identity in no way lends itself to quantitative or qualitative differences that allow ranking in a hierarchy.  Suggesting that one identity is better than another is a bold statement of values based on no data whatsoever.  The lack of data does not curtail irrational assertions that people who have a higher class identity are better than people who have a lower class identity.  Irrational beliefs about gender, about ethnicity, and about GLBTQ are all too common and are too often clouded with questionable and misapplied quantitative data.  These data-free beliefs are probably held as a consequence of identity and ego expressions. 

Viewing personal social class as culture, as shared values and norms, in no way leads to a data-based hierarchy.  No culture is better or worse than yours in any countable that does not rely on unsubstantiated values.  Suggesting a hierarchy of cultures, of values and norms shared by groups of people, is bereft of common sense.  It is not uncommon to hear value-based data-free statements asserting that higher class culture is better than lower class culture.

Social class as prestige is interesting because prestige is collective belief and not quantifiable.  While collective belief is quantifiable, we can survey 1000 people on their beliefs about the prestige ratings and rankings of various name brands, the actual prestige itself is not quantifiable.  Things are prestige only because people believe they are prestige.  While it is often believed that Expensive object = Quality object = Prestige object, E_O=Q_O=P_O, this tautology is not confirmed by research even though the formula does look scientific.  Please note that formulas with subscripts are more prestigious than formulas without subscripts.  Cost and quality are related and quality and prestige are related, and cost and prestige are related, but the relationships are weak.  Prestige is usually a matter of marketing.  Do $100 sunglasses protect my eyes better than $10 dollar sunglasses?  Or is my metric of protecting my eyes the wrong metric?  Do $100 sunglasses have more “cool” than $10 sunglasses? 

Working with Social Class as a Hierarchy

Gender, ethnicity, GLBTQ, and other forms of diversity are about difference, about belonging to some category.  Social class is about hierarchy.  While some of the hierarchy behind social class is quantitative, like money, most of the social class hierarchy is irrational and data free.

Working with gender, ethnicity, GLBTQ, and other forms of difference is often about reducing and removing the ideas of hierarchy that people have generated about these differences.  Working with social class requires a wholly different approach, because hierarchy is part of the nature of social class.  Exploring the nature of our irrational creations of hierarchy is the beginning of a way to reduce the injustice of social class.

Social Class Hierarchy and Inequity - How social class is different than gender and ethnicity

Will Barratt

I have been reading DeMethra LaSha Bradley’s Chapter in How to talk about hot topics on campus: From polarization to conversation in which she explores the idea of victims and victimization in the context of social class. While that is not the main topic of the chapter it is an idea that has troubled me for some time. Oppression and oppressors is a central theme in much of the literature and teaching that occurs in and around the ideas of gender and ethnicity. However as Bradley points out the victim/victimizer dichotomy does not recognize the nuances of social class reality.

Zweig, in What’s class got to do with it notes that often in multicultural training on ethnicity and nationality students are taught that all cultures are equivalent. In that context this idea of equality reflects my colleague Cseresnesy Lazlo’s comment “Not better, not worse. Only different”. This reduction of hierarchy between ethnicities and nationalities is a good thing. All cultures are equal, there is no hierarchy among ethnicities and cultures.

Freire in Pedagogy of the oppressed explores the idea of oppression quite extensively. In the Brazilian context in which he was writing the oppression came on multiple fronts; from economic to social to political to language, to many others. His idea that the oppressed becoming the oppressor when power shifts is useful on the macro / social and micro / individual scale. Oppressed / victims and oppressor / victimizer are an effective dichotomy at first glance. However, when a nuanced look at gender, ethnicity, and social class takes over, this dichotomy becomes troubling. This is particularly true when dealing with social class.

One proposed remedy for gender and ethnic oppression is the equalization of peoples. People of all genders should be equal, people of all ethnicities should be equal, people of all religions, along with people who are non-religious, should be equal. This is a laudable and achievable goal. When we are all judged by the content of our character and by our behaviors it will be a more just world. Achieving gender equity, ethnic equity, and other forms of equity is a long process and we are moving forward. Many of the egregious inequities found in the US between genders have been slowly and effectively removed. Many more remain, and the price of equity is constant vigilance. Worldwide, things are moving forward toward equity, albeit slowly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the path to equity by preventing discrimination and encouraging equal opportunity. President Truman changed the behaviors of everyone in the US armed services by integrating the military, formally establishing ethnic equity. Behaviors changed and attitudes followed, albeit slowly. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbade certain behaviors related to gender and encouraged others. This was a good thing, and there is still work to be done on gender equity.

Solutions to gender, ethnic, religious, and many other forms of inequity are possible because there is no inherent difference between the members of these groups. Men and women, are for all intents and purposes, are physiologically and psychologically the same, with the exception of their reproductive physiology. There is no measureable physiological or psychological difference between members of any religious or non-religious group. And so on. Equality between genders and between other groups is possible because of the inherent physiological and psychological equity among members of those groups. A solution strategy is to promote equity and disassemble hierarchy. There are behavioral differences between groups, and these are learned. One group may pray on their knees and another may pray standing up. Behaviors are what distinguish between members of groups, cultures, and religions.

Members of different social classes, however defined, are the same physically and psychologically. So should we move toward social class equity? This inherent equity of all peoples is one of the underlying principles the Communist Manifesto. It is also one of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also one of the founding principles of the United States of America.

The people in the diversity movement are correct when they assert that everyone is equal, that there is no hierarchy among the genders, among people of various or no religions, among people of various ethnicities, etc. Applying this same concept of equality to social class is a different thing altogether.

The problem is hierarchy. Gender is a social construct based on biological dimorphism. There is no inherent hierarchy in gender. Ethnicity is a social construct based on geography of origin. There is no inherent hierarchy in ethnicity. GLBTQ, seen as either a biological or social construct or some combination, is not a hierarchy. Social class is based on a common collection of beliefs about a hierarchy.

Behind social class is hierarchy. No amount of asserting that there is equity among the classes can change this. The social class hierarchy is complicated. Seeing the hierarchy as resources, then equalizing resources can remove the hierarchy. However paying a physician the same as an administrative assistant is just not going to happen. Seeing the hierarchy as education, then equalizing education, and access to education, can remove the hierarchy. However, even among colleges there are hierarchies of perceived prestige, so a college degree from one college is not perceived as the equivalent of a college degree from some other school. Seeing social class as cultural, the asserting the equality of cultures should ameliorate this hierarchy. However, the billions of dollars spent on marketing products to population segments (read different social classes) may pose an impediment to changing the perceived prestige of social class cultures.

The social class hierarchy is something that we all co-create and that is manifest in multiple ways. The injustices of social class can be ameliorated, but as long as social class exists, there will be hierarchy and there will be social class based injustice. This is because the idea of social class is at its core about hierarchy.

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.