I have beef with sociology right now… Don’t get me wrong, I’m still alarmingly obsessed with it, but if my mind doesn’t stop running with sociological thoughts, I’m never going to sleep again. I truly do love the reality that my brain is processing all of this new information, but good grief. Here’s the problem I have with sociology: I submitted my final exam for class at 11AM on Friday. By 5PM I wanted to rewrite the entire thing. Why? Partially because I think there were some flaws in my work, but also because I have SO many more new ideas about the two essays I wrote. This often happens with my sociology work. I think I’m getting somewhere and then BAM! New thoughts. So here’s what we’re going to do, folx: We’re going to work through these two essays. This will include things I liked that I wrote, things I think I’m lacking on, and things I’ve thought of since submitting my last SOC100-04 assignment. My grade is my grade, I’m not doing this to change it, or even because I’m worried about it. I’m doing this so I can continue learning… and so maybe I can get a good night’s sleep before I start a new job tomorrow.
This post will be for one of the essays, obviously about class mobility. What I’ll be doing is associating class mobility with life chances, both of which will be defined. Before we do that, I’ll provide some background on the assignment. One of the required readings for class was Matthew Desmond’s Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. If you haven’t done so already, do yourself a favor and read it. Both of the essays I wrote were in relation to this ethnographic storybook, as I like to call it. In the realm of class mobility and life chances, my professor gave me the opportunity to connect these sociological concepts to two young boys: Jori and Jafaris. Born into poverty, these two young characters in Desmond’s work have several things working against them, or depending on the sociological perspective taken, working for them. What I was instructed to do was to take the three sociological perspectives (Conflict Theory, Functionalism, and Symbolic Interactionism) and explain what each perspective would say about Jori and Jafaris’ ability to climb the social ladder, with consideration for their life chances. Now here are those definitions as promised:
Class Mobility: One’s ability to change their socioeconomic class. This is primarily in relation to rising from low-income/poverty to middle class. Class mobility is dictated by way more than income. It can include race, gender, age, ability status, and more.
Life Chances: This is a pretty self-explanatory and simple term. In all reality, it just means how likely you are to have access to opportunity. This can include education, employment, housing, legal rights, etc. Much like class mobility, one’s life chances are dictated by income, gender, race, age, ability status, and more.
Definitions done, let’s dive into the sociological perspectives. Anything that is bolded/underlined is vocabulary from class. Feel free to look it up! My post-submission notes are scattered throughout.
Conflict theory takes a unique approach with consideration for Jori and Jafaris. Just as with any other individual in the text, conflict theory would take into consideration their intersectionality. For Jori and Jafaris specifically, this would entail the duality of their race and socioeconomic status. These two elements would cause a conflict theorist to argue that they would have very poor life chances, or access to opportunities for advancement within society. The most popular aspect of identity discussed in contemporary society, the boys’ race is perhaps the most major aspect here. With the basis of racial inequality rooted deeply in America, conflict theory would argue that for Jori and Jafaris, being black immediately reduces their access to equal education, employment, housing, and opportunity. As was displayed in class, the Netflix video “Explained: The Racial Wealth Gap”, this aspect of inequality branches very significantly into the housing realm. Social actions like redlining have been historically tied to discrimination against people of color, which is a direct connection to Jori and Jafaris. According to conflict theory, the boys’ race is a direct cause for their homelessness and unsecure housing throughout the book.
Another highly unique concept presented in Desmond’s work is the idea that poverty is both the cause and product of poverty. This falls powerfully in line with the ideologies of conflict theory. Under this perspective, it means that once one is considered “in poverty”, society makes it so that they really can’t climb the social ladder out of their circumstances. This would mean that the two young boys would be unable to pull themselves out of their poverty. However, there is also an added layer here for Jori and Jafaris: They were born into poverty. It was not a result of their actions, simply a result of their respective births. These elements, their race, socioeconomic classification, and the reality surrounding what they were born into, are part of Jori and Jafaris’ ascribed status, or what they are not in control of. The standard conflict theory argument is that the intersectional elements of one’s ascribed status directly impact one’s achieved status in the sense that what they are able to achieve is vastly hindered or restricted. A conflict theorist would likely argue that Jori and Jafaris’ ascribed status would make their achieved status mediocre at best. In short: under the conflict theory lens, Jori and Jafaris wouldn’t be able to climb the social ladder. The inequality they face, and the flaws of society are too significant for them to rise in their achieved status.
Is this what a functionalist would also argue? No. Under functionalist teachings, the United States is a meritocracy, meaning each individual has equal opportunity, and equal access to that opportunity. The structures within society grant this equal access. Under this ideology, Jori and Jafaris, despite their race, socioeconomic status, and ability status, would have the same chances to earn an education, find a job, and establish security both financially and physically. The examples provided for proof of a meritocracy in class were that of Oprah and Barack Obama. Oprah was born into a socioeconomically challenged family as a black woman. These three attributes of her race, socioeconomic status at birth, and her gender would all cause a conflict theorist to say she would be unable to climb the social ladder. However, Oprah did the opposite. She rose to the top of the entertainment industry. Barack Obama, despite his race, became President of the United States. Functionalists would argue that Jori and Jafaris could do the exact same thing.
What is of particular interest here is the consideration of ability status in relation to Jafaris specifically. Functionalism teaches that even despite the most severe asthma, asthma that would prompt dialing 911, Jafaris would still have access to the same opportunities as his brother. This is based on the functionalist teaching of solidarity and uniformity. While Durkheim, the most famous functionalist, identifies a case of anomie within the realm of ability status and meritocracy, he also acknowledges the general emphasis that because society works together, everyone has the ability to progress, advance, and ultimately “succeed”, at least as far as success is defined by functionalism.
This idea of meritocracy/life chances and ability status is something I’ve explored previously, and is something I have waiting in a draft for me to explore again. I think I have a lot more to learn about anomie, so keep an eye out for that post at some point too. The other thing I wish I had discussed here was the correlation between the inner cities and the middle/upper class suburbs. My professor drew us a diagram and explained how functionalists argue that these inner city areas, like the one Jori and Jafaris lived in, are needed within society. How does this connect to class mobility and life chances? Would this be a case of anomie? I have more to think about there. Back to the perspectives.
Symbolic interactionism provides some form of a “middle ground” between conflict theory and functionalism’s perceptions as they relate to Jori and Jafaris. In some regards, especially when associating symbolic interactionism to race, a symbolic interactionist would agree that race may hold someone back in the realm of life chances. This would be based on the symbolism society associates with particular races. Historically speaking, racial minorities have symbolically been associated with lesser status and treatment. There is an automatic assumption of inferiority, influencing the opportunities those in authority provide, whether educational, professional, or social. With protocols in place today, like affirmative action, a symbolic interactionist may argue that there is progress being made, but with the widely popularizing symbols like the BLM fist, society is also still frequently reminded of the inequity that comes with the symbol of race. This understanding of symbolic interactionism means that Jori and Jafaris may not necessarily be able to climb the social ladder as the impoverished young black men that they were as the text developed, but perhaps with the further development of society’s interactions with relation to race, they may be able to climb the ladder in the future.
Symbolic Interactionism is where I get nervous. It’s not as big as the macro theories of Conflict Theory and Functionalism, consequently making it something I spend a little less time thinking about. I gave it my best shot with the exam, but I think I fell a little short in my knowledge. Once again, keep an eye out for a post on this one too…
Where symbolic interactionism differs from this idea of failure to socially climb is when there is consideration for gender. The dynamic between symbolic interactionism and gender is incredibly deep. While there is a growingly prominent discussion in sociology about women and symbolic interactionism, the discussion of men and symbolic interactionism cannot be omitted. Under the umbrella of symbolic interactionism, gender has become a very big symbol or indicator for the ways in which society is to interact. This conversation is about more than biological sex, it is about the societal differentiations made primarily between the binary genders based on elements like appearance, behavior, attire, mannerisms, and more. Simply by being boys, Jori and Jafaris will be expected to behave in a certain way, and with the symbol of manhood being widely associated with success, they may actually have an upper hand in this small case. At a minimum, there will be the societal expectation for them to climb the social ladder, whether within their community or within society at large. Perhaps their gender will give them the upper hand in a singular small way, but the real question is quite simple: Will that be enough?
This is where I think I really fell short. I could follow the thought process in my mind, but I couldn’t quite get it into the correct words. That didn’t happen until about fourteen hours after I submitted the exam… At 1AM. I want to try and rephrase a little bit. So we can see how race is viewed under Symbolic Interactionism, meaning we see how race serves as a symbol influencing our interactions in the world. Likewise, we see how gender is associated with Symbolic Interactionism. The connection between gender and this perspective is really dense. What I’m trying to get at here is that typically men have higher life chances because of the role of their gender, granted this is primarily in relation to cisgender men but that is an even larger field we could dissect. Anyways, back to my point. If men have this “upper hand” (like Scott from the same book), does that mean Jori and Jafaris’ life chances are improved? Does the role of their gender with Symbolic Interactionism outweigh the role of their race with the same perspective? THAT is what I was trying to get at, and I don’t think I quite reached it. All of this considered, I could still be totally wrong. This is one perspective I really, really want to study more.
When it comes to social mobility for Jori and Jafaris, there is a lot to be said. Conflict theory says they’re stuck, functionalism says they’re completely free. Symbolic interactionism says society is both helping them and getting in their way because of the duality of things like race and gender. There is no clear answer as to whether Jori and Jafaris will rise on the social ladder, or if they will conversely continue to fall. Desmond does a fantastic job of portraying the individuals involved in his book in a real way. He treats them as real people, despite the book reading like a story. It is much happier for readers to keep this book in the realm of a story, but the reality of it, the truthfulness of the lives it shares, is far too significant. Jori and Jafaris alone, despite being “secondary characters” are prime candidates for understanding not only sociological perspectives, but dare I say society.
So there’s one of the essays I wrote for sociology. We’ll dive into the other one after my first day of work tomorrow. If you’ve made it this far into this post, thank you! I’m glad you stuck around! I have so many posts in the works, all relating to sociology, music, religion, and more. I hope you’ll continue on this journey with me! Until next time, my sociology friends!
Humble Chutzpah 