Literature Review:

Over the course of the semester, we have studied many readings on oppression in general, as well as the “isms” associated with it, racism, sexism, and classism, and how power and privilege are a common theme among all the different axises of oppression. Since my action plan is associated with classism, I will discuss the readings from the semester that specifically pertain to class issues, as well as incorporate other articles from the news I have found researching classism outside of Dynamics of Oppression in order to provide insight on the many dimensions of classism present in the United States.

The three main articles we studied over the course of the semester specifically pertaining to classism were very informative, and although there was a slight overlap of information between them, as a whole the three articles each had their own dimensions of classism to discuss and were each thought-provoking in their own ways. For the purpose of this plan, I will outline the salient concepts I pulled out from each of these three articles in order to explain classism in terms of literature.

The first reading I’m going to review is Gregory Mantsio’s “Class in America- 2009”

This article was very informational for me, as it covered many dimensions of class that I had been ignorant about before I read Mantsio’s words. There were many informative concepts presented in his article, and I’m going to highlight the ones that I feel are most important to discussing and combating classism in America.

“People in the United States don’t like to talk about class. Or so it would seem. We don’t speak about class privileges, or class oppression, or the class nature of society. These terms are not part of our everyday vocabulary, and in most circles they are associated with the language of the rhetorical fringe. Unlike people in most other parts of the world, we shrink from using words that classify along economic lines or that point to class distinctions: phrases like ‘working class,’ ‘upper class,’ and ‘ruling class’ are rarely uttered by Americans” (Mantsio, 2006, p.177).

Mantsio’s opening sentence is a wonderful place to start in the discussion of his article, as it really highlights one of the most powerful reasons why classism functions as it does: the media and the government can control the information American’s receive, and if no one speaks of class then the individual attitudes associated with it are the main determinant of how individuals feel about class. For example, if you are in the dominant class, not speaking about it reinforces your role without shedding light as to the reasons behind privilege and how it affects those on the opposite side of the spectrum. If you are in the subordinate group and no one talks about it, your beliefs are shaped by your experiences and not being able to relate those experiences to others similiar to you will just keep the cycle going as it has for so long.

“Class is not discussed or debated in public because class identity has been stripped from popular culture. The institutions that shape mass culture and define the parameters of public debate have avoided class issues. In politics, in primary and secondary education, and in the mass media, formulating issues in terms of class is unacceptable, perhaps even un-American” (Mantsios, 2006, p. 178).

Stripping class identity from popular culture is exactly how macro level institutions are able to control the beliefs and misconceptions about class in America. This quote is important because it also points out the other forms of institutional level society: politics, education, and mass media. Also, Mantsio’s illustration of how talking about class makes one “un-American” is also an important part of controlling the beliefs of classism, as the widely held belief of the American “classless society” does.

Mantsios outlines “four common, albeit, contradictory, beliefs about the United States” which I will summarize and discuss how each relates to misconceptions of classism:

“Myth 1: The United States is fundamentally a classless society. Class distinctions are largely irrelevant today…Rich or poor, we are all equal in the eyes of the law, and such basic needs as health care and education are provided to all regardless of economic standing.

Myth 2: We are essentially, a middle class nation. Despite some variations in economic status, most Americans have achieved relative affuence in what is widely recognized as a consumer society.

Myth 3: We are all getting richer. The American public as a whole is steadily moving up the economic ladder, and each generation propels itself to greater economic well-being.

Myth 4: Everyone has an equal chance to succeed. Success in the United States requires no more than hard work, sacrifice, and perserverance” (Mantsios, 2006, pp. 178-179).

The reason for these myths is largely related to the ideologies and reasons discussed earlier regarding the institutional level of society, and how not talking about class reinforces the myths presented here. The reason for discussing these myths is to show why they are myths and replace them with the realities involved, which is exactly what Mantsios does in this article.

Mantsios also outlines 7 realities of class in America, which I think is really encompassing of a large percentage of the problems associated with classism and how it plays out in the United States:

“Reality 1: There are enormous differences in the economic standing of American citizens. A sizable porportion of the U.S population occupies opposite ends of the economic spectrum. In the middle range of the economic spectrum: sixty percent of the American population holds less than 4 percent of nation’s wealth.

Reality 2: The middle class in the United States holds a very small share of the nation’s wealth and that share is declining steadily. The gap between rich and poor and between rich and the middle class is larger than it has ever been.

Reality 3: Even ignoring the extreme poles of the economic spectrum, we find enormous class differences in the life-styles of the haves, the have-nots, and the have-littles. (it has significant impact on our physical and mental well-being as well) Researchers have found an inverse relationship between social class and health, lower-class standing is correlated with a lower quality of treatment for illness and disease, and the higher your class standing, the higher your life expectancy.

Reality 4: From cradle to grave, class standing has a significant impact on our chances for survival. The lower one’s class standing, the more difficult it is to secure appropriate housing, the greater is the percentage of income that goes to pay for food and other basic neccessities, and the greater is the likelihood of crime victimization.

Reality 5: Class standing has a significant impact on chances for educational achievement. Researchers estimate the chances of completing a four-year college degree (by age 24) to be nineteen times as great for the top 25 percent of the population as it is for the bottom 25 percent.

Reality 6: All Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed. Inheritance laws ensure a greater likelihood of success for the offspring of the wealthy. Class standing, and consequently life chances, are largely determined at birth. Although example of individuals who have gone from rags to riches abound in the mass media, statistics on class mobility show these leaps to be extremely rare. One study showed that fewer in one in five men surpass the economic status of their fathers.

Reality 7: Racism and sexism significantly compound the effects of class in society” (Mantsios, 2006, pp. 180-189).

The myths and realities of classism discussed by Mantsios are very encompassing of the components surrounding the overall problem of classism in our country. Mantsios also points one of the dominant spheres of power and oppression related to classism, institutional:

“When we look at society and try to determine what it is that keeps most people down- what holds them back from realizing their potential as healthy, creative, productive individuals- we find institutional forces that are largely beyond individual control… The class structure in the United States is a function of its economic system: capitalism, a system that is based on private rather than public ownership and control of commercial enterprises are governed by the need to produce a profit for its owners, rather than to fulfill society’s needs. Class divisions arise from the differences between those who own and control corporate enterprise and those who do not” (Mantsios, 2006, p. 188)

This quote sums up Mantsios’ article and perfectly describes class as it relates to our society today. The myths and realities presented by Mantsios do a phenomenal job of explaining the main components of classism and how each is related to the macro level of society- at the institutional level. This article was a wonderful source to define and explain classism in America and what shapes each of the myths surrounding the delicate issue.

The second major article discussed during the semester regarding classism is Meizhu Lui’s “Doubly Divided: The Racial Wealth Gap”. This article, although short, provides a great deal of insight on how racial wealth gap is due to generations of discrimination towards minorities, and how white supremacy has created the class system present in our society that has survived since the creation of the United States. As previously mentioned, race and class are intertwined aspects of oppression that work off of each other to perpetuate the economic system today, so it is important to see the relationship between the two, Lui’s article does a good job outlining the connection throughout the article.

Lui opens his article with a discussion of race:

“Race- constructed from a European vantage point- has always been a basis on which U.S. society metes out access to wealth and power. Both in times when the overall wealth gap has grown and in times when a rising tide has managed to lift both rich and poor boats, a pernicious wealth gap between white and nonwhite minorities has persisted” (Lui, 2009, p. 97).

Just like Mantsios, Lui outlines the differences between white and minorities in terms of wealth, but Lui focuses on how race plays a large role in wealth, and how this gap has persisted over the generations. Lui backs up his points by providing statistics that illustrate this difference in terms of race:

“If you lined up all African-American families by the amount of assets they owned minus their debts and then looked at the family in the middle, that median family in 2001 had a net worth of $10,700 (excluding the value of automobiles). Line up all whites, and that median family had a net worth of $106,400, almost 10 times more… Latinos are even less wealthy: the median Latino family had only $3,000 in assets” (Lui, 2009, p. 97).

These statistics really put Lui’s words into perspective, making it clear to see the differences in wealth available for whites and minorities, and keeping in mind the structural barriers placed in the way of minorities, it provides a connection between Mantsios’ article and Lui’s, in order to see how the institutional level is largely responsible for the gap.

“Almost 40 years after the passage of the 20th century’s major civil rights legislation, huge wealth disparities persist. However, the myth that the playing field was leveled by those laws is widespread. For anyone who accepts the myth, it follows that if families of color are not on an economic par with whites today, the problem must lie with them. But the racial wealth gap has nothing to do with individual behaviors or cultural deficits. Throughout U.S history, deliberate government policies transferred wealth from nonwhites to whites” (Lui, 2006, p. 97).

The leveling of the playing field is a concept we discussed in depth during the semester, and we concentrated a good deal of time discussing how many people follow this myth because that is what the institutional level portrays, through the media and the misconception of the “American dream”. All of the articles have the same theme that the playing field is not level, and this concept is essential to understanding classism. The only problem I have with Lui’s words is that I feel that the gap does have to do with individual behaviors and cultural deficits, just not as much as governmental policies do. I believe that both individual and cultural levels support the ideologies associated with class, and without them, classism would be easier to combat, since it is the misconceptions associated with class that keep the system the way it is.

Lui illustrates the history of America, “viewed through the lens of wealth” which “reveals a consistent pattern of race-based obstacles that have prevented Native Americans, African Americans, Latinos, and Asians from building wealth at all comparable to whites” (Lui, 2006, pp. 97-98). Here, I will outline the salient points of these histories as it pertains to class:

Native Americans: in the U.S. government we “trust”?: “Over a 200 year period, U.S. government policies transferred Native American’s wealth- primarily land and natural resources- into the pockets of white individuals.This expropriation of vast tracts played a foundational role in the creation of the U.S. economy…Native Americans on average continue to suffer disproportionate poverty” (Lui, 2009, p. 99)

African Americans: Slaves don’t own, they are owned: “In The Cost of Being African American, sociologist Thomas Shapiro shows how, because of this history, even black families whose incomes are equal to whites’ generally have unequal economic standing. Whites are more likely to have parents who benefited from the land grants of the Homestead Act, who have Social Security or retirement benefits, or who own their own homes…These are the invisible underpinnings of the black-white wealth gap: wealth legally but inhumanely created from the unpaid labor of blacks, the use of violence-often backed up by government power- to stop wealth-creating activites, tax-funded asset building programs closed to blacks, even as they, too, paid taxes” (Lui, 2009, p. 100).

Latinos: In the United States backyard: “Like African Americans, Latino workers were disproportionately represented in the occupations not covered by the Social Security Act… Even today, Mexicans continue to be used as ‘guest’- or really, reserve- workers to create profits for U.S. argibusiness… Trade and immigration policies are still being used to maintain U.S. control over the resources in its ‘backyard,’ and at the same time to deny those it is ‘protecting’ the enjoyment of the benefits to be found in papa’s ‘front yard’ ” (Lui, 2009, pp. 101-102)

Asian Americans: perpetual foreigners: “The divergent histories of the Irish and the Chines in the United States illustrate the powerful role of race in the long-term accumulation of wealth. Irish-Americans faced plenty of discrimination in the labor market… but they never faced legal prohibitions on asset ownership and citizenship as Chinese immigrants did. or the expropriation of property as the Japanese did. Today people of Irish ancestry have attained widespread material prosperity and access to political power…Meantime, the wealth and power of the Chinese are still marginal” (Lui, 2009, p. 103)

The histories of minorities in our country provide a very informative insight on how the racial wealth gap was created, and how it is reinforced. Lui’s article does an excellent job of showing how deeply racism is connected to classism, outlining a major theme present in classism and if you consider these histories in connection to the larger picture, the connection is clear: although there are a small number of exceptions on either end of the spectrum, a majority of non white minorities have been in the lower class since they immigrated to the U.S. while whites have had a better chance of climbing the social ladder (especially illustrated through the Asian history).

The third major article discussed over the semester is: The Color of Wealth: the story behind the U.S. racial wealth divide, by Meizhu Lui, Barbara Robles, Betsy Leondar-Wright, Rose Brewer and Rebecca Adamson.

Many of the points in this article have been illustrated by the other two articles, so I will point out the salient parts that have yet to be mentioned by the others in order to avoid repetition.

“Depending on the particular question asked, between 40 percent and 60 percent of white Americans incorrectly believe that African Americans are doing as well as or better than white Americans in employment, income, education, and health care according to 2001 poll by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University” (Lui, et al., 2006, p. 5).

Mantsios’ article discussed the misconceptions regarding class having to do with individual failure or success determining where one stands on the economic ladder of success and the realities that pertain to these issues, including the not-so-level playing field we experience today. This quote provides statistics to support that widespread belief that things are different and if someone isn’t rich, it’s because of their own failures.

“People of color are more likely to tossed on the waves of economic turmoil- and sometimes drowned because they don’t have big enough asset security boats to help them stay afloat. Three-quarters of white people own their homes, while a slight majority of people of color are renters. In times of inflation, housing becomes easier to afford for homeowners with fixed mortgage rates, while renters see their housing costs rise. In times of recession or depression, those with saving accounts can better weather unemployment, while those without savings can be sunk into debt and deprivation. And in times of economic growth, those with assets can invest them or borrow against them to take advantage of business opportunities” (Lui, et al., 2006, p. 6).

Lui’s previous article touched upon the differences between white and non-white in terms of the economy, but this article really provides an insight on how the economy can affect those in the lower class. It is important to bring up this point because it provides a clear example of the disparities between the dominant class and subordinate class, in times when the economy is booming as well as during regression periods.

Most of “The Color of Wealth” focuses on the history of United States as it pertains to race, so we won’t focus on this aspect of the article, although if the information presented from the previous article does not paint a clear enough picture of the history of racial discrimination in the United States, please look to these two articles more in depth to answer any questions.

“Economic instability has grown among working people of all races. Almost forty-six million Americans lacked health coverage in 2004, and over seven million were counted as unemployed in August 2005. While the uninsured and the unemployed were disproportionately people of color, a majority of them were white. The trade policies, monetary policies, budget decisions, labor rights setbacks, and tax cuts of the last three decades benefited corporations and major asset owners and disadvantaged moderate and low-income people of all races” (Lui, et al., 2006, p. 14).

This is an important aspect of classism that has yet been discussed by the other articles, and provides another insight into the issue of classism. From this quote, it is clear that it is not just nonwhites that experience the problems of classism, it is present in whites and nonwhites. This is important because it shows how classism exceeds racism, as it does not just discriminate against those who are not white, it discriminates against all people. I felt this was salient to point out because much of what we’ve discussed thus far pertains to how race influences class, but it is important to realize that class is not dependent on race, it is because of the history of the United States that minorities were discriminated, but now classism has exceeded this limitations to include everyone.

“‘Help from the government’ sounds like something poor people and seniors get, not working people or wealthy people. But in fact, all of us depend on public infrastructure such as roads, schools, and laws. And the process of building wealth depends on government programs like Social Security, Pell grants, subsidized mortgages, and farm loans. All these have been more available to white people… If we think well-off white people got their wealth only through individual ability and hard work, then the solution will be to urge low-income people of color to try harder. But if we also see how heavily white people have historically relied on government help to build assets, then we will support expanding assistance to all assetless Americans, and we will work racial justice for those historically barred from wealth because of their race” (Lui, et al., 2006, pp. 18-19).

This is important to point out because it shows how everyone relies on governmental help to succeed, and reducing the class divide in America is largely dependent on the government to make chances that provide a equal chance for everyone to succeed. “The Color of Wealth” provides many statistics that back up the racial wealth divide, and how it is not limited to just people of color, and how classism can exceed these boundaries.

These articles provide a pretty complete history of classism, and how it is perpetuated in American society. With this knowledge I feel it is important to provide examples how classism is evident in our news, so see the links above for such examples.